Stupid ways to increase health care cost. A true story.

Health care is expensive.  It is arguably much to expensive.  Here's a true story showing some of the foolish reasons it to expensive.

Day 1 - Call pharmacy to get prescription refilled.  CVS has a generally good prescription refill automated system.  Unfortunately, after asking for a refill I pressed 2 instead of 1 and got an IVR script to refill another prescription.  No way out of IVR script except 3, talk to a pharmacist.  Choose 3, talk to pharmacist who gladly helps.  Dear CVS Common Sense thinks it's DUMB not to have a go back option on your IVR menus.  Extra cost of prescription refill, one pharmacist conversation.

Day 1, later - Go to CVS to pick up prescription.  Not there.  Talk to pharmacist again.  Pharmacist says insurance won't cover until tomorrow.  Prescription has 1 refill every 30 days.  Prescription dated 24th of last month.  It's now 24th of this month.  That's actually 31 days since November has 31 days.  Pharmacist agrees but it seems that prescription wasn't picked up until 25th of November, never mind that it's still been 30 days, insurance says no. Pharmacist says phone it in on the 25th.  Dear insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield Ma, days are days not dates.  BTW, what does the pickup date have to do with the prescription date.  Dumb to reduce your cost at the expense of system cost.  Extra cost of prescription refill, another pharmacist conversation.

Day 2 - Phone CVS and order prescription again.  Manage to hit 2 not 1.  Extra cost of prescription refill, additional IVR interaction.

Day 2 later - Pick up prescription interacting again with pharmacist.

So the insurance company optimized their cost by screwing me, happily I don't take the med every day so days vs date not an issue.  Along the way, the insurance companies inflexible policy, we're talking 24 hours here folks, actually since it was 4PM when I went to pick up the prescription we're really talking 12 hours, lead to 1 additional lengthy human interaction, 1 additional IVR interaction, and 1 short human interaction.

This is NOT efficient.  It's a case study in how one parties optimization actually increases cost.  Dumb, just plain dumb.  So thinks Common Sense.

On net neutrality

Net neutrality is again in the news.  For those non-geek the notion is that internet bandwidth providers can not tie the bandwidth to specific devices and can not block specific services.  This is sometimes characterized as the four freedoms:

• Access to any internet site
• Use of any application
•  Ability to hook up any device
• Transparency

The notion makes the internet open in the sense that anyone can use it without discrimination.  Generally net neutrality should apply to both wired and wireless internet services.  This last is an important point as with the advent of 4G wireless, wireless internet service will doubtless be much more common.

On the face of it, these notions appear reasonable and fair.  But are they?

One important consideration is bandwidth.  For those non-geek, bandwidth is the ability of the internet to carry data.  We've all seen bandwidth issues when using the internet.  "The internet is slow today" is a frequently heard complaint.  In fact sometimes the internet IS SLOW.  It's slow because there are more users than typically; or those users are using network intensive applications like video; or part of the internet infrastructure is currently unavailable because of maintenance or outage; or sun spot activity is high and radio communications are effected; or any number of other reasons.  The central point is that internet bandwidth is NOT LIMITLESS.  That's true of both wired and wireless internet.  Bandwidth is also NOT CONSTANT.  Bandwidth varies with time, the number of users, user applications, etc.  These are simply technical facts of life, technical realities that CAN NOT BE IGNORED.

Another consideration is that there are some fundamental differences between wire and wireless internet.  Generally, wire internet has much more bandwidth than wireless.  While 4G wireless brings much more bandwidth to the individual wireless cell and users in that cell, the available bandwidth remains much lower than that available to wire users in a wired internet head end distribution point (a similar technical constraint).  Try as one might, it's much easier technically to get bandwidth down a hard link like a cable or fiber optic line than it is over an RF channel.  Hard connects simply have more inherent non-conflicting bandwidth. 

A final consideration is that increasingly we are moving more and more communications based activities to the internet.  The applications we run on the internet today are far different than those we ran 30 years ago.  The ones we run tomorrow will be more different still.  Today we have video communications, telephony, and medical monitoring.  Who knows what we tomorrow's applications will be. 

What then of the "four freedoms?"

Access to any internet site: Seems like a reasonable idea but is it?  How about child pornography sites, or how to make a bomb?  Should these sites be accessible?  Common Sense says no.  There is content and there are applications that are simply unacceptable within a given society.  The argument can be made that it is the content, not access to the content that should be controlled.  That's certainly true but the internet is a transnational network.  The content may well originate from a rogue state or a state where the content is acceptable and thus not subject to control within the receiving state.  When the content can not be controlled then the remaining remedy is to control access.  That being the case the "access" freedom requires that we consider the question of how and who decides to block access.  In a free society this is a very thorny issue.  Should the bandwidth provider decide?  Common sense says no as the bandwidth provider has no particular legal or social more standing.  How about the government?  Common Sense is troubled by the notion of direct government control as there is a history of highly inappropriate and frequently illegal government blocking and control by classification.  Fundamentally Common Sense sees this as a free speech issue with all the attendant complexities.

Use of any application:  Again, it seems like a reasonable idea but is it?  What is the relative value of my nieces tweet compared say to the data stream from a heart patient?  Or how about a tweet compared to a fire alarm?  Or how about a call to 911 compared to a conversation with my brother?  NOT ALL DATA IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT!  NOT ALL APPLICATIONS ARE EQUALLY VITAL!  Bandwidth is limited and Common Sense says that some data and some applications deserve priority.  The question then becomes who decides?  Should the bandwidth provider decide?  Common sense says no since there are many examples of providers acting not in the interest of society at large but in their own financial interest.  How about a government agency?  Common Sense says perhaps as the FCC has been marginally effective at regulating similar issues, at least recently, though Common Sense is concerned about political (read corporate money) influence.  How about an independent entity like the IANA, internet assigned numbers authority.  Common Sense likes this notion since by and large the IANA has worked reasonably well.

Ability to hook up any device:  This freedom seems entirely reasonable to Common Sense.  One can go back to before telephone deregulation when there was a similar issue with regard to telephone handsets, answering machines, and other telephony equipment.  Initially AT&T did not allow such devices to be connected to the phone system.  History tells us that the reasons were not technical but business, an attempt by AT&T to maintain an iron grip on telephony.  But deregulation happened and today we have many choices of telephony equipment and the telephone network was not destroyed in the process.  Of course there had to be rules that insured compatibility between equipment and the network.  Common Sense thinks this is entirely reasonable.  

Transparency:  Common Sense thinks transparency is important.  But what kind of transparency?  When the other internet freedoms are constrained as Common Sense thinks is reasonable it is essential that those constraints be public and clearly stated.  But is this enough?  Common Sense thinks not!  Common Sense believes that when an internet freedom is constrained there must be a clear mechanism for challenging the constraint.  While Common Sense thinks that it is OK to block sites, Common Sense doesn't think that the NY Times should be blocked because it republished some Wikileaks material.  So if the Federal Government decided to block the NY Times or for that matter Wikileaks there must be a remedy that allows society as a whole to challenge.  Common Sense believes that constraints on freedoms must be transparent and that the transparency freedom must include a mechanism to challenge those constraints.

I was just starting my technical career when the internet was created.  I had a hand in some of the earliest internet development.  I've seen it grow from a private network between a handful of research labs with a limited number of applications to a ubiquitous communications environment with applications that were never imagined 40 plus years ago.  Common Sense thinks that regulation is both inevitable and necessary.  That said, the kind of regulation and the details of regulation are critical.  Common Sense believes that the internet has the potential to change not only the US society but the world society profoundly for the better.  Common Sense believes that inappropriate regulation can damage or perhaps destroy that potential.

