But this is not what this article is all about. In fact, we are starting a new chapter here at Common Sense Authors where we like to focus on who we consider real American Idols. We are talking about persons who have maintained their skills and reputations by remaining successful achievers over a great number of years. And yet their successes have not altered their basic personalities or their demeanors. Success has not spoiled them. Our criteria for being such an ‘Idol’ was grounded in their character, achievements, attitudes and consistency over a long period of time, not just for a year or two. They all have lived exemplary lives, in public as well as in private. They all have maintained public personas free of scandal and hype. And while we could have come up with a longer list had we included individuals who have passed away, we felt it necessary to differentiate with the annual American Idol show winners and therefore selected only living Idols as we see them.
We intentionally limited our list to just three individuals but we will add to this list in the future. Our Real American Idols in alphabetical order are:
An entrepreneur/businessman, a Military Leader/Four-Star General and a professional golfer/Number One in his sport, all three supremely successful in their respective fields, good family men and men with character, discipline, generosity and yet humble in their demeanor and appearance. These three individuals are being idolized by millions and we have to say, rightfully so. This is especially true for Tiger Woods since he has great television exposure on about 15 to 20 weekends in any given year. He has turned hundreds of thousands if not millions of youngsters into golfing fans and has shown them in his demeanor that excellence can be achieved by many individuals, but only through hard work and consistency and with a great deal of integrity.
Bill Gates’s lifetime achievements are very well known and the world is using his software programs on a daily basis. Many others have emulated him for nearly thirty years, many of them successfully. He has been for many years the richest man on the planet and yet he has maintained his humble personality throughout the years. He has been seen at various places taking his wife and children to the movies or amusement parks such as Legoland in Carlsbad etc. Yet after all his successes Gates is still working on new inventions when it comes to information and especially communication technology while at the same time being strongly involved with his wife Melinda to improve lives of millions of people in many countries around the world by giving generously to causes from fighting starvation, diseases and life improvement projects.
General David Petraeus is a man of exceptionable character and strength. He dedicated his life to serving his country in the military, after graduating from West Point in 1974 he has moved up through the ranks over more than thirty years, he is married and he and his wife of 33 years have two grown children. He is currently commander of the multi-national forces in Iraq and has very successfully executed a military turn-around by implementing a counterinsurgency strategy he had developed a few years ago. He is unflappable in the face of criticism whether warranted or not and has shown his strength during televised hearings in Congress last September and again a week ago.
It is very easy to find out more about these three gentlemen by way of search engines or other means. To us here, they are Class Acts and therefore Real American Idols!
Real ‘American Idols’ is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>First and foremost, this is the year when a new President of the
But it will not be our sole focus of attention this year. We will not be detracted from keeping our eyes open and commenting on a common sense basis on the other major issues facing us. Issues such as the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the workings of Congress, the developments and proposals for taking effective steps to curb global warming and climate change. We expect to be inundated with absolutely ridiculous statements and plans by the Global Warming proponents. One thing we can predict with certainty: Whatever these folks will come up with, it will mean restrictive lifestyles, a reduction of freedoms and an attack on all our pocketbooks; in plain English, it would be costly for all of us, depending on what they can force upon us!
This year will also bring us a strong focus on
We will, of course, continue to comment on other topics such as Education, Immigration, the Environment, and Politics, Race, Religions and unforeseen events that will be in the news and for that matter overshadow everything else for a time. We shall remain true to our primary objective and write on all these things through the spectrum of common sense.
We also hope to increase participation by visitors to our website by means of comments or even the submission of complete articles as long as they stay within the guidelines set forth in our site. Last but not least, we thank all of you who visited us in the past and hope that you will find our articles interesting in the future. Whether or not you agree is to us not of utmost importance, the freedom of expression and exchange of beliefs is what counts and we value praise and criticism equally. Once again, Happy New Year!
This article and others on Common Sense Author are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Happy New Year 2008 is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>
As a first reaction, it sounds good. But the Commission listed twenty (20) conditions that have to be met before a final approval can be given. The primary hurdles for final approval are for the developer of the plant, Poseidon Resources, to – and we quote – devise a plan to compensate for the death of marine organisms drawn into the plant and to provide wetland habitat restoration work at the nearby Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas stated “ the commission needs an accurate accounting of all the species the desalination process would kill and then develop a plan to compensate for such losses”. We are talking about fish eggs, larvae and plankton. San Diego Union Tribune columnist Logan Jenkins wrote an article entitled “Plant approval was pure water torture.”
