Uncommon Common Sense

Like you, I've been mainly focused on the Holiday's recently, but I have still been paying attention to current events...I just haven't felt motivated enough to write about it. So, if you have been following the news, I want to assure you that there is NO need to be alarmed. We are in good hands. For example, after much wrangling, arm-twisting and minimal debate in the Senate, Harry Reed has finally managed to cobble together a fragile coalition in order to pass health care. But there are many reasons not to be alarmed: 1) No one has seen the actual bill yet. 2) All of the taxpayers in the U.S. will be paying an extra $10 million to the state of Nebraska in return for the Honorable Sen. Ben Nelson's vote. 3) That goes along with the $30 million, we will be sending to Louisiana for Sen. Mary Landrieu's vote. 4) Oh, and let's not forget that the White House and Democrat leadership threatened to shut down Offutt Air Force Base. "According to a Senate aide, the

Over the last week or so, a new controversy has emerged about breast cancer screening. What has become the standard of screening over past years, has suddenly come in to question. Interestingly enough, this controversy demonstrates a perfect example of what life will be like under government health care. For years, women have been told that they should do breast self-examinations and start their mammogram screening at age 40. On November 17, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, announced new guidelines that include the following: -recommendation against women in their 40's receiving mammograms, subject to individual patient needs and doctor input -women in their 50's should receive biennial mammograms (every other year) -recommends against teaching women breast self-examination Generally, I don't have a problem with these recommendations. However, I don't have a history of breast cancer in my family. On the other hand, we all know people who do and would not

Please read the following from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwNTExNDUyWj.html It is obvious that little or nothing has changed from the original House version of health care which I read a while ago. None of this is new and this bill is still junk.

You may or may not have heard through the media that thousands of protesters descended on the Capital today to voice their opposition to the government takeover of health care. I would like to thank them personally for doing so. If it had been possible for me to go, I would have been there. Thank you for representing those of us who wanted to be there. At the very moment that this rally was taking place, Pres. Obama made a "surprise" appearance at the daily White House press briefing. I don't know who would be surprised with his insatiable lust for face time in front of the camera. But I digress. I am absolutely certain the White House would deny that he even had knowledge of the protest, but his timing conveniently coincided to divert press coverage of the event. He was "grateful" to announce the endorsements of AARP and the AMA of the House health care bill. (If you would like to read his comments: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a

This is by far one of my favorite authors and one of the smartest people I've ever read. He is an amazing man with an inspiring life story. (See http://www.tsowell.com/ for more information.) This article is a great perspective on the current healthcare debate. The "Costs" of Medical Care http://townhall.com/content/6d848057-bab6-46c6-bfbc-86b55677ef93 Now, with Dr. Sowell at my back, I'll venture to add the following: It is worthwhile to discuss the difference between "cost" and "price". People often use the words interchangeably, but they are different things. Consumers are typically much more interested in the price than the cost. But businesses have to be interested in both the price they charge and their costs for producing. For example, when a grocery store sends out a weekly ad, they cover the front page with what they call "loss leaders". Loss leaders are the items that are put on sale at a loss in order to get customers in their

Government Reclamation Manifesto By: Lori J. Burns, October 2009 Whereas, those elected to govern our nation have forgotten their true purpose and to whom they answer and whereas the voters, are responsible for this problem, we hereby resolve to reclaim and reform our government and return it to its rightful owners, the people. We, the people, resolve the following: 1) We will no longer allow any politician to serve for a lifetime. We will limit their terms with our votes, thus eliminating what has become the ruling class of this free nation. 2) We will no longer vote for anyone who puts party before principles and the best interests of our entire nation. 3) We will no longer elect anyone who does not believe in the profound value and sacred nature of our Nation’s founding documents. 4) We will be silent and complacent no more. We will be engaged in the political process from its earliest stages to insure we are electing the people that represent our values, beliefs and morals. 5) We w

Government Reclamation Manifesto By: Lori J. Burns, October 2009 Whereas, those elected to govern our nation have forgotten their true purpose and to whom they answer and whereas the voters, are responsible for this problem, we hereby resolve to reclaim and reform our government and return it to its rightful owners, the people. We, the people, resolve the following: 1) We will no longer allow any politician to serve for a lifetime. We will limit their terms with our votes, thus eliminating what has become the ruling class of this free nation. 2) We will no longer vote for anyone who puts party before principles and the best interests of our entire nation. 3) We will no longer elect anyone who does not believe in the profound value and sacred nature of our Nation’s founding documents. 4) We will be silent and complacent no more. We will be engaged in the political process from its earliest stages to insure we are electing the people that represent our values, beliefs and morals. 5) We w

This is a great column by Sarah Palin: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzc2ZjhjY2MwMWUyM2M4NTM5YWRjYTcwMTEzZTNjMTc=