Racism and xenophobia in Isreal

Israeli holy town sends message of exclusion to Arabs

Rabbis frown at rentals, warn of intermarriage

By Joel Greenberg Washington Post / December 19, 2010

 SAFED, Israel — In the winding stone alleys of this Galilee hill town, a centuries-old center of Jewish mysticism, a campaign is underway.

It is being waged by the town rabbi, Shmuel Eliahu, who along with other area rabbis issued a religious ruling several months ago forbidding residents to rent apartments to Israeli Arab students from the local community college.

The rabbi has warned that the Jewish character of Safed, long revered as sacred, is at risk and that intermarriages could follow if the students mingle with the locals.

Last month, Eliahu called a public meeting to sound the alarm. On the agenda was “the quiet war,’’ a reference to the feared Arab influx, and “fighting assimilation in the holy city of Safed.’’

Several days later, a building that houses Arab students was attacked by a group of young Jews, and an elderly Holocaust survivor renting a room to students received threats.

To civil rights advocates and other critics, the unsettling developments in this normally quiet community of 32,000 are a window into ugly currents of racism in Israeli society. The events here, the critics say, reflect a general atmosphere of growing intolerance under a government and Parliament dominated by parties of the nationalist right.

Common Sense finds this very troubling on several grounds.  Considering that Jews have been widely persecuted one would imagine that they, particularly a teacher, a rabbi, would understand better than any that racism and xenophobia are ugly and vial.  Yet here we have a rabbi promoting just that.  And we have a group of Israelis attacking an elderly Holocaust survivor for the offense of renting a room to an Arab.  That is no different than the actions of the Nazis that created the Holocaust.  That this was a crime of Jews on a Holocaust survivor is offensive and profoundly wrong.  Common sense feels that we should all be better than this, particularly a people, an ethnic group, that has first hand experience of racism and xenophobia.

Is really OK for the Federal Government to order the killing of a US citizen without trial?

From the WSJ

Court Dismisses Suit Over Targeted U.S. Killings

By EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON—A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by the father of Yemeni-American radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki challenging the Obama administration's targeted-killing program.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said the father's suit seeking to block President Barack Obama from ordering the extrajudicial killing of his son "lacks standing." Also, said Judge Bates, "his claims are non-justiciable," or incapable of being settled by a court. 

The ruling is a victory for the Justice Department. While not acknowledging plans to kill Mr. Awlaki, it argued that the cleric as a U.S. citizen could ensure his safety by turning himself in to U.S. authorities or seeking the protection of the court himself. 

Mr. Awlaki's fiery Islamist sermons are popular among jihadists on the Internet, and he is a target of the U.S. program aiming to kill leaders of terror groups, U.S. officials say. 

The U.S. says Mr. Awlaki is a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, the group the U.S. says was behind the recent thwarted attempt to blow up U.S.-bound planes with package bombs as well as the botched attempt to bomb an airliner last Christmas Day. AQAP has claimed responsibility for the plots.

In court last month and in his order Tuesday, the judge called the lawsuit an extraordinary case. He said the suit was dismissed without having to consider the government's state-secrets argument, which held that the court couldn't hear the case because it would expose sensitive classified information.

Write to Evan Perez at evan.perez@wsj.com

Common Sense is troubled by this news item.  It is certainly true that Mr. Awlaki is not a nice man.  It is certainly true that his actions are reprehensible and, likely treasonous and perhaps illegal.  It is also certainly true that this otherwise evil man is an American citizen and, as such, entitled to protection under the Constitution.  It is true that he has fled the US and that there is a valid arrest warrant outstanding.  But, does that mean that the Federal Government can order his murder/execution without a trial?  Common Sense says no, otherwise we acknowledge that the Federal Government can arbitrarily execute a citizen, a proposition that clearly flies in the face of law, justice, and Common Sense.

More troubling is that Mr. Awlaki's presenting offense is speech!  If the speech is illegal, let him be tried and sentenced for his actions. If he is guilty of other offenses, let him be tried and sentenced for those actions. That the Supreme Court argues standing is also troubling since it means that Mr. Awlaki, a US citizen, is denied constitutional redress. That the Court argues that the claim is "non-justiciable" is very troubling since we are to accept that the Supreme Court can not intervene is what is clearly an Executive Branch action.  Common Sense is offended.

That the Justice Department argues that "as a U.S. citizen could ensure his safety by turning himself in to U.S. authorities or seeking the protection of the court himself" is both silly and outrageous since it would establish the proposition that a US citizen having fled the country can be coerced to return by the threat of murder/execution.  Common Sense is greatly offended by this as well.

Al Qaeda is certainly evil.  Mr. Awlaki as a vocal proponent likewise so.  Al Qaeda and Mr. Awlaki would deny America its right to exist as a free society governed by law not religious zealotry.  When we deny Mr. Awlaki, a US citizen, the protection of law we become in some way like Al Qaeda.  America IS a country of law. As such we need to be sure that the principal of equal protection is extended to all US citizens, even the most reprehensible and evil. 

Just some Constitutional Common Sense.

Republicans message to America: It's our way or the highway

Senate Showdown Saturday: Tax Cut Votes on the Way

Republicans Slam Democratic Proposal as 'Political Exercise'

By MATT JAFFE and HUMA KHAN

Dec. 3, 2010

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he plans to hold two tax cut votes on Democratic proposals Saturday after a bipartisan deal to have four votes in the Senate collapsed.

 

The two Saturday votes will be on the House-passed bill to extend tax cuts for Americans earning under $250,000 a year and another from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to raise the threshold to $1 million a year.


On Thursday, Reid, D-Nev., had been working with Republicans to gain the unanimous consent of all senators to bring four votes to the floor -- the two Democratic proposals as well as two Republican ones. 

The GOP votes were to be on a proposal to permanently extend the tax cuts for all Americans, including the wealthy, and a proposal to temporarily extend all the tax cuts for five years. However, a Republican senator objected, so Reid instead filed cloture tonight on the two Democratic proposals. 

"We think we can show the American people what the Democratic priorities are and we are free to talk about what the Republican priorities are because they showed us today," Reid told reporters after a night of closed-door meetings on the Hill. 

"We are for tax cuts for the middle class and they will do everything they can to further their number-one goal: tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires," outlined Schumer. 

No sooner had the upcoming flurry of Senate votes been announced by Democrats than Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused them of "pandering to their political base" with "pointless" votes that are "charades." 

"With only 28 days until middle-class families, job creators and investors are hit with massive job-killing tax hikes, Senate Democrats are scheduling pointless tax votes that have no chance of becoming law," Hatch said. "Pandering to their political base with these votes isn't the responsible action the American people are demanding from their elected officials."
 ================================================

 

Where does common sense begin?  

 

First the Republicans could have had their measures brought to a vote but they objected presumably knowing that those measures would not pass.  Message to Americans, "If you want to vote on non Republican measures hit the rode.  If we can't have our way go away."  Common Sense says this is NOT governance, it's borderline totalitarian by a single party.  

 

Second, Mr Hatch, R-Utah, accuses the Democrats of "pandering to their political base" with "pointless" votes."  That makes so little sense as to be nonsense.  All political parties pander to their base.  That's what they are suppose to do.  Beyond that, facts show that it is not the Democrats but rather Republicans that pandered by objecting to having their own measures voted on and allowing the Democratic measures to come to a vote.  Common Sense says this is just another example of telling the lie often enough that someone believes it true.  

Finally, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to raise the threshold to $1 million a year!  Common Sense says that $1 million  a rear is NOT middle class.  Come on lets get real people making $1 million a year are NOT suffering like people making $250 a year, and certainly not like people out of work.  

