Uncommon Common Sense

Perseverance is that capacity that we have for knowing that a course of action is the "right" one, and continuing to hold that course, even when faced with adversity. Now, this is not to be confused with "pig-headed" or "stubborn". It is a celebration of the virtue of working through the tough, boring, repetitive times. It is also the ability to continue to drive and lead, in the direction of positive change, toward a well-defined goal. It takes perseverance to achieve a black belt. Hours, which become years, of training and exhertion. It also takes perseverance to become an elected official. However, these are two different things. Becoming a black belt is an individualistic goal. One must have the personal desire to become a black belt. You cannot be successful in your quest to achieve black belt status if your motivation and drive are not intrinsic. You can't become a black belt "for" someone else. On the other hand, I believe that i

Integrity. Knowing "right" from "wrong", and choosing the next right thing, regardless of who is watching, or especially, if no one is watching. Some folks really struggle with this concept today. Many will say that there is no "right" or "wrong". It all depends on the person, their personal value set, the circumstances, the situation, their background and upbringing, and society's current norms. Let me see if I can find a single, succinct word that sums up my feelings on that approach. Baloney. That mindset smacks of something I call "situational ethics" or "values of the moment". It means that the individual who holds to that value set has no foundation. They have nothing to base their bedrock beliefs on, because it can shift or change from moment to moment, from situation to situation. "It all depends". Baloney. I have heard it said that "there are many paths up the mountain." I won't disa

I have heard this described in any number of ways. One of my favorites is: "treating others better than you would like to be treated". Courtesy, in its most basic form, boils down to "respect". Respect for an individual, respect for their personhood, respect for their God-given rights. Respect. Is it possible to have respect for an individual, yet disagree with their position on a particular issue? Absolutely. One of my dearest friends in the world is a woman in Minnesota, whom I will call "Anne". No need to use her real name. I've known Anne for years. We've worked together on many projects, and in many instances, she has been a coach and mentor to me, along with scores of other people. We have developed a deep and abiding friendship for each other. However, Anne and I are diametrically opposed on some very basic, very core parts of our lives. I am a Christian. Anne is an atheist. I am quite conservative in my views. Anne is so far left, she's

Hmmm. Seems like Mrs. C has been pushing to have her name placed in nomination at the Dem. convention. It will provide "catharsis", as she puts it. Even CNN seems to understand how thinly veiled this is... http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/14/clinton/index.html --Larry Voorhees

As a Taekwondo Instructor, I frequently have a talk with my black belts about "what it means to be a black belt". We talk about how important it is for them to be living examples of the concepts of Courtesy, Integrity, Perseverance, Self-Control and Indomitable Spirit. I remind them that, whether they want to be or not, they are and will always be leaders, because someone is always going to be watching them. I remind them that as Black Belts, we constantly lead "by example". People may not know our names, may not even care who we are, but as soon as they know that we're Black Belts, their mental image of what a "black belt" is will instantly be affected by what they see us do, what they hear us say, and how they see us interact with the people around us. I sum this up to my Black Belt students by reminding them that the "heart of a Black Belt is the Heart of a Servant." This "heart of a servant" attitude is sometimes hard to ins

..that thinks the Dems might want to keep an eye on Mrs. C at the convention. Here's what the Communist News Network (aka, CNN) has to say about it: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/12/clinton/index.html --Larry Voorhees

Had a wild, random thought last night (it happens). This whole thing about John Edwards, and his affair, and it being "common knowledge" in the media, but it wasn't broken until the National Enquirer chased it to ground... Who does this whole thing serve the most? In my opinion, Mrs. C is best-served by this event, and the timing of it being "outed". Walk with me on this for a minute, if you will. Mrs. C has been quietly (or not-so-quietly) urging that individual delegates be permitted to cast their votes for whomever they chose at the upcoming convention. Sure, sure, she admits that Mr. O has more delegates than she does, but she wants to give her delegates some vindication or whatever. Now, Mr. Edwards, when he bowed out of the race, "released" his delegates. They are free to vote for whomever. Then, after a period of time (and it looked like Mr. O would lock up the nomination), Mr. E throws his verbal support to Mr. O. But nowhere in that equati

I saw this quote from Mrs. Clinton in a news story today: On Friday, Clinton seemed to agree. At an Obama rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, she said, "We had a hard-fought campaign, and it was exciting. It was a bit like the proverbial roller coaster, but we are now unified and ready to go forward together. "And it is imperative that each and every one of us think about how we're going to help in this election," she said. "We are one party, we share one vision, and we believe as Democrats, as independents and repentant Republicans, in the progress we can make together!" I started chuckling at the phrase "repentant Republicans". Spoken as if those poor, misguided people who previously have held conservative views were simply uneducated, or making poor choices, but thank the Mother Earth goddess, they have come back to their senses! What arrogance. What cheek. What unmitigated gall. Mrs. C's statements imply that those of us that believe in the sa

We have a budget set up for our household. X-number of dollars is set aside for paying the house payment, x-number of dollars is set aside for making the car payment, x-number of dollars is budgeted for food, clothing, gas, etc. How responsible of me would it be to take, say, $100 from the mortgage payment, and decided to spend it on more food, or more gas, or on a fancy night out? Wouldn't that upset the delicate balance of our household budget? I don't know about your household, but we simply can't afford to be that lackadaisical with our finances. I don't know of too many people that can. Yet, there are those who think nothing of taking money that has been brought into the state coffers for one thing, and simply "re-assigning" it to something else. To me, that smells of "bait-and-switch". I was told that this amount of my tax dollars was being collected for this particular budget item, but wait! Now it's being spent on something else! Res

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome everyone to this blog. A word about the title... It has been my observation in the past several years, that something my momma used to talk about (i.e., "common sense") appears to be sadly lacking today. I see it in my workplace, I see it in the day-to-day operations of our city and state, and, unfortunately, I see it in a larger sense in our society in general. Let me take just one item that, to me, is a no-brainer. The proposed Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution. I can find nowhere in history where "marriage" has been defined in any other way than as a union between one man and one woman. Yet we have those in our society today who would try to change that definition. I would submit that if one were to study the history of previous civilizations, that within 100 years of the allowance/acceptance of non-standard unions, the family structure of those societies fractured, and, ultimately, those societies fell