This process can take several months and of course delay the schedule for building the plant. In addition, the Commission advised that additional review delays might occur due to some expected reductions in staff positions coupled with the heavy workload of the Commission. In other words: “Do not expect any final approval any time soon! It is not our problem that you people in
We need to say that the vast majority of these commissioners have strong environmental protection backgrounds by being longtime members of the Sierra Club and other such organizations that do not care one bit about people. In fact, they look at us average citizens as ‘enemies’ of the environment for which it is their job to protect, the environment, regardless as to cost or consequence to the people of California.
This arrogant display of raw power by a Commission, consisting in the majority of non-elected officials, should be truly addressed by the people of
We here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ think that
If any elected official steps over the boundaries of his or her role in that particular position, be it Governor, State Senator, County or City official, the remedy is or can be the next election. This is happening all the time but there is no voice by the people as to who gets on the California Coastal Commission. That is an unacceptable situation and it should be seriously reviewed and changed by the people. This is environmental protection beyond the pail; this has reached the level of extremism that should not be accepted and must be changed. There are few who will come out and say “stop protecting the environment”, but when the pendulum swings to the other extreme, it is time to bring it back to acceptable levels.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Arrogant Power of Commissions is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>Case in point is the recent Minnesota bridge collapse over the Mississippi. This tragedy was not even a few hours old when certain individuals and groups blamed the President for this totally unexpected event. Yes, it was President George W. Bush who was to blame for this. In their incredible logic they espoused that this could have been prevented were it not for the War in Iraq and other misguided policies of the Administration. Even the Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found it correct in his ‘great wisdom’ to blame publicly the lack of focus on infrastructure priorities on the part of President Bush’ and his administration for the Minnesota bridge collapse disaster. In other words, were it not for the war, America would have allocated more money for infrastructure. This is the absolute height of irresponsibility on Reid’s part and it is sad that such a person is the leader in the U.S. Senate.
Harry, why do you choose to relate every issue to President Bush?
Let’s visit the realities in this matter: This particular bridge over the Mississippi was built in the mid sixties (i.e. forty years ago) with Federal and Minnesota State funds. The Federal Funds came from the Highway Trust Fund created in 1956 by the Highway Revenue Act, its funding coming from tax revenues from excise taxes on highway motor fuels. It is generally known that the Interstate Highway system in the country is built with funds from the Federal government at approx. 80 percent of the costs, the other 20 percent coming from State funds together with assuming full responsibility for future maintenance (163.03) and repairs. In other words, once a highways or bridges are built, the States take full responsibility for its future and that includes the maintenance and possible repairs for such highways and bridges. This is not to exclude the possibility of potential cost sharing of such repairs by the States with the Federal government. The mechanism for this is a routinely passed Federal Transportation bill every five years or so and such bills are initiated by Congress. We cannot ignore mentioning the fact that this is for all lawmakers in Congress an opportunity to request and include funds for projects in their respective States. Unfortunately, it is many times misused for truly “porky” projects in amounts of many billions of dollars. Does anybody remember the bridge to nowhere in Alaska for 250 million dollars that was approved in the U.S. Senate by an overwhelming majority vote?
What is amazing since the bridge collapsed is the nearly total silence on the part of elected officials and public figures in Minnesota from the governor on down when it comes to finding fault for this tragedy. We think it is because they know the laws and know that if blame is to be found, it will be at the State level. While there are still efforts under way to retrieve victims from the disaster, investigations in to the causes of this event are being done and it will take reportedly months before the true causes of the bridge collapse will be fully known.