As a nation we are just beginning to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  That crisis occurred because our Congress passed laws that allowed it to occur; because government chose to be dogmatic and partisan, and not to govern for the common good.  It's time that Congress grow a pair and deal with the real problems of real Americans.

Just a Common Sense point of view.

From the Boston Globe: Common sense and airport security

The Boston Globe today has an interesting editorial concerning TSA security.  It's quoted below.  Common sense suggests that since the Globe invites me to email it to others they won't object to having it quoted with attribution here.  It provides a factual and common sense perspective on the TSA and it's ineptness.

==============================================================

© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.

Jeff Jacoby

Air travel: One step behind terrorists

NOT EVERYONE has reacted the same way to the Transportation Security Administration’s aggressively intimate new frisking technique. Air traveler John Tyner created a minor sensation when he recorded himself warning a TSA screener in San Diego: “If you touch my junk, I’m gonna have you arrested.’’ Journalist Emmett Tyrrell, on the other hand, says he would “welcome a soothing pat-down. . . especially if the patter-downer is a cute little number on the order of, say, Sarah Palin.’’ It takes all types to fill a passenger plane.

But what are we to make of TSA Administrator John Pistole, who told a congressional committee last week that he has no intention of relaxing his agency’s intrusive new screenings? These include both the hands-on body search (which at least one pilot has compared to “sexual molestation’’), and — for those who would rather be ogled electronically — full-body X-ray scanners that leave nothing to the imagination.

“I’m not going to change those policies,’’ Pistole testified, brushing aside a flood of recent passenger complaints as the price to be paid for security. Why, TSA’s current methods are so effective, he insisted, that had they been in effect last December they would have thwarted Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the al-Qaeda terrorist who tried to blow up a jetliner on Christmas Day with a bomb sewn into his underwear. That would have been quite an achievement, considering that Abdulmutallab was flying into the United States from Europe, and was never screened by TSA.

“There is an ever-evolving nature to terrorist plots,’’ Pistole told the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “It is clear we have to be one step ahead of the terrorists.’’

One step ahead? That isn’t how TSA operates. Knives and sharp objects were banned from carry-on luggage after 9/11, so Richard Reid boarded American Airlines Flight 63 with a bomb built into his shoe. Passengers ever since have had to take off their shoes, so the 2006 Heathrow terrorists came up with a plan to use liquid explosives. TSA responded by confining liquids to tiny containers sealed in baggies, so Abdulmutallab smuggled explosive powder in his underwear. Now TSA scans or feels even air travelers’ nether regions, so terrorists based in Yemen hid two bombs inside printer cartridges and shipped them to addresses in Chicago. TSA promptly responded by announcing that “toner and ink cartridges over 16 ounces will be prohibited on passenger aircraft in both carry-on bags and checked bags.’’ Just who has been staying a step ahead of whom?

Precisely because terrorist plots are “ever-evolving,’’ it is fruitless to keep trying to prevent the last terror attack. Yet that is just what TSA keeps doing. What’s worse, it treats every airline passenger as a potential terrorist who must be searched for weapons — any imaginable weapons — before being allowed to board. That is a crazy system — crazy in its ineffectiveness, in its breathtaking cost, and in the staggering degree of inconvenience and invaded privacy it imposes on innocent passengers. In security expert Bruce Schneier’s cogent term, TSA provides not security, but security theater — “measures that make people feel more secure without doing anything to actually improve their security.’’

Anyone who has traveled through Israel’s Ben Gurion airport or on El Al, the Israeli airline, has experienced what is widely considered the finest aviation security system in the world. That system doesn’t involve taking off shoes, confiscating water bottles, patting down toddlers, or conducting nude X-ray scans. Nor does it involve shutting down an entire terminal because a passenger inadvertently walked through the wrong door.

It does, however, involve careful attention to behavior, individual conversations with every traveler, and a lack of politically-correct inhibitions about profiling. Unlike TSA, the Israelis focus not on intercepting dangerous things, but on stopping dangerous people. It is hard to argue with their results.

The federalization of airline security after 9/11 was a grave mistake. Instead of creating a vast new bureaucracy, Congress should have made the airlines themselves primarily responsible for guaranteeing their customers’ safety, with clear legal liability if they failed. With their bottom lines riding on it, the airlines would have been far more likely than any government agency to figure out how to get security right. Instead we ended up with groin gropes, naked X-rays, and “security’’ procedures that irritate everyone while keeping nobody safe.

The time has come to rethink air-travel safety from the ground up. Eliminating TSA might make a good start.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.

More TSA foolishness

So the director of the TSA thinks the TSA agents who offended John Tyner "did a good job."  Apparently that includes the part where the agents provided Mr Tyner with two different contradictory directions.  But hey, it's the TSA.

In a related comment the TSA thinks whole body scans are not unreasonable search noting that since they are done for a good reason, ie. security, they are therefore reasonable!  Someone ought to have the TSA read a first year law book.  Good intentions do not make a search legally reasonable as the courts have held on many occasions.

Common sense wonders why we continue to allow the TSA to grow and grow and grow while assuming more and more powers that contravene well established law.

Most recent airport security foolishness - body scanners

Body scanners, pat downs prompt traveler backlash

New airport security measures, particularly full-body scanners, are angering many passengers. One man's refusal of the scan has galvanized others across the US.

A video of a passenger refusing to undergo a full-body scan at an airport in San Diego has gone viral, propelling the man, John Tyner, to celebrity status.

His instant fame reflects widespread frustration with increasingly invasive security methods at US airports nine years after the 9/11 attacks.

Tyner was irate about having to either undergo a full-body scan or endure security officials' new pat-down methods, which the Associated Press said now include running hands up the inside of passengers' legs. The New York Times said the more aggressive pat-downs – "in which women's breasts and all passengers' genital areas are patted firmly" – began Nov. 1.

Pilots and crew are among those growing increasingly frustrated with security measures, according to the Associated Press. "I would say that pilots are beyond fed up," pilot Tom Walsh told AP. "The TSA is wasting valuable time and money searching the crew – who are not a threat."

It's been clear for some while that the TSA common sense is an oxymoron.  This is just the latest foolishness out of the TSA. 

For openers lets go back to the events that lead to the TSA.  For those that don't remember, aircraft were hijacked.  The hijackers gained access to the aircraft control cabins and crashed them into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon in one of the worst acts of terrorism in US history.  Something clearly needed to be done to prevent similar acts in the future.  Something was eventually done, though why it took months is a complete mystery, cockpit doors were reinforced.  Common sense to be sure and it is no longer possible to for a terrorist to enter the cockpit.

Now comes the TSA and enhanced airport security.  Today if you want to fly add 30 minutes to an hour to your travel time to allow for TSA screening.  Oh, don't plan on bring along a tube of toothpaste, a bottle of shampoo, can of shaving cream, etc. from home since the TSA wants to be sure that you don't bring along the chemicals to make a bomb.  Be sure to wear shoes that are easy to take off since the TSA wants to xray your shoes for explosives.  Don't forget to take your belt off.  Oh, be sure and take your laptop out of it's case.  And it you are one of the lucky ones, be prepared for enhanced screening AFTER you go through the metal detector and your luggage has been xrayed! 

Now to be fair, on one hand it's true that there have been no more aircraft hijackings.  What there has been in a continued stream of TSA failures when their 'security' measures are tested by both the TSA and independent testers!  The TSA doesn't like to talk about this but it's true.  Various tests have brought all manner of contraband including guns through TSA.  Oh, while we're in the area lets not forget the demonstrated inability of the TSA to stop contraband brought into the airport by workers! 

