As you can see, Common Sense has undergone a facelift. After 3 1/2 years, I felt it was time for a change. I hope you like it. Of course, being a writer and not a web designer I couldn’t have done this alone. Many thanks go out to my designer, Anna. Not only does she do great work, she’s very professional in every way. If you are thinking of a redesign for your own site, click on the “Design” link at the bottom of the side bar and contact her. You won’t regret it.

Other minor changes have been made here to make the site more user friendly and to put forth a cleaner look. You can find my blogroll on its own page. (see above in the header bar.) Likewise, links to important activist sites now appear on the “Act Now” page. (also in header bar above.) And my pet project, “Make Me A Millionaire Today” has it’s own page too. Additionally, all previous posts can still be accessed through the search feature or by perusing the archives. Comments are still accepted, read, and occasionally replied to.

Finally, the blog itself is now powered by WordPress instead of Blogger. I’ve been using WordPress over at Bring It On! for some time now and really enjoy its complex simplicity. It’s user-friendly in a way that Blogger never really was.

So that’s the skinny on why I’ve been away for so long. Now that Common Sense is back up and running, I’ll be posting again with more regularity. And as always, you can continue to read fine Ken Grandlund articles at Bring It On!

Thanks for your continued readership and participation on Common Sense.

Now, back to business.

Common Sense….an inborn trait that most of us possess. Common sense is the ability to view a situation and discern the proper thing to do. Proper as defined by our system of laws and morals. Common sense developed to warn us that all was not right in the world around us. Its daily application probably kept our ancestors from becoming dinner long enough to propagate the species. Without this ability, humankind could not have gone as far as it has. As our capabilities progressed, as we tamed nature, common sense spread into more areas of our lives. We learned to hone the instinct of common sense and apply it to all areas of life. Common sense lets you know that an umbrella can keep you dry on a rainy day. Common sense reminds you to use the bathroom before boarding a seven-hour flight. Common sense says that robbing the bank will get you arrested. We all possess, to some degree, a measure of common sense.

Why then does it seem that so many of our legislators and educators and scientists lack this innate ability? Or do other, less attractive traits overshadow the application of common sense in today’s daily life? It is difficult to believe that the highly educated leaders or our society could lack such a basic survival skill as common sense. Therefore, we can only surmise that they suppress this ability for some purpose. What could cause someone, especially someone entrusted with the public welfare, to abandon the one trait that warns of trouble or danger? Whatever it could be, you can be sure that the suspension of common sense is often accompanied by two things- personal profit of some kind, and eventual downfall.

The personal profit derived can take shape in many ways. For some, financial reward is enough to do the trick. For others, it is the thought of gaining power that makes the sharp eye dull. Some just seek the perception of greatness, even if only over a peer. The form of profit is as different as the people who throw away their common sense. If their transgressions come to light, though, and the clarity of what should have been done is addressed, those who seek profit usually end up taking a fall. And eventually, when the cards come tumbling down, the mess they leave behind lingers like an old piece of Limburger cheese.

Today, our leaders seem to embrace the lack of common sense through the use of “Political Correctness.” The belief that calling a black kettle blue will result in more harmony between all the pots and pans has not proven itself true. The hope that by embracing all behavior types or offering all things to all people will create a better world has been refuted by the state of our society. Our schools, in an effort to be all things to all people, have instead failed in doing what they were designed to do, which is to teach our children the fundamentals of knowledge. Our industries, in an effort to earn more profit than the competitor, have shown our workers that loyalty is passé. Our government, in an effort to consolidate power through targeted pandering, has sold our freedom to the highest bidder or the biggest whiner. And in proliferating the use of “PC Lingo,” this insidiousness has penetrated all of our lives. Political correctness has made us afraid to tell the truth in plain, common terms. We obfuscate, intimidate, procrastinate, and segregate ourselves while the policy wonks look on. We marginalize our similarities and exacerbate our frivolities to the point of absurdity in an effort to gain a supposed advantage over someone or something. And in the process of playing along, we suspend our common sense. We forget that we are the ones getting the short stick. We buy into the nonsense and blissfully go along for the ride.