Now back to those who already know who is to blame for this disaster? These irresponsible people should be ashamed for having said and written what they did. Their hatred for the President is unbelievably numbing their brains to the point that one has to wonder if such a state of mind could be compared to self-inflicted lobotomies. What will these people do come late January, 2009 when no matter what happens, there will be another occupant in the White House, elected as President? They will most likely suffer from major withdrawal symptoms and will have a hard time ‘getting a life’, as the saying goes. The one major exception in this bunch, however, is Harry Reid, the Leader in the Senate. We have to ask: Are the Democrat Senators and the party membership at large content with his outrageous statements? Or will they consider reminding him that statements such as his on this tragedy are in the long run detrimental to their causes and political goals? Time will tell, we will keep watching.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Scapegoat for All – Absurdity at its Fullest! is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>The most recent attempt to deal with the Immigration Reform in Congress failed last Thursday in the hallowed halls of the Senate of the United States of America! While it never came to a final vote on the proposed law, it did not receive the required sixty votes for cloture to cut of debate and was therewith effectively defeated. The Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has now put the proposed law aside indefinitely since there are a great number of other matters that have to be dealt with in Congress.
When some of the titans in the Senate, among them Ted Kennedy and John McCain, decided earlier this year to draft a new Immigration Reform bill in cooperation with the White House, it was agreed to short-circuit conventional methodology to develop and process such a proposal. A group of about a dozen Senators worked on the draft behind closed doors and accepted input from designated representatives from the Bush administration, primarily Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Instead of letting the new law work its way through senatorial committees which is always very time consuming, the Kennedy/McCain group decided to do it more expediently and when finished, they went public with it.
First impressions and reactions were expectedly varied when people got a chance to read the details of this bill contained in more than four hundred pages of paper. While some hailed the proposal as a very comprehensive piece of legislation in that it addressed all the elements connected with immigration, others called it an outright ‘Amnesty bill’ and rejected everything about it. This resulted in a series of attempts to define “amnesty” on the part of the supporters of this legislation but as more and more details became publicly known, it appeared that the proposed bill included simply too many elements.
Yes, it included a concerted effort to secure our borders with Mexico with a multi-billion dollar allocation for just such work, on the other hand, the current crop of illegal immigrants in the country were all to be given a chance at a path to citizenship. These estimated twelve million people had to register with authorities for identification and background checks after which they were to receive some sort of temporary ‘z’ visas. These folks would also receive tamper-proof I.D. cards and employers would be held accountable for checking the legal status of work applicants. Violations would include heavy fines for employers. The proposed bill also included provisions for a guest-worker program, a pet project of President Bush, mainly for workers in the seasonal agricultural industry. Then provisions were added to process these immigrants on a so called ‘point-system’ where points were assigned to individuals based on their skills and professional abilities and experiences (more points for higher skill grades etc). Then the immigrants were also to pay fines for having entered the United States without proper papers and eventually (after 8 to 13 years) they could apply for and also receive citizenship in this country.
You get the gist of it? This proposed immigration bill was too comprehensive, it was too cumbersome and too all-inclusive to be practical and enforceable, as well as raising the public’s suspicions and skepticisms. The processing bureaucracy would be so overwhelming that it was doubtful that the new law’s could be truly implemented. But that did not stop the proponents of this bill from proceeding in the Senate. Objections by other Senators were initially disregarded and even lambasted as obstructionism. Other critics were told that this new bill was the last best chance for quite some time and that things would only get worse in America if not dealt with in this fashion NOW! The Senators on both sides eventually agreed to accept over twenty amendments for deliberations and the process continued. And so, for several weeks from late May until the end of June the ‘Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007’ was debated, altered, amended and voted upon in parts by the esteemed members of the United States Senate. On June 28, this debacle ended when a vote for cloture to end the debate (requiring by Senate procedures 60 votes in the affirmative) failed in that only 46 Senators voted for cloture.
What happened next was predictable: Instead of looking for answers to the question – What went wrong? – The first action by the bill’s proponents was to look for Who to fault for the failure! This is where it becomes comical, would you believe it was Talk-Radio? Yes, it is Rush Limbaugh and his numerous conservative radio talk-show hosts who are being blamed by the pundits and the bill’s proponents for the failure of passage of the proposed law! They apparently whipped up the public and encouraged them to call on their Senators to vote in the negative.