While it is true that the TSA's security measures will stop the stupid terrorist it's clearly not true that the TSA's passenger security protocols will stop committed smart terrorist.  What will stop those is on the aircraft.  You do remember that reinforced cockpit door, don't you?  The one that stops a terrorist from gaining entry.

Now the TSA brings us full body scanners and pat downs that in any other context would be sexual assault.  This helps stop what?  Common sense is completely mystified by this one.  It's expensive.  Passengers are offended.  It's unnecessary by any reasonable measure or necessity. And, most importantly, it doesn't stop the threat of someone blowing up an aircraft!  Don't forget that the aircraft controls are already secured behind a reinforced door.

It seems that flight crews are tired of the TSA's nonsense.  That's easy to understand as anyone that flies is tired of the TSA foolishness.  But common sense is offended when the flight crews argue that they are not a threat.  Now, it's likely true that flight crews are not a threat.  It's also likely true that neither are the children that the TSA routinely traumatizes or the millions of passengers still willing to fly!

For my part I've quit flying unless it's absolutely necessary.  I quit when it became clear that it's quicker to drive from Boston to NY than it is to fly.  Don't think so?  Just add the airport time to the drive time and do the math!  When I don't feel like driving I take the train.  It's almost as fast and much more comfortable than flying!  I'm a big fan of nationwide high speed rail.  Don't think it's practical.  Consider that when I was flying weekly between Boston and Atlanta the average ground speed including airport time was roughly 180 MPH.  That's right, three times the interstate speed limit, and less than half the Accela speed!  I even drive to Charlotte from Boston.  It takes roughly 14 hours, a bit more than twice the time it takes to fly when I include dealing with airports and, lets not forget, the TSA, and I don't have to rent a car when I arrive.

All of this is by way of providing a common sense view that the TSA is the poster child for a government entity that is entirely out of control.  Their security measures don't work particularly reliably as evidenced by test.  They are expensive and increasingly offensive and intrusive.  Common sense suggests that the TSA needs to be reigned in and management replaces with someone that has some appreciation of what's necessary and appropriate and what isn't.

Just a common sense POV, rant included.

Another polarized 'wave' election

Another polarized 'wave' election

Moderates fed up with both parties have led to rapid swings in control of Congress - much like the start of the 1900s.

By Thomas Fitzgerald

Inquirer Staff Writer

Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20101107_Another_polarized__wave__election.html#ixzz14bpTe0cX
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

Common sense says amen.  Occasionally the news manages to come near getting to the truth.  This article (worth reading) argues that the political middle is fed up with both the left and right given election results over the last couple of decades.  Common sense suggest that that's right.  Neither the radical right nor the liberal left represent the majority of American voters.  Ditto the Republican and Democratic parties. 

The recent election results are not an endorsement or mandate of the Republicans, rather they are a rejection of the politics of gridlock, of obstructionist Republicans and hyper liberal Democrats. 

Common sense suggests that we need real solutions to real problems.  That cutting taxes and spending is not THE solution to all problems.  That less government is not a solution to unbridled big business.  That more regulation doesn't create economic growth.  Common sense suggests that different problems have different solutions.  That some of these solutions involve less government intervention.  That others require more government intervention.  That neither the Republicans and the Democrats  represent what is best for America.  That it is time, long past time, for a third centrist political party that can govern in the interest of the majority political middle.

Tollerance, Tea Party, or None Of The Above

This video has been making the rounds and is interesting on several levels.  I put it on my Facebook page and got several comments.

First, I'll have to admit, there's a fair bit of common sense truth in the video and is funny!  But, that said, when I thought about it a bit I found troubling.  It's not that the arguments it makes about the issues aren't reasonable, they are, but rather that in the end it turns to ridicule.  Now, it is certainly true that much of what the radical right says is ridiculous and easily subject to ridicule.  But does that make everything they say ridiculous?  I don't think it does.

Consider the "tax and spend" notion.  My marginal tax rate when I add up all the taxes I pay is slightly more than 50%.  No kidding!  Don't think so?  Just add up your state, federal, property, sales, and excise taxes and see where you land.  History teaches that when marginal taxes exceed somewhere between 30%  and 40% of income societies become unstable and ultimately fail.  Don't think it's happening here?  Go back and look at the video, consider the 215,000 people that showed up for the "Sanity" rally, or those that showed up for the "Tea Party."  Common sense wonders if that reflects stability?

So perhaps the radical right has is reasonable in some of their issues.  Common sense suggest that the cause of a civil society can best be advanced by being civil even when engaged in humorous ridicule.  Just a POV.

Voting, campaign finance, and none

Voting would mean a lot more if one didn't have to hold your nose and could vote for someone actually qualified for office.  It would also make a good deal of common sense if campaigns were not financed by entities that can not vote in the election.  Want to change politics, change campaign financing.  I'm also a fan of the notion that "none of the above" should be a choice is all elections.  If "none" wins then we get a "do over" with new candidates.  Want to change politics, allow voters to just say no and require a new slate of candidates.  Just a common sense POV.

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

Stewart, Colbert preside over lighthearted, star-studded rally

By the CNN Wire Staff

October 30, 2010 6:38 p.m. EDT

He was speaking of what he called "the country's 24-hour politico pundit perpetual panic conflictinator." It did not cause the nation's problems, Stewart said, "but its existence makes solving them that much harder ... If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."

"There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats, but those are titles that must be earned," Stewart said. "You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and tea partiers, or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate -- just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe, not more."
Most Americans, he said, don't live their lives solely as Republicans or Democrats, but as "people who are just a little bit late for something they have to do, often something they do not want to do. But they do it."

Some may paint the nation as fragile and torn by hate, he said, "but the truth is ... we work together to get things done every damn day."

Common sense says AMEN.  We should work together to get things done.  Some 215,000 or so Americans of a variety of persuasions showed up for a "non-political" gathering.  While common sense might despair that our elected congress might be influenced by 215,000 voters on their doorstep as opposed to campaign contributions from vested interest, we can all hope that at some point after tomorrow, common sense working together for the interest of the American people might come first, not last.

Common sense says that it doesn't really matter if you are Republican, Democrat, or Unaffiliated.  If you want to change things the sign says it all.

New York Times

Jon Stewart and His Rally May Shun Politics, but Attendees Are Embracing It

By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER

Published: October 28, 2010

“To the extent that people are showing up because of their enthusiasm for the message behind the rally — that is, discontent with extremist rhetoric and divisive politics — that is a political statement, and that makes their participation political,” said Lauren Feldman, an assistant professor of communication at American University, who specializes in examining the nexus of entertainment and politics.

Common sense observes simply amen.  Ms Feldman is right, though it doesn't take a professor to understand it.  Common sense has long argued that the vast majority of politically centrist Americans are fed up with the right and the left, with both Republicans and Democrats.  One wonders how it is that neither of our political parties can break loose from their extremes and act in the best interest of Americans?  Perhaps it's time, long since past time, for a common sense centrist party since neither Republicans or Democrats seem to be able to find common sense candidates.

Stepped-on activist says she was no threat

For those not familiar with the events an activist protesting at a Rand Paul/Tea Party event was assaulted, forced to the ground, held down, and stepped on. The picture says it all.

Lauren Valle, who grew up in Massachusetts, was held down by supporters of Rand Paul Monday in Lexington, Ky. The man who struck her said he was concerned about Paul’s safety. (Wdrb-Louisville via Associated Press)

According to the Boston.com Ms Valle commented “This is an extreme example of the kinds of sentiments that people are feeling in many races across the country,’’ Valle told the Associated Press." Common sense very much agrees with Ms Valle.  Indeed, it causes one to wonder just how dangerously angry and violent politics has become.   If this kind of violence is tolerable then are we far away from the processes that leads to totalitarian regimes such as the Nazis and others? 