This has been happening now for a generation at least. The “Why can’t we all just be friends” crowd has morphed into the “You’ll never suffer like I have so just pay up and go away” crowd. We act like a bunch of PC morons, bumping into walls that we helped to build. And the worst part of all is we’re passing it on to our kids. We are not only managing to handicap them with this madness right from the start, we’re crippling them by not nurturing their common sense. Because we’ve already turned ours off. I’m no conspiracy goofball, but if the goal of PC-ness was subjugation of the masses by way of mental anesthetizing, the organizers must surely be pleased. What better way to control everyone than by not letting the truth be heard and judged accordingly. What better way than to create so many obstacles to the common sense way that no one bothers to look for it. What better way than to brand your opponent as insensitive, surely today’s equivalent of heretic, blaspheme, or barbarian.

Most of the world’s problems come from either a lack of common sense or a lack of will. Ruthless, corrupt, or self-aggrandizing organizations or governments that cause only harm to their people operate on a lack of common sense and the exploitation of lack of will. Common sense dictates that if success is derived from productivity, and if productivity relies on content people, then to harm the people will not cause success, and failure is at some point certain. But the exploitation of the people’s lack of will to change their government, either through fear and repression or by apathy and ignorance, usually guarantees that those “in charge” will be around long enough to cause some long term damage. Often, when they are exposed, they are replaced by another with the same tactics, albeit different goals. And so the whole circle begins again.

We hear and see examples of this growing menace, this lack of common sense, every day. We read stories in the papers about stupid criminals or corrupt politicians or spoiled entertainers and the stupid things they have done. We laugh or shake our heads and then forget about it and go on our way. We act outraged though when public policy appears to slight anyone, and enact legislation to ensure that everyone gets their daily hug of encouragement. We attempt to make the world fair for everyone, often forgetting that by changing a rule to favor Jane, we have now altered John’s world and have to make a rule to cover that, which screws up Jack’s day and on and on. We used to learn that life isn’t fair and that the world is a tough place. Well that’s still true today. And while it’s noble to try to make everyone happy, we can’t forget to use our common sense in doing so. Rekindle the spirit of compromise for the general good and extinguish the PC nonsense. We have the capacity, as a species, to work and live harmoniously and still disagree about things. We have the ability to organize our societies in ways that benefit the majority without subjugating the minority. These are things that we have the means to achieve. We just have to use our common sense.

Our great task is to show that only through the generous application of Common Sense can we ever hope to live in peace and have the chance for prosperity. The traits for survival exist in us all. Societal survival requires mutual trust based on the common welfare. I know, in my heart of hearts, that we are not completely lost. There are enough of us out there who still believe in calling a black kettle black, and if the kettle has a problem then he ought to look in the mirror. The truth is what it is. And common sense helps us recognize the truth.

Out of the thousands of political blogs, it is an honor to know that one of my readers felt my writing good enough to nominate. To cut through all the clutter in the blogosphere and get people to think about the issues we all face is the whole point of Common Sense. To have achieved that goal is honor enough.

But c’mon, there’s also bragging rights at stake here. I have posted links to all four articles under the Koufax banner for you to read, should you care to offer me a vote. If you wish to do so, click the banner and you will be taken to the category, where your comment will count as a vote. There are just a few days left until the initial votes will be used to determine a finalist round. So far, I’m about a dozen short. But even though the leaders are some pretty big name blogs, I am running in the upper middle of the pack. Every vote really does count. I’d like to be in that finalist group, if you think my series has merit.

There are some other blogging friends being nominated also…Courting Destiny in Best Writing and Best Blog (non-professional), Bring It On for Best Blog Community, Brother Kenya’s Paradigm for Most Deserving of Wider Recognition and Best New Blog, Bob Geiger for Best Post, and Me4President for Most Humerous Blog. Give them a vote too, if you happen to head over.

So thanks for your continued readership and thoughtful comments. I guess I’ll keep this up for a while longer. You can also catch shorter pieces that I write from time to time at Bring It On to supplement your reading here. Along with my diary entries, you will find a whole host of great writers to read and converse with.

Thanks for your indulgence. Continue reading below for the most recent posts. I’ll return with more news next week.

If you ever watched Seinfeld, the title of this essay will immediately reveal the nature of the topic. For those of you who haven’t, this essay is about homosexuality and its quest for equal recognition under the law. As previously inferred in the essay Sex, Morality, and the Law, the practice of homosexuality in and of itself should not be, and is not, of any legal importance to the well being of society and as such, has no business being legislated. Homosexuals are no different from anyone else, except for their sexual preferences. They eat, breathe, work, sleep, think, feel, and love just as any other human being does. They look just like other people. They sound like other people. They are our friends and neighbors and family members. Yet for some reason, they are set apart from the heterosexual majority, as if they deserve less from this country and less from our laws.