This requires us now to look at this final vote: As we know, there are 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans with 2 Independents completing the total number of 100 members in the Senate. With the absence of Senator Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota, the remaining 99 members voted as follows:
33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and 1 Independent (Joe Lieberman from Connecticut) voted in favor of cloture. 37 Republicans, 15 Democrats and 1 Independent (Sanders of Vermont) voted against cloture. While it is true that the vast majority of Nay votes came from Republicans, it is quite a stretch to believe that Rush Limbaugh and his talk-radio buddies convinced 15 Democrats to vote Nay. Among the 15 Democrats were such staunch liberals as Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia and Tom Harkin from Iowa.
It is of course not at all uncommon to look for blame elsewhere when things go wrong but to blame talk radio is quite a stretch. Had the Democrat leadership in the Senate held their caucus together, the cloture vote would have received the number of votes required to proceed and we would have had by now a new ‘Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007’ ready for the President’s signature. The fact remains, the legislation died due to its own complexity, fogginess in content, and parallel efforts to secure our borders while providing a path to U.S. citizenship for these millions of illegals was cause for a general distrust by the public questioning rightfully that it would be implemented and enforced. Coupled together with an uneasy feeling about making over 12 million people who are in this country illegally with the stroke of the pen “Legal” drew the reaction by citizens who called the Senate offices and sent e-mails and letters. A great number among the ‘No-voting’ Democrats were freshman Senators who are not up for re-election until 2012 but they felt compelled to listen to the concerns of their constituents.
Some of the skepticism was based on the fact that the ‘Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986’ included similar elements as were in this bill. This 21 year old law is still on the books and with the exception of granting amnesty to about 3 million illegal immigrants and ‘giving them a path to citizenship’, the other provisions in that bill such as border security and tough sanctions against employers who hired illegal aliens were never enforced. Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and the current President Bush did not enforce these provisions that are still on the books. But neither did Congress do its job in overseeing the implementation of laws they pass!
To us here at ‘Back to Common Sense’it would be a giant step forward if the current Administration would tighten the borders and submit the appropriate funding requirements to Congress. Once such an effort becomes reality and the citizens of the country see results and the seriousness on the part of the government, another attempt should be made to bring the other elements of such Immigration Reform legislation for consideration in Congress. If it cannot be done all at once, bring it up in a logically proper piece-meal basis. We have to tackle this problem but do it with common sense and rationale. Once the border is much more secure, try to deal with tamper-proof ID cards and employer sanctions for non-compliance, bring the 12 million individuals out of the shadows by allowing them to stay here (after background checks etc), but do not immediately try and give them a path to citizenship! Let that be the last thing you tackle! Do not think of these people as potential future voters, that smacks heavily of hypocrisy and ulterior motivation and Americans are too smart not to notice that fishy smell!
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Immigration Bill – America Speaks! is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>Associated Press writer William J. Kole wrote an article on May 4, under the heading: Activists want Chimp declared a ‘Person’ and we encourage you to read the article in its entirety. After checking the story for the eventuality of being a late April Fools joke (A Google search will provide additional sources for the accuracy of the story), our first reaction was one of extremely loud laughter for the comic relief it gave us, and it became a topic of subsequent lunch and dinner table conversations. It was just too funny not to share with friends and family.
But then reality set in: These people are serious and they are not just living in Austria where they have taken up the banner to make their favorite chimp “Hiasl”, a 26-year old male chimpanzee a person, there are Animal Rights groups all over the world who pursue similar goals. And while their causes are generally considered noble and admirable, it was in the past limited to saving endangered species, speaking out against cruelty towards animals and related endeavors. But this campaign to now ‘personify animals’ opens up an entirely new chapter because it requires making and passing laws country by country to change the status of animals. Of course, we start with animals that have things in common with us human beings. According to the article, “Hiasl”, the chimp is in many ways like any other Viennese: He indulges a weakness for pastry, likes to paint and enjoys chilling out watching TV.”
Well, if that is enough to bestow ‘personhood’ on the chimp, we have to report that our dogs liked the same things during their lives. In fact, they had even more attributes: They could understand us, they would do tricks on command, they would at times snore while sleeping and even possessed other human habits unpleasant to one’s nostrils among a host of other human traits. Then there are birds, i.e., parakeets, who have learned and can speak like humans (sometimes, driving us crazy as a result of it). For years, we have been told that dolphins are very smart, maybe even smarter than people and they are sometimes trained to check out underwater projects for mines etc. We know that cats, horses and other animals are very intelligent, we know that elephants have incredible memories and we apologize to the many other animal species not mentioned here.