Understand that I'm not suggesting that the Tea Party should be equated with Nazism.  What I am suggesting is that violence masquerading as politics is at the heart of  fascism.  Common sense suggests that as a nation we should unequivocally reject it and candidates and parties that tolerate it.

Voter Disgust Isn’t Only About Issues

Click the link.  I'd normally offer a common sense view but this article actually mostly captures the issue.  While voters ARE disgusted about issues such as health care reform that doesn't actually address health care, doesn't address health care costs and creates an entitlement for health insurers; no energy policy; no middle class tax relief; and on and on;  they are even more disgusted with the unmitigated failure of both political parties to actually govern reasonably.  They are disgusted with elected officials more interested in serving their paymasters than the voters.  They are disgusted by a profoundly broken congress.  And so voters respond by trying the other idiot even knowing that the other idiot is just as bad as the current idiot.  Common sense suggests that it is long past time for a centrist party that is actually interested in governing.

Supreme Court Weighs Military Funeral Protests: Are They Free Speech?

ABC News: Do members of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutionally protected right to protest at the funerals of members of the military?
...
Albert Snyder sued for emotional distress and an invasion of his family's privacy, winning $5 million before the ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court. The court said that Westboro's protest was "rhetorical hyperbole" protected by the First Amendment.

Common sense is challenging here.

On one hand the first amendment is not an absolute right.  You can not, for example, scream fire in a crowded theater and then claim immunity for the foreseeable injuries as patrons flee.  Certainly the Westboro Baptist Church could reasonably foresee that one consequence of their actions would be emotional distress on the part of the deal solder's family.  It might even be argued that that was their intent.  But is this an injury in the sense of the theater example?  Is emotional devastation an injury that limits free speech during the conduct of a funeral? Does the integrity of a funeral, particularly the funeral for a fallen soldier trump free speech during the conduct of the funeral?  While it is certainly true that the conduct of the Westboro Baptist Church is extremely offensive, is it actionable?  What redress, if any, does Mr Snyder have?

Common sense suggests that as offensive as the church's action is that action is in fact protected in much the same way as name calling is permissible no matter it's offensiveness. Anti abortion groups are often enjoined from protesting, a free speech activity, within a certain distance of abortion clinics.  Likewise, adult establishments are often excluded near schools and other venues.  Common sense suggests that it is reasonable that the Westboro Baptist Church be treated similarly with respect to their protests.

Oct 6, 2010
David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

October 6, 2010

At issue Wednesday was whether the Maryland father of a Marine killed in Iraq could sue a Kansas family which protested near his funeral. The Phelps family not only held signs that said "Thank God for IEDs," but they also put on their website a message that accused Albert Snyder of having raised his son "to defy the Creator" and "serve the devil."

I clearly misunderstood the issue before the court.  If the issue is not can the church demonstrate but rather can they be sued, then, of course, they can.  As the courts questioning suggests, torts are often committed with words and words are indeed actionable.  Common sense and existing case law clearly hold so.  Being a church does NOT immunize one nor does free speech.

More health care cost

About 6 or so weeks ago my wife and I were out sailing with friends.  The boat hit an unexpected wave and I lost my balance landing bum first on a piece of 3/4" wide cockpit coming.  It hurt and I doubtless bruised my bum or damaged my coccyx.  It's been very painful to sit and especially to drive the car.  Naturally, when I went to the doctor I inquired about the injury as I was concerned about how much longer this was going to hurt.  Understand, I've had similar injuries in the past and I know they take a long long time to resolve and there isn't much that can be done about them.  Even so after six weeks I was starting to wonder how much longer.

Now here's the interesting part.  When I asked the doctor, she said at least another 6 weeks, perhaps longer.  Not the answer I was looking for, but an answer and helpful in setting my expectations.  Then somewhat to my surprise the doctor suggested that perhaps a pelvic x-ray was in order.  I asked her if that would change anything and she indicated that it wouldn't but might provide some reassurance and a better idea of healing time.  I don't know what a pelvic x-ray cost but at a guess I'd expect some hundreds of dollars.

Think about it for a bit.  The injury is over 6 weeks old.  I'm healing slowly but definitely healing.  There isn't any real treatment.  The x-ray won't change anything physically but might make me feel better emotionally.  Common sense suggests that it's not worth the cost.  Indeed, common sense suggests that it should never have been on offer.  That raises the interesting question of how much heal care is consumed not because it's medically necessary but because it might improve someone's emotional state.  I'll concede that there are certainly times when someone's emotional state is such that a medical procedure that doesn't really treat the underlying condition is justified.  But how ofter are we doing things just because we can or because the patient is a bit whinny?

Common sense says that we should remove the whinny factor from medical care.

Health care cost

We've now had health care reform a la fed.  Read insurance company entitlement program in trade for sensible industry practices restrictions.  But it's something, never mind that it did little to actually reduce health care cost.

With that as background I recently had an interesting experience in health care cost. 

Round 1 started innocently enough with a prescription.  It was about to expire so I asked my doctor to renew it.  Not a problem and she uses the laptop she now caries about thanks to computerization of the hospital to issue the reorder.  Now this is meant to be simple, efficient, and, of course, save cost.  Of course, when I go to pick up the prescription two weeks later I'm told that it's expired but not to worry the pharmacy will happily contact the doctor to reorder.  Never mind that the reorder was issued two weeks prior.  Looks like this computer stuff isn't working as well as it might.  Not to worry, I'm about to see the doctor in a couple of days for a followup visit and I'll deal with it then.


Round 2 starts the following Thursday when I show up for my followup visit.  Unfortunately, the scheduling computer thinks that my appointment was for the previous day.  Never mind the appointment card that clearly says it's today.  But not to worry, the doctor has a free appointment the following day.  OK, drive home and try again tomorrow.

Round 3 starts when I arrive at the doctors office only to be asked to sign a financial responsibility document since the insurance company now says that my primary care provider is my previous doctor.  Now I've been seeing my current doctor for over two years!  Also never mind that the doctors are part of the same clinic and the clinic has a service agreement that lets me see any doctor in the clinic without a referral.  Not to worry, sign the agreement and see my current doctor who happily tries to renew the original expired prescription again.

Round 4 begins when I contact my insurance company to deal with the primary care issue.  After being subject to 4 IVR , keying in 29 digits, and spending 8 minutes of my life I get the an agent call queue.  Two minutes later I get a really nice agent who seems surprised at the issue.  Six minutes and considerable conversation later it seems that the insurance company was doing some sort of system maintenance and decided to change my PCP.  The agent is apologetic and changes it back.

Now lest you think that I'm just upset about the inconvenience of this affair, I am, consider the cost.  Round 1, my doctor, the most expensive agent in this little drama, does something but in round 3 has to do it again.  That's waste.  Also in round 1 the pharmacy does something that should never have been needed to be done to begin with.  That's also waste.  In round 2 the doctor has a no show patient, me, and non-billable time.  That's waste.  I show up the following day and talk to a clerk who has to reschedule.  More waste and inconvenience.  Then in round 3 the doctors office has to prepare a document for me to sign since the insurance company has made a mistake.  Still more waste.  Later in round 4 the insurance company waste still more of their time and mine undoing the effects of their mistake.  Yet more waste.

Common sense suggests that this version of computerized medicine is certainly NOT more efficient or less costly.   On the contrary, this experience suggests that it is much less convenient and significantly more expensive.

