Honest Conversations

Bill Cosby has made millions of people laugh over the span of his career, but perhaps nothing he has done in the past has stirred up as many emotions as his speaking engagements these days.

As in the past, Dr. Cosby is making waves among the people who identify as "the Black community." He continues to explain that many of the solutions to the concerns of that community must come from within the community; that the etiology of many of those concerns also lie within the community. This doesn't sit well with some of the Black leaders, among them the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

One of the things I find most refreshing is Dr. Cosby's willingness to speak to issues and concerns that are unpopular with a community who identifies with him. I am reminded of the adage: What is right isn't always popular and what is popular isn't always right. It takes courage and conviction to stand up for your insights, particularly when you are already aware that your stand is unpopular--with at least some of the community with which you identify.

In my mind, one of the most important aspects of what Dr. Cosby brings to the table is to have his ideas out in the mainstream for others to consider and about which to dialogue. It's time that people realize you don't have to be a certain skin tone to be able to empathize and understand what other people are going through. Not everyone who wears a white or black hat is on one side of the fence or the other. Why does there have to be a fence at all? Improvements for any one community is an improvement for all.

We can't move forward as a nation without addressing sensitive subjects on all sides of the issues. To do that, we need to put old biases aside and be willing to speak to one another as human beings with a common goal. Bill Cosby is has shown us one example of doing that; we might do well to follow his example.

http://llwoodard.com

http://www.llwoodard.blogspot.com

Iraq Not the Only Battle We Are Losing

America has many wars declared, but most of them are wars declared right here at home. There is the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on prostitution, the war on illiteracy--and probably more than I've named here. Most of these "wars" have seen little positive action and certainly not enough to say that even important battles have been won.

These "wars" are often declared by elected officials to grab headlines and the actions taken in the name of ridding society of the "evils" result in someone making money and many result in further crowding our prisons. America is the land of freedom, yet we have more people incarcerated percentage-wise than any country in the world.

Common sense would dictate that the war on drug use will have a success rate no better than that of prohibition. All prohibition served to do was to give organized crime a stronger foothold in America; the drug trade is no different. There has to be a better answer than the current way we deal with drug use. Legalizing drugs wouldn't mean we endorse their use; it would mean we accept the reality of the situation and have decided not to make laws on moral issues. How refreshing would that be?

Legalizing drug use would give the government an additional revenue source thereby eliminating the need for the creation of more taxes. Legalizing drug use would take some of the power away from organized crime and would certainly reduce crime in the streets, thereby aiding another war--that of the war on crime.

No politician wants to take a public stand on the real common sense solutions for our internal wars; it might jeopardize his/her career. But the adage "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten" is as true for the wars in America as it is applied to our personal lives.

So, what's in it for the powers that be to maintain the status quo? This is a question we need to ask ourselves rather than turning our heads away from the reality of the situation. In many ways, Americans have become like the ostrich, sticking our heads in the ground to avoid the things that frighten or upset us. But that isn't the attitude that got our country its independence or its position of greatness in the world. It is, however, the attitude that guarantees elected officials and big business will continue to put their values and profits ahead of all else. If we don't get our heads out of the ground, we won't be able to see our freedoms slipping away, one by one.

Arrogance?

As I look at the title of my blog here, "Common Sense," I wonder if I am being arrogant to assume that my thoughts on issues are any more relevant to common sense than most of America's public policies these days. Then I consider the conversations I've had with people from all walks of life and recall the thoughts and ideas they shared with me, and I am certain that at least some of my proposed ways of doing things have a lot more common sense than I had given myself credit for.

So arrogant? No, I have to pass on that one. Do I believe all of my ideas are correct? I just know they are correct for me; I can't begin to judge how they are perceived by others.

Maybe some of the problem of the seeming lack of common sense is because one cannot find common sense in a book; it's learned from life experiences. I am not denigrating education in the least. But a degree of any kind does not insure common sense and in some ways, theories taught to those with little life experience actually pushes common sense to the background.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject--or any subject. I know I have a lot to learn from others--common sense tells me that.

Speaking of Common Sense--Welcome Back Walter Cronkite

For millions of people in the boomer generation and older, Walter Cronkite was the news. He had contemporaries, of course--David Huntley and Chet Brinkley come to mind--but no one appealed to the masses with the same sort of charisma/charm that Walter Cronkite exuded. That is not to say that Cronkite was a showman or a celebrity as many of the contemporary newspeople are. Cronkite had a straight forward, no nonsense style that said to viewers: "You can trust me." And trust him, we did.