If you have seen any news this week then you will have heard of two interesting school cases involving "violent" behavior at schools. The first involved a 6-year old boy who took his folding "spork" to school because he wanted to eat his lunch with it. His parents bought this knife, spoon, fork, multi-tool for their Cub Scout to use for camping over the summer. Unbeknownst to them, he took it to school. So naturally when the teacher found out, she took it away and the school then sentenced the boy to 45 days of suspension and reform school. Well that makes perfect sense. Are there any adults who have any common sense left in our schools?!! I have a 6-year old son, and he's a very good boy. But being a boy, I wouldn't put it past him to put something in his backpack, without my knowledge, because he thought it was cool and wanted to show his friends. And yes, we have talked to him about the fact that there are certain things you don't take to school. I do

I get up and check the headlines every morning. This morning I about fell out of my chair. Our illustrious, wet-behind-the-ears president was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. " A beaming Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the others who had won it before him." (AP, today) Truer words were never spoken, by Obama. Although I do have to disagree about the "company" he's now in. He is perfectly in line with the sham winners that precede him: Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. Arafat--who never did anything but subvert the peace process with Israel and line his pockets with the world's money; Carter--who is arguably the worst president in U.S. history; and Gore--who pounced on the fraudulent global warming movement and is getting rich doing it. And actually, I guess I disagree with Obama's entire statement (that's odd). He H

Some of you that have been following my blog know that I read most of the original House's version of Health Care Reform. (See earlier post 8/13/09). I also promised that I would stay on top of things to try and keep us aware of what is actually contained in the bills about health care. Unfortunately I can't do that. Why, you may ask? Because the "Lords and Ladies" in the House and the Senate are not going to repeat their "mistake" of this past summer and post the bills online to be read by the citizenry. There are several versions of Health Care Reform floating through committees in the House and the Senate, but the Democrats have voted time and time again against making them public. In fact, in the Senate, they voted down an effort to require the final bill to be posted online for the public to read. Furthermore, when one version of health care was voted out of the Senate HELP Committee, the Democrats made over 70 changes to the bill without the knowledge

Rep. Diane Watson said, in praising Cuba's health care system, "You can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." W.E.B. Dubois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, "Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. ... But also -- and this was the highest proof of his greatness -- he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate." Walter Duranty called Stalin "the greatest living statesman . . . a quiet, unobtrusive man." George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao's China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Gunther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor admired Mao Tsetung and declared ecstatically that "the men and women pioneers of Yenan are truly new humans in spirit, thought and action," and that Yenan itself constituted "a brand

Roman Polanski. Apparently he's a famous, Oscar-winning director--I don't think I've seen any of his films. Thirty-one years ago he was arrested for the statutory rape of a thirteen-year old girl. I'm sorry to be brutal, but to put this in perspective, he drugged her with qualudes and alcohol and then sodomized her. He admitted to having sex with her in court, plead guilty to a lesser charge and then fled the country. He has been living "in exile" in France since then, avoiding countries that have extradition treaties with the U.S. (France won't extradite to the U.S. because we have the death penalty.) But this past weekend, Polanksi went to Switzerland to accept an award, and at the request of the U.S. government, was arrested and is being held for extradition. The French are protesting loudly that one of their citizens is being subjected to such horror. Debra Winger, the Hollywood has-been and brilliant legal mind, proclaimed: " We hope today this l

My last post addressed some of the things we can do to improve health care without government involvement. I got a few comments, but wanted to address a couple in particular. These comments brought up issues that are worthy of response. One of the comments is as follows: " I would like to direct your attention to the writers first stated premise - there is no trust in the government with one sixth of our economy. My question is, how did it become one sixth of the economy? With every step of a 'free' enterprise system being everything but free, freedom is placed upon the back of those who are a dwindling base of contributors to support the greediness of astronomical proportions and the government is the recipient of easy target fingerpointing. If we insist on blaming government for a sick system, we are trying to fix the wrong problems." My initial reply was the following: "There are many causes of the problems in medical care which I have also written about on m

I have spent a lot of time picking apart the liberal plan for reforming health care in the U.S. I do not have any confidence in a government that cannot run anything cheaply or efficiently. They are the last people I would trust to manage one sixth of our economy--I wouldn't trust them to do my lawn care. So, it's high time to talk about what can and should be done instead. Here are some ideas that would go a long way to lowering the cost of health care for everyone without a government takeover of health care. 1) Individual responsibility: As with anything in life, when we are directly responsible for the outcomes of our decisions, we are better for it, individually and as a society. That responsibility includes being accountable for our life choices, the amount of risks we take and paying our bills. It seems like a no-brainer doesn't it? Unfortunately, we have gotten away from that thinking in reference to our health care. If I choose to have multiple sexual partners, why