Good news from Congress

In a fit of what apparently passes as good news from Congress our esteemed, I use that word with considerable tong in cheek, has decided to take up the pressing issue of the sound volume of TV commercials.  It's to high.  Now I'll have to admit that I've mixed feelings about this pressing issue. 

On one hand TV commercials are unbelievably loud.  Indeed, one of the motivators for my switching to only watching recorded TV is that I can skip the loud commercials.  So I agree that something should be done and since TV is regulated at the Federal level it needs to be a Federal action.  I'm not sure why Congress has to be involved as the FCC has considerable latitude under existing law, but what the hey, at least Congress is trying to do something.

On the other hand there is the problem of dealing with the truly important issues the country faces.  You know, things like, oh lets see, global warming, energy policy, extending tax cuts for the shrinking and struggling middle class, actually dealing with health care reform, promoting US jobs, etc. 

So it seems that Congress, having utterly failed to address the important problems facing the country, can take a crack at the irritants.  Perhaps this is what passes as common sense in our broken Congress.

Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities

‘(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site--

‘(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or

‘(2) is--

‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--

‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and

‘(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.

‘(b) Injunctive Relief- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action pursuant to subsection (c), the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities to cease and desist from undertaking any infringing activity in violation of this section, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A party described in subsection (e) receiving an order issued pursuant to this section shall take the appropriate actions described in subsection (e).

Section e provides that domains shall be blocked by DNRs.  That means that the DNR is legally required to block the IP. 

This is an interesting, read alarming bill.  It proposes that if an internet entity is allegedly engaged in what is already an illegal activity and punishable under the law can have their domain name blocked and thus be put out of business without a trial on the merits of the alleged infringement.

Common sense suggests that this proposal is at best illegal.  It proposes as a remedy a kind of prior restraint not on the offender but on domain name registration sites without a court hearing on the merits of the complaint.  It seems little more than yet another attempt by copyright holders to take punitive action without the burden of proving their complaint against an alleged infringement.  One is reminded of Viacom's recent litigation with YouTube wherein the court ruled in favor of YouTube.  Under this proposed bill YouTube would have been put out of business BEFORE the case was heard and Viacom LOST.

Copyrights are important to the protection of intellectual property to be sure.  But this is a very ill considered bill that attempts an end run around well established judicial processes.

Firestorm Erupts After Blogger Says His $400G Income Doesn't Make Him Rich

Todd Henderson, a law professor at the University of Chicago, usually kept his blog posts to matters of corporate law and the markets. But last week he made it personal.

He posted a portrait of his family finances to make his case that those who make more than $250,000 a year are struggling, like everyone else, to make ends meet -- even though people in that income bracket will see their taxes go up if President Obama succeeds in his plan to extend the Bush tax cuts only for low- and middle-income Americans.

“A quick look at our family budget, which I will gladly share with the White House, will show him that, like many Americans, we are just getting by despite seeming to be rich. We aren’t,” Henderson wrote. 

He said he and his wife, a doctor, paid $100,000 in federal and state taxes last year and $15,000 in property taxes. He wrote that they have a mortgage on a house they own a short distance from President Obama’s home, and they are paying off $250,000 in student loans. With an annual income of more than $400,000, he wrote, he and his wife are  far from super-rich.

...

But others disagree -- and none more bitingly than Prof. Bradford DeLong of the University of California at Berkeley, who dismissed Henderson’s posting as whining.

"By any standard they are rich,” DeLong said. "But they don’t feel rich.” 

He said the things Henderson takes for granted — retirement savings, private schools, new cars — are out of reach for most Americans, and he dismissed his complaint as a simple “cash flow problem.”

But Michelle Newton-Francis, a sociology professor at American University, said Henderson's blog had an impact because it showed “the country is redefining what it means to be rich and powerful.”

Common sense - 99% of Americans can NOT afford retirement savings, private schools, new cars and doubtless many of the things that Henderson assumes is his right!  $400,000 IS a lot of money.  It would buy the average house in suburban Boston for cash with money left over!  Henderson understandably doesn't want to pay more taxes.  No one does.  But if he's just getting by, he needs to look at how he's spending his money as he is by the standard of all but a fraction of 1% of Americans, rich.

As to Newton-Francis, it is NOT the country that is redefining what it means to be rich and powerful, it is the rich and powerful that want the other 99%+ of Americans to buy into the idea that they are not rich and powerful.  

Common sense suggests that it is long past time for Congress to begin acting on behalf of the average American not the rich and powerful who view themselves as entitled or big business that thinks shipping jobs overseas is OK. 

Senate GOP blocks bill that would promote less outsourcing

"Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 28, 2010; 12:34 PM

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a Democratic plan to encourage companies to bring jobs back from overseas, as a united GOP caucus voted against a motion to debate the measure on the Senate floor.  The motion failed 53 to 45.  The legislation would have raised taxes on corporations that shift operations overseas, costing U.S. jobs. It also would have awarded companies that bring jobs back from abroad by offering a two-year hiatus from payroll taxes for those positions."

So lets go slow.  Item 1, we're just coming out of the worst recession in many years.  Item 2, many middle class workers are still out of work.  Depending on whose numbers you like and on if you think discouraged workers should be counted somewhere between 9% and 19% unemployment!  Item 3, the middle class tax cut will not be extended because most Republicans and a few Democrats think that those making MORE than $250,000 per year should also get a tax cut.  Item 4, more than 90% of the benefits of the recent "small business" bill go to companies with MORE than 500 employees. And now, drum roll please, the Republicans don't think that we should encourage companies to bring jobs into this country or to penalize them for shipping jobs out of the US! 

Words like disgusting seem much to nice.  Common sense suggest that extending tax cuts to the middle class will help in this very troubled economy.  Common sense suggests that encouraging US jobs is, well, simply common sense.  Where have our politicians, particularly Republicans, gone that they've lost any semblance of common sense?

Vatican to pursue new legal strategy in U.S., lawyer says

(CNN) -- The Vatican will embark on a sweeping new legal strategy Monday in responding to allegations of sex abuse in the United States, CNN has learned.

Responding to a Louisville, Kentucky, lawsuit that seeks to depose top Vatican officials -- including Pope Benedict XVI -- the Holy See plans to file a motion Monday denying that the church issued a document mandating secrecy in the face of abuse allegations, as many victims allege, according to a Vatican attorney.

The Vatican's motion also will argue that bishops are not employees of the Holy See, exempting the Vatican from legal culpability in cases of alleged abuse in the U.S., said Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican's U.S.-based attorney.

Talk about people that just don't get it!  It now seems that the Vatican, that's who runs the Catholic church, now tells us that never mind all that money flowing to Rome, never mind that the Vatican appoints local Bishops, never mind that the Vatican exercises direct supervision of those bishops, and never mind any of the other numerous ways in which the Vatican has tried to interfere in the various legal proceedings around the ongoing sex scandal - we, the Vatican, aren't culpable! 

What really offends about this latest move is that it says quite clearly that the Catholic church sees this scandal not as a moral issue, which it most certainly is, but purely as a legal issue.  Now it's not that the scandal isn't a legal issue, it is, but from a religious perspective it is more importantly a moral issue.  The current position says that the Catholic church is about legality not morality.  That is at the root of what's wrong with the church's position.  That's why the sucking sound the Vatican hears are Catholics turning and walking away from an increasingly out of touch and corrupt organization.

Common sense suggests that we need only wait a bit longer and the Catholic church, certainly in the United States, will become completely irrelevant.  Perhaps it's time for that for clearly the Catholic church is no longer focused on morality and the care of it's members!

Voter anger, Republicans, Democrats, and Congress

That special Congressional primary season is much in the news today, as well it should be. 