What arguments exist that makes this segregation seem reasonable? Those who condemn the gay lifestyle typically use one of several justifications for discriminating against homosexuals: religion, nature, or family values. One of the oldest, yet still quite popular, justifications used is that of religion. Early religious doctrines outlawed homosexual behavior as abominations in the eyes of god, a concept based in part on the assertions that sex is bad, and though sex is bad, it’s okay if it makes more babies who will grow up and worship god. The corollary being that god only allows sex to make babies, and since homosexual activity will never result in offspring it is wrong. But more than just wrong, it is an affront to god to abuse his method for perpetual glorification by using the gift of life for mere pleasure. From this logic comes the dictum that homosexual behavior is a sin and should be outlawed.

The obvious flaw with this argument lays not so much in the description of how babies are made, but the idea that sex equals babies is universally held and therefore deserves legal status. But this is often the mistake with arguments based solely on theological reasoning, because the nature of our religious institutions prevent them from admitting any fault with their religious doctrine, keeping them from recognizing the contradictions within their own holy texts regarding the treatment of people as free individuals while insisting that their actions are free only if god doesn’t object, which he pretty much always does. Since the religious argument’s only justification is to please god, which is highly subjective, this argument is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

In a similar vein, those who would argue that homosexuality “just isn’t natural” have a hard time making that claim stick. Their main premise is identical to the religious premise, only without the god part. Basically, the argument relies on the notion that sex is basically a procreative behavior, and that sexual encounters that can’t possibly produce offspring are therefore against the natural design that clearly gave male/female opposites the complimentary parts for achieving this end. Though less judgmental regarding the pleasurable effects of sex, this only applies to heterosexual behavior, being fringe benefits for helping nature run her course.

The problem with this argument is that when it is examined further along the lines of “natural design,” it could be argued that homosexuality in itself is of natural design too. After all, if humans are creatures of nature, then our variations are natural as well. If among these variations one results in homosexual behavior, then isn’t that by natural design also? As it must be so, then homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or bisexuality or even asexuality. The mere fact that homosexuality constitutes a minority of the population is irrelevant in this context, since the percentages are also set by natural design. If we know anything about the natural world, it is that in all species, variation abounds. This argument actually proves itself wrong when allowed to run a logical course, so it is not sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

That leaves us with the last ditch effort to find a reason for justifying the segregation of homosexuals and equal recognition under the law. The “family values” argument. This argument begins with the premise that for children to be raised to become productive citizens, the family unit should contain a man and a woman. This is the most important facet of the family values argument. As long as there is a man and a woman together as parents, the family values requirement has been satisfied. Since homosexual couples can’t meet this requirement, the can’t become a “real family.” Since a “real family” is the only way to properly raise children, for the good of society, all legally recognized families must be of this basic design.

The family values argument pretends to preserve the family unit, but makes no other real efforts towards solving the actual problems in today’s families. What is more harmful to the cohesion of family units: divorce or two parents who love each other and want to stay together, but happen to be the same sex? Which is more damaging: the lack of parental participation or having two moms’ at the mother/daughter tea? Which is more debilitating for a child: an abusive natural parent or seeing his two dads’s kissing? The family values argument makes no real effort to encourage heterosexual families to create and maintain secure, stable, emotionally supportive families for children, which would better reflect the concept of valuing the family. Instead, they only seek to prevent homosexuals from participating in one of life’s great joys and endeavors, the task of parenthood. Because the real truth about the family values argument, the dirty little secret, is that this argument is based on plain old bigotry, dressed up in its finest clothes. It’s discrimination in its purest form and when it’s hypocrisy is revealed, it proves to be the least sufficient for denying legal status and must be dismissed.

As this leaves us with no other arguments that can justify the unequal legal status homosexuals currently endure, it is the duty of this government to remove any barriers that prevent homosexual couples from enjoying the same legal status heterosexuals have with regards to marriage, adoption, taxes, work benefits, and on and on. Science seems to support the assertion that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, something hardwired into a person’ genetic code. Religion and bigotry (not always the same, mind you) insist that it is simply a behavioral issue that can easily be repressed or reformed or outlawed into extinction. The scientific view has more going for it, in terms of common sense, and it has the added benefit of not legislating religious morality by proxy.

