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.