Various commentators, Republican, Democrat, and Provocateurs (listening to them gives on to quickly conclude that they are about generating controversy and pumping ratings) have much to say.  Republicans say "the country is feed up with the Democrats and their liberal spending ways.  We'll take back congress!"  The Democrats say "the country is not as mad at us as the Republicans think.  We'll do OK."  The provocateurs simply go about baiting both the Republicans and Democrats in the hope of starting a televised food fight on their show.

All of this, however, seems to me to miss the mark.  It seems to me as you might gather from earlier posts that the real issue is incumbents.  It is simply no longer possible to believe that congress is not completely dysfunctional, particularly the senate.  To change it can only be accomplished by changing your congressman.  That's just common sense.  That you might regard your existing congressman as the lesser of two evils, as one surveyed voter remarked, while rational in the short term, insures that congress remains broken in the long term.  Such not now decisions are part of how we allowed problems that might have been resolved with much less difficulty when they first arose to now become crisis.  It is, common sense suggest, long past time to stop the cycle and replace congress in its entirety.

Common Sense, Safety, Consequences, and Payout - Gulf Oil Disaster

The current events in the Gulf of Mexico oil leak has reminded me of something I've long known to be true about technology and consequences.  There is a certain tendency to regard technology as somehow inherently safe. 
There's a sort of "If we can do it once or twice safely then it's safe." 

We see this notion frequently.  For example, oil tankers move oil all over the world every day without serious incident.  Therefore, moving oil by tanker is safe.  But is it?  We know about the Exxon Valdez who's accident destroyed a fishery.  We still don't know how long it might take the fishery to recover.  So are oil tankers safe?  Really safe?

The notion of safety is inexorably linked to consequences and payout. 

Suppose that you engage in an activity that is reasonably safe.  Suppose that the chance of accident is one in a thousand.  Would you view the activity as safe?  So far it's not really possible to say.  If the consequence of failure is small, say the loss of a $10 entrance fee then you might well regard the activity as safe since you are easily able to bear the consequence.  But suppose the consequence is that you and your family die.  Now is the activity safe?  Loosing your life and the lives of your family is a severe consequence.  One that few would risk unless the payout is very large.  Now suppose that the payout for success is that you and your family can live safely in a free society while the consequence of doing noting is that you and your family must live out your lives in an oppressive society.  Now is the activity safe, at least in the sense that you might rationally undertake it?

What does this have to do with the Gulf oil spill?  Consider.  Can oil wells be successfully drilled in deep water?  The answer, demonstrated by many such successful wells is clearly yes.  Can these wells be successfully operated without incident?  Again, based on experience, the answer is clearly yes.  Are they therefore safe?  Now we must deal with consequences and payout.  If the well operates successfully without incident we get oil to fuel our cars, power our homes, and drive our economy.  That's a very significant payout.  But if even one of these wells fails the consequence are an Exxon Valdez oil spill twice a week into the indefinite future and the destruction of a very productive fishery in the Gulf.  That's a very significant consequence.  Moreover, it's a consequence that may last for a very long time, certainly many 10s of years, likely many hundreds of years. 

Is the benefit from oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico that will produce oil for a few tens of years worth the risk of the destruction of a major fishery for many hundreds of years?  Common sense suggest that it probably isn't.  While the risk may be small, the consequence of failure is so large as to outweigh the benefits.

Common Sense Energy, Oil, and Wind

April 20, Transocean's Deepwater Horizon located about 40 miles southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi River explodes and catches fire.  It sinks two days latter.  It has not been possible to activate the blowout preventer and now some 210,000 barrels of oil are spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and will hit the shore sometime in the next few days.  A considerable effort is being made to control the spill but given the amount it is unlikely that serious damage to the biologically rich coast and surrounding waters can be avoided.

Mr Obama, who has recently moved to allow expanded offshore drilling, has said that BP is ultimately responsible for the cost of cleanup.  I find this troubling on several levels.

First, drilling in deep water is inherently difficult and risky as evidenced by similar incidents over the years.  After each incident we are assured again that the industry has learned from this regrettable event, corrected things, and it won't happen again.  Yet, of course, it does happen again.  This is certainly a troubling common sense reality given Mr Obama's proposals.

Second, beyond the issue of inherent safety, Mr Obama seems to regard this disaster as an issue of financial responsibility.  While it's nice to have someone to send the bill to for whatever cleanup is possible cleanup is not a cure as evidence by the continuing aftermath of the Exxon Valdeze where the long term effects are still being felt 20 plus years after the event and many years after an economic settlement.  Common sense and history shows that money will not make the Gulf whole, will not restore biologically critical coastal wetlands, and will not restore the Gulf fishery.


Third, though certainly not Mr Obama's doing, this occurs in the context of environmental, local (not in my backyard), and bizarre native American concerns over potential ice age cultural sites associated with Cape Wind!  Energy generation is never environmentally neutral!  I am reminded in this regard of photos I saw some years ago of the White Mountains all but stripped bare to provide lumber of firewood for Boston.  But we have choices in how we get energy.  We can choose technology that is less destructive such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal; or we can choose technology that is more destructive such as oil and coal; or we can choose technology that is actively dangerous such as nuclear.  Common sense suggests that we choose  the least damaging technology.

As I've noted previously, the United States has needed a common sense energy policy for many years.  It's time we look at the harsh reality of history and started to have one.

Supreme Court and religious expression. Common sense at last.

LA Times: In a shift away from strict church-state separation, the Supreme Court gave its approval Wednesday to displaying a Christian cross on government land to honor the war dead, saying the Constitution "does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

Speaking for a divided court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the 1st Amendment calls for a middle-ground "policy of accommodation" toward religious displays on public land, not a total ban on symbols of faith.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices reversed lower courts in California that had ordered the U.S. Park Service to remove an 8-foot-high cross that has stood in various forms in the Mojave National Preserve since 1934 as a memorial to World War I soldiers.

Every now and then common sense visits the supreme court.  If you take the time to actually read the constitution you'd discover that it says that the government can not establish a state religion, not that religious expression of any sort associated with government is strictly prohibited.  Thus we have "In God We Trust" on our money, have a Congressional Chaplin, etc.  To interpret a cross, Christmas display, the Ten Commandments and the like as an endorsement is just silly.

That said, the cross is in fact a Christian symbol.  There are many war dead that weren't not Christian.  Perhaps their sacrifice for our country should also be commemorated with their religious symbols.  Here it's worth noting that Frank Buono, a former National Park Service employee, sued to have the 8ft-high (2.4m) wooden cross covered or removed after the government agency refused to put up a Buddhist memorial nearby.  Common sense suggests that all our war dead should be commemorated regardless of faith.

Common Sense Energy - After 9 years!

Boston Globe: In a groundbreaking decision that some say will usher in a new era of clean energy, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today he was approving the nation's first offshore wind farm, the controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod.

"This will be the first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast," Salazar said at a joint State House news conference with Governor Deval Patrick. The decision comes after nine years of battles over the proposal. "America needs offshore wind power and with this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation," Patrick said.

The decision had been delayed for almost a year because of two Wampanoag Indian tribes' complaints that the 130 turbines, which would stand more than 400 feet above the ocean surface, would disturb spiritual sun greetings and possibly ancestral artifacts and burial grounds on the seabed, which was once exposed land before the sea level rose thousands of years ago. 

Salazar said he had ordered modifications to "minimize and mitigate" the impact of the project that would "help protect the historical, cultural, and environmental resources of Nantucket Sound." He said his approval would require Cape Wind to conduct additional marine archaeological surveys and take other steps to reduce the project's visual impact.