Removing the barriers for homosexual couples has no effect on individual couples’ relationships. How many people do you know that would throw away their hetero relationships the minute gays could get married because now their own marriage was worthless? Allowing gay people the chance to share thei
r life with someone they love does not weaken the bonds of monogamy and child rearing. It only adds to the number of people finding individual happiness together and passing that happiness to future generations. And it strengthens the bonds of society through the continued affirmation in the belief for freedom and equality for all citizens.

There is something wrong with our government and the way it is run. I’m not just talking about the federal government, but our state and local governments too. Lacking common sense leadership, beholden to corporate interests and finances, cornered by special interests and threatened lawsuits, and muzzled by political party philosophies, our governments are about as responsive as a sea sponge and accountable to nothing. Overlapping regulations, agencies, and missions create an atmosphere of duplicity and waste while creating barriers between themselves and the people they purport to serve.

To make matters worse, the American public has become so distrustful of government that they distance themselves from it at every opportunity. With smaller percentages going to the polls, and an even smaller number actually knowing much about the candidates or propositions before them, government leaders are often picked according to who has the better sound bites, bigger budgets, and nicer hair. Such actions only serve to ensure that government will become less responsive to a public who largely ignores them, thus causing further estrangement by both parties, and on and on. The cycle perpetuates itself until it spins out of control. Propelled by its own inertia, an unchecked government moves backwards in history, becoming less responsive to the needs of its citizens and less representative of the people as a whole.

So what can we do about it? How can we retake government and make it accountable, efficient, and responsible? The biggest problem in government today stems directly from the political parties themselves. Although nothing in the Constitution requires or advocates it, our government is largely controlled by two main parties- the Republicans and the Democrats. There are numerous other small parties as well, but we’ll deal with “The Big Two.” The Democrat and Republican parties have created a divisive representational system, forcing constituents to choose a side. In an effort to gain members, each party portrays the other side as bad for America, bad for families, bad for you and me. Their messages have become so successful in fact, that the American people believe themselves to be split 50-50, creating gridlock and animosity of epic proportions. The parties’ successful attempt to make government look like a boxing match has the added benefit of distracting Americans from paying attention to what is really happening. While we’re all busy socking away at each other, our political parties have quietly carved up the country into “political safe havens,” where they can be sure of re-election, and thus less responsive. While we’ve been watching our tax dollars disappear, they have been securing fat cat deals for benevolent corporate donors and lining up lucrative post-public careers. And all the time, we’ve forgotten that government isn’t supposed to be a sport. Government is a public service, a public duty, and a public privilege.

Republicans and Democrats alike proclaim to have differences big enough to drive a truck through. Big Business vs. Pro-Labor. Tax and Spend vs. Fiscal Prudence. Law and Order vs. Nanny State. In truth though, the two parties have much more in common than they would have you believe. Their real goal is to consolidate power, not for the benefit of providing the public with better service, but for personal gain for their benefactors and themselves. They are both beholden to large corporate donors and labor unions, which, due to the bizarre nature of our campaign regulations, bankroll their ambitions to public office. These kinds of politicians may start out altruistically enough, but the minute they take their oath of office, there are but indentured servants, paying off a debt through favorable legislation, selective enforcement of regulations, and preferential treatment. They are at the mercy of party leaders, who in turn are being controlled by corporate and industry demands. Neither party has an interest in simplifying our government so that it can better serve the people. Neither party has an interest in fiscal responsibility. Neither party has a respect for the laws of this country, finding every loophole and exploiting every nuance. And neither party has respect for you, the taxpayer, the citizen, the American.

Government was created to provide certain basic needs of society. It provides public security. It regulates and enforces laws. It creates and regulates an economic base for business and labor. It provides some level of infrastructure. It defends the inherent rights of humanity, namely freedom of religion and thought and the chance for a happy life. Everything that our government does should fall into one of those main categories.

I think we all agree that we expect government to protect the integrity of our borders from attack and to defend our interior to its best ability. We expect government to fight for our interests abroad to further our safety as a country. We expect government to enact laws that apply to everyone and to enforce those laws equally. We agree that acts like murder, rape, theft, and assault, in all their many forms, should be illegal and punishable. We value the freedom to worship any religion we choose, to learn what we want to learn, to go where we want to go. And we expect our government to respect those freedoms and nourish them. We all want our children to grow up happy, in safe neighborhoods, and going to good schools. We all want to be able to provide for our families and give them something special now and then. We all want to enjoy good health and access to good health care. We have a lot more in common than the political parties would have you believe.