We here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ will monitor these attempts at personification of animals from now on and comment on new developments, especially, if somewhere on this planet, elected officials actually pass laws to give person status to animals. Because one thing is for certain, should the friends of Hiasl in Vienna succeed, this will open the floodgates for other animal rights activists everywhere and there is no end to what could happen if and when attorneys get asked to pursue these cases. After all, there are billions of animals who need representation and could become clients for attorneys worldwide.
Can anyone imagine where this can lead? Who wants to argue, once personhood is bestowed on animals, that such a “person’ can be denied the right to marry, to be given an education, a salaried government job, membership to a union and the entitlement to free healthcare and eventual retirement benefits. The number of attorneys would double in the frame of 20 to 30 years and there would be a need to establish ‘animal courts’ everywhere where such animal rights would be adjudicated. We invite comments to pursue the potential possibilities of such a development, let your imaginations go wild!
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
When is Nonsense Considered Nonsense? is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>Analogies are always interesting and often very helpful, especially when simple and understandable examples help shed light on much more complex ideas. Watching the Kentucky Derby a few weeks ago, the start of the race brought to mind the Presidential Race (for 2008) and it tempts a comparison: While at the Kentucky derby race, 20 contenders enter and prepare to compete for less than three minutes, the other race has 18 contenders (and counting) and will endure for over 20 months. What both races have in common though is the fact, that at the end, only one contender can and will win! While the Kentucky Derby winner will earn a lot of money after the victory, the winner in the other race will have spent more than a hundred million dollars (not necessarily his or her own) to succeed and come out on top.
As it stands right now, the Presidential race has so far 18 contenders: 8 Democrats and 10 Republicans and a few potential candidates are still contemplating entering the race. Just like in the horse race at Churchill Downs in Kentucky, many contenders in the Presidential race are true long shots with incredible odds, nevertheless they are in the race and at this time, nobody knows for how long. In the meantime, the political pundits try very hard to build up an interest in all this by writing about the candidates on an almost daily basis. The television media in conjunction with the party leadership has scheduled and also conducted so called Presidential debates for both, the Democrat and Republican candidates. Needless to say, the polling organizations in America are busy polling frequently to find out who is in the lead and by how much over others.
Yet the big question for most of us in this country at this time is: Who cares??? Again, watching the horse race in Kentucky, would anybody really think that the race is run after a quarter mile with a full mile to go? The horse leading the pack after 400 yards has by no means an advantage over the other horses and nobody watching the race would think that. With this much distance yet to be covered, or in terms of the Presidential race with this much time to go, nobody in his or her right mind would make any assumptions as to the outcome at the end, and start celebrating. Only wishful thinkers and close friends of a specific contender think like that. Accordingly, the presidential debates are truly meaningless, especially since there is no real chance for anyone of them to make a succinct statement while answering a question from a debate host in the allotted time of 30 or 60 seconds. Since the debates are never longer than 90 minutes and with the crowded fields in both political parties, nothing of substance results from these events, at least for the time being. The candidates are ‘jockeying’ for cute or funny sound bites that will be repeated by the pundits over and over again. The positions of the candidates are very obscure, especially when it comes to the war on terror and how to bring the war in Iraq to an end. For almost all candidates this time is a training period to define their respective messages and slogans and to raise money from people who would like them to win the White House in November 2008. One more comparison is necessary to be made; unlike the Kentucky Derby, the last seven to eight months of this race are only between two ‘horses’ due to the frontloading of the primary elections next year by most states, including the larger ones such as California, Florida, New York and Texas. It is expected that by March 2008, the primary winners in each party will be known.
We here at Back to Common Sense will treat the Presidential race in a similar fashion as the announcer of the Kentucky Derby and will report back on it after at least another quarter mile has been traversed. With respect to the political race, this means in a couple of months from now. Maybe the field has thinned out a little bit by then in that some long shots have falling significantly behind the main contenders in terms of fundraising, are no longer being taken seriously and drop out of the race. Until then, we will leave this event to the pundits and the few that share their strong interests.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
And They Are Off . . . . . is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>The terrible events on April 16 on the campus of Virginia Tech University have been recorded, reported and debated ad nausea in all media outlets for the past few weeks and when everything was said and done, they started all over again by looking at different angles etc. We do not intend to contribute here. Instead we want to focus on the recommendations and suggestions of those who allegedly ‘want to prevent these acts of terrors in the future’. As it shapes up, there are two clear fronts of attack: The liberals want more gun control laws and the conservatives suggest cutting back on political correctness.