Good news for those given to a common sense energy policy!  Nine years on Cape Wind is finally approved.  Wow, it only took 9 years to reach a stunningly common sense decision!    This entirely common sense proposal was delayed by Senator E. Kennedy who has a home in Nantucket.  That rimes with not in my back yard.  The Wampanoag Indians opposition on ancestral grounds and sunsets would be laughable if it hadn't actually been taken seriously. Likewise concerns for fish, birds, and migrating marine mammals.  One wonders if it's possible for the US to do what several European countries have done and actually deploy sensible renewable clean energy resources, even if they are made by that nice German company Siemans!

In the same article this interesting bit:  

US Senator Scott Brown criticized Salazar's decision, saying it was "misguided."

"With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions we have heard from proponents of the project," Brown said in a statement.

Duh!  It would seem that Mr. Brown believes continued reliance on fossil fuels must be good.  Or perhaps jobs to construct this facility don't count.  As to tourism and fishing, wasn't that studied to death without finding any negative impacts. Likewise, aviation is a bit of a laugh.  The FAA has minimum altitude limits, the lowest of which is 500'.  Presumably safe with respect to a 400' wind turbine.  You already know what I think about the "Native American" issue.  Mr. Brown might want to go to common sense camp.

This country needs renewal energy resources.  We've needed them for the last 40 plus years.  That it took 9 years to approve an entirely common sense modest proposal is simply irresponsible.  It's long past time that common sense renewal energy like wind, solar, and geothermal were a major common sense part of our energy policy.

Arizona, Immigration, and Common Sense

Arizona's recently enacted immigration law seems to have really stirred up lots of people.  Consider:

• AP: MEXICO CITY -- Mexico's government is warning its citizens about travel to Arizona because of a tough new immigration law there.
  
  The travel alert from the Foreign Relations Department urges Mexicans in Arizona to "act with prudence and respect the framework of local laws."
  
  It says that the law's passage shows "an adverse political atmosphere for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors." 
  
  This from the same Mexico that published a pamphlet showing how to enter the United States illegally never mind that the law concerns illegal immigrants not US citizens or legal visitors.  But hey, if you're exporting hundreds of thousands of your own illegally why not!

• April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told U.S. lawmakers her agency has “deep concerns,” about a new immigration law in Arizona and said the U.S. should pursue a comprehensive overhaul of its immigration policies.
  
  
  Attorney General Eric Holder, at a news conference in Washington, said he also has concerns and said the Justice Department is considering going to court to challenge the Arizona statute.
  
  
  The new Arizona law “will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing serious crimes, in addition to violating our nation’s immigration laws,” Napolitano told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
  
  
  This bit of nonsense by Ms Napolitano is really priceless.  She suggests that we a) "pursue a comprehensive overhaul of immigration policy."  Lets not wonder that having had several serial amnesties over the years in the name of immigration reform and consistently not enforcing the immigration laws hasn't worked.  No.  Instead lets do it again!  She goes on to suggest b) that we "focus" on those committing serious crimes.  Perhaps it's just me bit isn't illegal immigration a crime, isn't the Federal Government responsible for border security, hasn't the Federal Government failed in that responsibility, isn't Ms Napolitano's agency responsible for border security, didn't Ms Napolitano while governor of Arizona not only not deal with the problem but twice veto similar bills?  Perhaps Ms Napolitano needs to go to common sense camp.  As to Mr Holder, I wonder if he understands that the Federal Government failed in its responsibility.

Common sense suggests that notwithstanding the dangers inherent in the Arizona law, illegal immigration is a serious problem and the Federal Government has utterly failed in it's duty.  It would of course be better if stated didn't have to resort to state law in this matter.  But given that Arizona and many other states have been invaded by hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and the Federal Government has failed to act, common sense requires that something be done.

Today's idocy in the Senate: Let's replace the children with adults!

San Francisco Chronicle: Senate Republicans united Monday to block debate on legislation that would make the most far-reaching changes in financial industry regulation since the Great Depression - slowing but probably not stopping a bill that has been propelled by angry voters who want a crackdown on Wall Street.

The 57-41 vote marked the first Senate showdown over the issue. Sixty votes were needed to end GOP delaying tactics. But no Republicans voted to debate the bill, and they were joined by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

...

Their principal aims are to close loopholes they believe will allow government bailouts of failing firms, add restrictions on the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, limit the power of the consumer agency and ease proposed regulations on derivatives - complex financial instruments that contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.

So the republican notion seems to be that the existing proposed bill isn't strict enough, at least, that's what they say.  Their fix for this lack of control is to limit the power of government and to ease restrictions on derivatives!  Common sense has clearly left the Senate, if it was ever there.  As I have noted previously lack of regulation as a result of repeal of existing regulations in the name of financial reform was at the heart of the recent banking failure.  Derivatives, which many have regarded as the toxic nuclear bombs of finance, were a major factor in the collapse.

Common sense also suggests that it's time for the existing Senate to be replaced.  We have an election coming up so how about if it's an incumbent voting for the other candidate?

Common sense suggests that serious regulation is long overdue and that derivatives should be closely regulated.  But, hey, that's just common sense and the Senators we employ don't seem to feel the need for common sense.

Will congress ever grow up and behave like adults that care about the countrie's needs?

Washington (CNN) -- A climate-change bill that was scheduled to be unveiled at a news conference Monday is now up in the air after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina walked out of talks.

Graham had worked with Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent from Connecticut, to unveil details of their "tri-partisan" climate-change legislation.

But Graham declared Saturday that he was walking out of talks because of Democratic efforts to bring up an immigration reform package.

"Moving forward on immigration -- in this hurried, panicked manner -- is nothing more than a cynical political ploy," Graham wrote in a sharply-worded letter sent to business, religious and conservation leaders that he has been working with on the climate-change legislation.

This is all to typical of Congressional behavior.  Here we have Senator Graham, who rather sensibly worked with his colleagues on a very important issue for America, deciding that since everyone else won't play by his rules he'll just kill the whole effort.  It strikes me as rather like a kid getting in a snit and taking his ball and going home so no one can play! 

Common sense suggests that it's long past time for our Congressmen to grow up and behave like adults that care about the countries needs.  But hey, that's just a common sense adult view, not a political view!

Medical Reform? It's NOT about insurance! It's about cost!

(CNN) -- When Godfrey Davies learned he needed surgery to remove polyps blocking his nasal airways, the self-described bargain shopper set out on a mission to find an affordable surgeon. He quickly learned a good deal is hard to find.

"The total numbers they were throwing at me were just incredible. I couldn't believe it," he says.
Davies, who is semiretired from his real estate business and uninsured, says he received estimates from two surgeons. When hospital, anesthesia and incidental fees were all tallied, the cheapest price he could find in Indianapolis, Indiana, was $33,127 -- which he would need to pay out of pocket.

"I was speechless." Davies recalls. "It was absolutely out of the question financially for me to have this done under those circumstances."

Frustrated that his bargain shopping saved him so little, Davies called on family in the United Kingdom for assistance. When they told him they had found a private hospital in Wales that would perform the surgery for $2,930 [or £1,897], Davies didn't think twice.

He purchased a $768 round-trip ticket, and on March 18, he boarded a flight to the UK to have his polyps removed there at a savings of nearly $30,000. 

Common sense, it's NOT about insurance!  It's about cost! 

Davies, who is originally from Wales and has been a U.S. citizen since 2002, says he was disappointed about having to travel more than 4,200 miles for such a simple procedure. But ultimately money was the deciding factor.

"$33,000 versus $3,600 ... I can put up with a lot of inconvenience to save that kind of money."

Any questions?