It is true that in finding our way to a common goal, we often come across many rivers that lead to the lake. The trick is in navigating the best stream at the right time. Unfortunately, our politicians aren’t even in the same boat. By focusing on their task of division, they try to get us to ignore that we have much in common. They want to keep us at odds so they muddy the waters by obscuring the true tasks of government. Instead, they highlight manufactured or sensationalized differences between “them and us.”

The only way to shake the grasp of a stagnant government is to abandon the parties en masse. A successful American government need not be dependant on artificial labels. Americans from both “sides” should re-register as independents, cast aside their party platforms and recognize candidates who use Common Sense. Choose leaders who shun labels and stand for principals we can agree on. We must understand that public service is a duty and an honor and choose leaders who believe that too. Only by denouncing the politics of partisanship can the business of government truly take place.

This would be a start in putting government back into the hands of the people. The very nature of democracy demands compromise before advance, and in this current political split, we need to not only abandon the parties individually, but abandon the politicians too. Doing anything less would prevent any meaningful reform. Look at the candidates, not their political affiliation. Don’t believe that party affiliation truly reflects who they are, or who you are either. Critically evaluate all candidates, especially independents, and find out where they stand on the issues. If no independents are on the ballot, find one and support them. Make politicians stand on their own feet and explain why they deserve the honor of repr
esenting our interests. Don’t let them hide behind boorish party talking points. To ensure that there will be plenty of non-affiliated candidates, encourage and support potential candidacies.

We must always remember that we do not owe it to politicians to keep them in office or to agree with their policies. Rather they owe it to us to defend our interests and to ensure that their policies are in line with our needs. We owe it to ourselves to make sure they deliver.

Update for 2006: As the administration continues it’s assault on the rule of law and erases the freedoms of American citizens, Democrats are finally attacking Bush, Cheney, and their administration. I wish them well in this endeavor. But I believe that even if they succeed in their efforts to spurn the administration, America is only safe from the worst abuses of political power. Even if Democrats regain control, American government is awash in corruption, unbridled pork spending, and tailor-made policies that ultimately do not benefit average citizens. Independent politicians could do the job of fighting irrational spending, inane programs, and failure bound policies if given the chance. At the very least, a healthy measure of independents could force the parties back to honest governance.

Most readers of Common Sense already understand that I am no fan of the current administration. My disgust with the Bush presidency stems partly from the basic ideology they operate from and partly from the total incompetence they have shown in their policies and the implementation of them. This administration has eroded our national reputation in the world at large, has sacrificed the future opportunities of the poor and middle classes while helping the rich get richer for the sake of being richer, and distorted the rule of law as suits their whim. The bulk of the Republican members of Congress have marched along with the Bush agenda, abetting this shameless administration while walking hand in hand with their big money donors all the way to the bank. Corruption investigations of prominent Republican lawmakers, aides, and businessmen have exposed this party for what it has become, and rank and file Republicans across the country should be outraged. In 2006, maybe the Republicans can reclaim their party from the greedy and the warmongers and reach back to their roots supporting fiscal sanity, less intrusive federal government policies, and rational foreign policy objectives. And maybe they can restrain the vocal religious minority in their ranks who wish to legislate their theological doctrines, recognizing that religion belongs with the individual, not with the loudest proselytizer.

The Democrats seem energized at times and lackluster at others. So far, they have not been much of an opposition party during the Bush years, and they certainly have not been a party of ideas. Typically, the Democrats have served only as a bulwark against the most extreme positions of the Bush administration, while helping to pass or idly standing by as the face of this country becomes less and less familiar. Belatedly, Democrat lawmakers have begun to pressure the administration as more questionable practices are brought to light, but they are at the very least complicit in the growing degradation of this nation. In 2006, Democrats need to develop a vision that speaks to today’s citizens and problems, relying less on the status quo and more on leadership with the vision and courage to chart a new path for these tricky times. They need to envelop their disparate supporters and unify their agenda for change, while continuing to challenge the current leadership’s king-like tendencies. And they need to shed the perception that they are elitists and embrace core American voters.