It was amazing to see the reactions to the massacre at Virginia Tech within days if not even hours after it had occurred. The European press (liberal) blamed the massacre on the proliferation of guns in America, on the NRA and Charlton Heston while our American liberals decried the fact that there were just not enough laws controlling guns. In fact, MSNBC’s Keith Olberman in his blind hate for the President found a way to blame the VT massacre on President Bush and Republicans for not renewing a gun law a few years back. On the opposite side of the spectrum, conservatives argued that ‘Political Correctness’ had gone too far and was to be blamed for the massacre.
We here at Back to Common Sense believe that both sides have it, if not wrong at least partially incorrect. Common sense should tell us that we will never in this country do away with guns, we will never abolish the Second Amendment in our Constitution. On the other hand, Political Correctness is a reality in America that can also never be abolished or totally rescinded. Where does that leave us? Let’s not talk in terms of extremes but concentrate on the middle by asking the following questions:
Is it acceptable that political correctness prevents parents who pay for their children’s education to obtain any scholastic information including grades about their kids from a University or College without the written permission of the children? Had this crazy gunman’s parents known more about their son and his demeanor/behavior on V.T.’s campus, would they not have been able to do something about it by possibly taking him out of V.T. or attempted to provide him with proper mental health care and treatments?
Should we continue to have a “wall” preventing information sharing between the medical/mental health doctors or institutions and law enforcement agencies? From what is known in this case, complaints from other students and faculty members about this gunman went to a judge in a Virginia court but did not get shared with law enforcement agencies that could have possibly posted such incident on his record prior to obtaining the guns he bought?
Is the overwhelming concern about not ‘impairing a person’s record’ so strong that the complaints about this fellow’s behavior and demeanor where simply considered not serious enough to put this in his criminal record or to at least keep an eye on him? Possible to even have procedures for follow-up interviews or counseling etc?
From what we have heard and read, this guy did not act even remotely normal when he was on campus and even before that time when he attended high school. He shared a room in his dorm with other students but reportedly never spoke to them, never made eye contact, never participated in any group activities, even refused at times to speak up in classes he attended. The question is: Was it more important “not to crowd him and invade his space of privacy” than to maybe question him about it? If his behavior was not weird enough, what would constitute weird behavior in the eyes of school officials, be they faculty, administration or student organizations? This guy’s statements on video and in writing cite his objections to the behavior of ‘rich kids and their debaucheries’ among other things. From what we understand, this fellow was NOT bullied by other students; nor was he excluded from group activities in high school or at V.T.; he wanted it that way! He acted weird and the others left him alone. He was a loner and political correctness allowed him to become so isolated and to become so extreme that it would result in him going totally off the deep end.
Which brings us to gun control:
Does the Constitution guarantee everybody the right to buy any and as many handguns that are commercially available in a gun shop or elsewhere? Is it perfectly proper to sell handguns with clips that hold 30 bullets and buy as many of these clips as desirable? Reportedly, this murderer fired off over 200 shots in a very short time frame, this means that he bought many of those clips that can be easily ejected once emptied and replaced with loaded clips.
Why is it that law makers at the federal and state levels pass gun laws and then put a time limit on them, in other words, why feel strong enough about this type of legislation but then allow it to lapse after five or ten years? If these lawmakers think that any type of gun control law is necessary, do not put a time limit on it! If in the future, other lawmakers write other legislation that either strengthens or weakens that particular law, they can include a clause that the existing law is “herewith superceded”. But why pass a law for a limited time only? It is absolutely absurd!
Why can databases for background checks by gun shop owners not include anything pertaining to existing medical/mental health issues involving an individual? Poor eyesight (a medical condition), for instance, does not get you a driver’s license without wearing glasses. Should it be easier to buy a gun or as many guns as one wants to possess than to obtain a driver’s license? Why can these databases for gun purchases not be expanded to include any previous gun purchases by an applicant as well as data pertaining to mental health? We do this with driving violations and we record speeding tickets and other such incidents so that insurance companies know who is applying for insurance before providing insurance.