And now, at age ninety, the veteram journalist is returning to the venue that embraced him. He will soon have a weekly feature on the Retirement Living network, which can be accessed at: www.rl.tv and is scheduled to beging airing on DirecTV in October.

I'm looking forward to viewing Cronkite again. No, his appearances won't be nightly any more, but even a once-a-week "visit" with the father of TV news will be a welcome and refreshing respite for what passes as journalism these days.

Less Prison, More Mental Health

The following is a "Letter to the Editor" at the Daily Oklahoman in response to a September 18, 2007 article entitled: "Ex-OSU Cager to Spend Time Behind Bars" Link: http://newsok.com/article/keyword/3128307

In reference to 09/18/07's headline: “Ex-OSU Cager to Spend Time Behind Bars” and to all others who suffer mental illness and have been sentenced to incarceration, one has to ask: “What purpose is served?”

If we, as a state, chose to spend the money in the mental health system that we instead allocate to prisons, wouldn't the individual's and the public's interest be better served? I don't know the statistics for successful treatment of the conditions Houston, or others like him, suffer. But I do know the statistics for recidivism (re-arrest): 80+% of those who have once been in prison return to the system.

What savvy investor would put the kind of money the public does each year into such an endeavor, where the potential of a positive return is less than 20%? Our investment in the current system of justice makes no sense in terms of dollars and cents, let alone in the cost of human beings.

Mental illness is often misunderstood by the general public; things we don't understand often cause us to be frightened. But looking the other way when non-violent mentally ill people are locked up isn't the answer to the problem—not for them, and not for society.

Labels Serve to Divide

I recently read an opinion piece where the writer stated he was offended by being called "white." The premise for his taking offense was that "white" was akin to the N-word. Perhaps I travel in the different social circles from this writer, but I've never encountered the sort of disdain and racial slurring from being referred to as "white" as people of color have endured for generations with the N-word, but his thoughts aroused other ideas within me. Having to be referred to as anything other than my name or "that person" is to be categorized into a subgroup of some sort. Subgroups are nearly always subject to generalized characterizations--stereotypes. The more labels applied to a person, the more that person is defined in the other's mind as having attributes of each of the stereotypes. If the two people never have more than a passing interaction, there will be little chance that the predetermined characteristics arbitrarily assigned to that stranger will be changed. Why do we do this? Why do so many of us automatically begin ticking off various labels in our mind when we meet or encounter a stranger? My guess is that it goes back to the body's autonomic "fight or flight" response. In early times, man would have had to assess his situation quickly to know whether danger was imminent so he could make the appropriate decision. Today that is still true to some extent, considering the level of crime in our society, but even more so human nature has honed those assessments with stereotypical labels--human nature augmented by societal pressure and repetition. Are the labels helpful? I would say yes, if they are accurate, but there is no way of knowing whether they are or not without establishing a relationship. I think labels are an effective means for politicians to further divide a populace; consider the divide and conquer theories. It becomes more difficult for the populace to form any majority opinions when each subgroup is fighting for its particular rights and authority. For the most part, labels are harmful. Very, very few people hold true to any preconceived idea about a group. No one woman or man, Christian or non-Christian, black, white or Hispanic person is all of whatever that particular stereotype conjures up in a person's mind. And those are merely broad labels; our minds often go further such as young or old, impaired or unimpaired, gay or straight...the list is almost endless. Each of us probably misses many opportunities to meet and get to know other human beings because of our propensity to label--and to act on those labels.

Are Fish Sandwiches Really Offensive?

Can suggesting that the Duke players settle for fish sandwiches (among other things) in their lawsuit really be offensive to Catholics? For how many readers was it common knowledge that three of the players were of the Catholic faith? And for how many of those few readers was the connection made between Catholicism and the now-defunct practice of eating fish on Fridays? There is little that can be said these days that isn't offensive to one group or another, even when no slight was intended or even considered. If the fish sandwiches instead had been chicken or beef, would PETA have had a right to get up in arms? As a nation we have been divided and subdivided into more interest groups that any one person can count. Has the media been responsible for any of that? My opinion is that yes, it has. The media is responsible for what is brought to people's attention and it tells us what is most important by putting that information on the front page, or making it the leading blurb to a tv or radio news broadcast, etc. I think finding the mention of fish sandwiches in this situation was not meant to be derogatory or inflammatory. I think Catholics speaking out in an offended position is uncalled for. And I think that reporting the situation is not really news, but more along the lines of gossip. L.L. Woodard http://llwoodard.com/