The constitutionally guaranteed “right to bear arms” (in order to defend oneselves or pursue the hobby of hunting since nobody has to hunt for food anymore) does not put a limit on gun purchases, but does anybody need multiple guns with 30-clip ammunition for these purposes?
These are questions that reasonable people should be able to discuss and debate in a search for recommendations for change together with other actions that can be taken without severely infringing on individual freedoms. To be realistic, we will never be able to prevent these kinds of atrocities or massacres in the future but let us also not fall into the trap of making major revisions in our society as a reaction to such events. Let us definitely not change our Constitution. We can make amends in our lives without changing the foundation of our country!
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Political Correctness versus Gun Control is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>On November 26 of last year, we posted two articles here entitled: ‘Election Results and Analysis’ and ‘The People have spoken’. Based on the closeness of the various races in the House as well as the Senate, we concluded that the results reflected a shift among moderate voters, the consistent 15 percent of the American voters who determine the outcome of elections more times than not. They are individuals, who have no political party allegiance, nor do they appear to have a very strong value system, they are neither conservative nor are they liberal. They can switch their votes from election to election as to how they see things from their flexible perspective. They claim to be true intellectuals in that they can perceive issues from their neutral positions. They also claim to have high moral standards based on their own definition of such standard. Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘moderate’ in nine different ways, all essentially being not extreme, not excessive and keeping within reasonable limits and so on.
In the run-up to last November’s congressional elections, the Democrats and the media kept the focus on the Republican excesses in the previous years, they continually pounded the apparent corruption among Republicans and then got about six weeks worth of negative propaganda about a Congressman from Florida who had sent dubious e-mails and instant messages to a former page of his in Congress. The Republicans did not have an effective defense against these charges and so, the moderates decided that it was time for a change and voted ‘Democrat’.
While it is way to early to seriously think about the next elections in November 2008, it would be interesting to find out how the switch-voting element in the American voting public, our average middle-of-the-road moderate, views the performance to date by the Democrat leadership in Congress. Since they are moderates and despise extremes, they cannot possibly share the hatred the so called ‘Left’ shows towards President Bush. But are they genuinely impressed by what the Democrats have accomplished in their first four months in charge of Congress? Do they agree with the political football the Democrats are playing with the funding of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan while claiming to fully support the troops? Did they like it when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried her craft at foreign policy when she visited dictator Basher Assad of Syria while she then had a hard time finding it in her heart to accept an invitation by the President in the White House? Is it ok for the moderate switch voters when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid makes a definitive statement about the status of the war in Iraq? Can a moderate voter figure out what a Democrat means when he or she is against the war but supports our troops even though he or she votes against providing funds for the troops in Iraq?
It would be interesting to hear from the switch-voting moderates who were so bothered by the corruption of Republicans and the impropriety of a House Republican who sent questionable e-mails to a former employee that they decided, it was time for a change in Congress. We wonder who in the media or in polling institutions would find it worthwhile to check into this matter and come back with answers from those moderates.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
How do switch-voting Moderates feel now is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>It is very interesting watching members of the Democratic Party in American on television. There are twists and turns on a daily basis that make it very hard to understand their positions. Until they took over both houses in Congress as the ‘Majority’ party, they were unified and focused: They consistently opposed everything Republicans and President Bush in particular proposed, suggested, recommended and acted upon. And they, the Democrats voted accordingly. And they were proud of it, they called themselves the loyal opposition and they considered it virtuous. The Democrats spent their entire energy on coming up with reasons why they could not go along with whatever the Republicans and the President proposed.
But then came November 7, 2006. the Democrats won majorities in Congress and were getting ready after twelve long years to take charge of things in the Legislative branch of Government. And so they did last January. They presented impressive agendas for what they wanted to accomplish during the first one hundred hours in Congress. Their power surge also encouraged them to attempt taking over foreign policy and the execution of the war in Iraq. After all, that is “what the American people wanted when they voted for them’ according to the Democrats. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (from San Francisco) became Speaker of the House and Senator Harry Reid (from Nevada) became the Majority Leader in the Senate.
While the House approved several of the highly trumpeted new laws such as a hike in the Minimum wage and others, not one of them have been approved by the Senate, i.e., none of the bills have reached the President’s desk for his signature. One bill that has gotten all the attention is the War funding bill wherein the President requested approximately 100 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democrats added about 23 billion dollars worth of pork barrel spending in order to get it passed in the House and attached stringent deadlines for troop withdrawals. The President had firmly and repeatedly promised to veto such a bill (and he did on May 1) and Congress will not be able to override such a veto because it requires a 2/3 majority. Knowing this, the Democrats had delayed submitting this bill to the White House. They are truly playing political games with this issue and it is shameful!
The Democrats also went on a foreign policy offensive when Speaker Pelosi and a small delegation went to visit Israel and the Syria (over the specific objections from the White House). Whatever she heard in Israel from the Prime Minister, she promptly bungled the message when she visited Damascus and told the Syrian President, Basher Assad, that Israel was ready to talk peace. The Israeli Prime Minister promptly rebutted her but that did not deter her from making other statements such as, and we quote: “the road to Damascus is the road to peace in the Middle East”. She hailed her foreign policy trip as highly successful and lectured everybody that it was time to have more dialogues, even with ‘our enemies’. She has been hinting at making a trip to Iran to meet and talk things over with their President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad.
When she came back to the States, President Bush invited her and Majority Leader Reid for talks at the White House. Their first and instantaneous reaction was by both of them to promptly refusing to go. They then invited the President to visit them in Congress. Whatever happened next, the Democrat leaders visited the President in the White House after all. While President Bush did not say anything about the meeting, both Pelosi and Reid could not wait to get in front of microphones to say that nothing of substance was discussed and therefore nothing came out of the meeting! One can only conclude from all this that the Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths. Why is it perfectly fine, in fact, desirable, to have dialogues with dictators and supporters of terrorism (Syria and Iran) while one has to think about talking to President Bush and accepting his invitation for a dialogue or discussion in the White House? It is confusing, to say the least!
A few days later, Senator Reid ratcheted up the rhetoric when he unequivocally stated, speaking about Iraq: “The war is lost!” A day later, he amended his declaration when he tried to clarify what he meant by that. He said that the war was lost if we continued to follow the wrong direction that Bush was pursuing, the President’s strategy was wrong, wrong, wrong! Fearing a potential backlash to the initial statement by Reid, some of his fellow Democrat Senators tried to explain his statement away in even more foggy terms with incredible attempts as to what Reid had meant to say. It is called “parsing words” and their master in this, of course, is former Democrat President Bill Clinton who tried at one time under oath to explain several years ago that something depended of what the meaning of the word “Is” is.
To us here at ‘Back to Common Sense’, we do not need explanations, we fully understand the meaning of those four words “The War is Lost!” You cannot say it any clearer than that. Senator Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, has told the world that the United States has lost this War in Iraq, he has told our soldiers that they have lost, that they are losers and since he, Harry Reid, knows it, he is trying to end this lost cause and bring the troops home by pushing for deadlines on troop withdrawals! All his subsequent clarifications and explanations are meaningless and are nothing more than ‘weasel attempts’ by a person truly entrapped in his hatred for President Bush. But by making this statement – the war is lost – he has gone too far. Words have consequences and we have to wonder what the soldiers in Iraq, the entire military personnel and their millions of family members and friends think when they hear this from the leader of the United States Senate.
What is amazing in all this is that the self-proclaimed unbiased media has treated this four-word statement as nothing more than a minor event and at worst a poor choice of words. Had these four words been uttered by a Republican leader instead, the reaction by the media would have been the opposite. They would have been writing and talking about it for weeks if not months on end. So much for our neutral and unbiased media members, common sense cannot possibly allow us to believe this incredible claim of neutrality.
It appears that the Democrats who were in the minority in Congress for twelve years were not and still are not ready to lead. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are their prime examples of total ineptitude when it comes to leadership. With leadership come responsibilities and that includes making statements of propriety and not mouthing off regardless of the consequences.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Questionable leadership of the Democrats: Confusing to say the least is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>