Despite the corruption that runs wild in the halls of government, the real work lies with the American people. In all of Congress (435 Representatives, 100 Senators) there are only 2 Independent legislators. They are both from Vermont. With millions of Americans discarding the label of Republican or Democrat, where is their voice in Congress? 2006 should be the beginning of a groundswell of independent candidates and voices in the political process. Independents can espouse the best ideas of both parties without worrying about a “base ideology.” They can use real common sense and work for legislation that benefits all citizens, not just their party faithful. America should not be a country of us versus them. It should be a country of us, with laws created that balance the personal freedom of the individual with the necessary sacrifices of the whole. If we are ever to move forward and make the changes necessary to keep America safe, competitive, and prosperous in the future, we need to hear from more Americans who are not captive to an exclusionary ideology.

The issues that loom on the horizon include real health care reform for all Americans; real education reform that puts students first and adults second; a real energy policy that advances American energy independence; a real immigration policy that is enforced and viable; a focused and well thought out plan to end the war in Iraq and combat real world terrorism; and ending the assault on American citizens by our government, including the decay of civil rights, the inane drug war, and the plight of the poor.

2006 will be more than just a political year. We will surely face new natural disasters that expose our weakness when facing nature’s wrath. We will likely learn about more political and business corruption. We will surely face more terrorism around the world. 2006 will not see an end to these problems. But the current path we are on isn’t making our world a better place for anyone outside the political and business class that always benefits from a small minded, closed government. Let’s see 2006 be the year the people took back their government, their lives, and their future.

I began writing for Common Sense almost a year ago as a place to formalize my own political and social beliefs. It was important for me, as an individual, to really examine the issues of the day and come to some sort of conclusion about how I felt about them. But as I wrote each essay for myself, it became apparent that I needed to share my thoughts with other people, partly to get some feedback from people I didn’t know and partly because the act of writing solely for oneself can lead to abandoning the project entirely. I didn’t want to stop writing, so I began the blog. I thought that if people began to read what I wrote, and offer comments and their own ideas, then I would have the momentum to complete what has become, for lack of a better term, my political platform. Surprisingly, it worked out pretty well. And to each and every one of my readers, I offer my thanks.

I always knew that a day would come when the underlying political philosophy that I was developing would be completed and I would have to decide what I would do next. Somewhere along the line, I decided to try and turn these essays into an actual book, with the hope that I could find a publisher who could help launch my thoughts for reform to a larger audience. In that vein, I have been diligently compiling essays, putting them into manuscript form, preparing proposals and researching agents and publishers. There is still some work to do, but if all goes well, I should be ready to begin shopping Common Sense around within the next few weeks. I have no idea how far I will get, but if the comments from readers are any indication, there is not only a market for these ideas, there is a desire for reform that is not being met by the political masters of the day.

But as I come to the conclusion of this particular project, I am left asking myself “What next?” Writing for the blog, and conversing with all of you through the comment sections, has been as enjoyable as it has been energizing. But I think that all my writings about reform and change could become little more than hollow meanderings if I simply let it stop here. With that in mind, the answer to my question became clear. It is time to move from simply writing about change to actually working for change.

What does that mean? Well, for starters, I have begun a project with some other political bloggers who also sense a need for political reform. This project is still in its infancy, but our goal is to create a vocal presence in communities across the country, in an effort to stoke the embers of reform. There is growing unrest among average citizens about the direction of our government, but little being talked about with regards to reform. The Republican Party is awash with scandal and corruption and has become little more than a PR firm for ultra-religious conservatism or corporate hegemony. The policies of the ruling political party is not leading America to a better place, but only serving to divide us for their own power-hungry aims. But the Democrats seem to have fallen down on the job too, failing to offer any kind of rebuttal to the Republicans. They are cruising on a wave of old ideas and little else, and of course, are also corrupted by the hordes of special interest money that comes their way. America needs a new voice, a voice of reform and hope that seeks to give the people what they deserve- a government that truly works for them. We are hoping to begin in earnest with our planning and goals soon, and when that day comes, you’ll be able to hear about it here. At some point soon, you’ll even have an opportunity to join us in our cause, an opportunity I hope you’ll take advantage of.

Secondly, I am toying with the idea of becoming a political candidate in 2006. As an independent, there are many barriers erected to keep people like you and me out of the political realm. These barriers include higher signature thresholds for ballot qualification and a lack of financial support, among other things. I’m not one to let barriers stop me though, and will make a final determination sometime during the upcoming holidays. If I do indeed decide to throw my hat in a ring somewhere, you can be sure that I will go all out to succeed. If I decide not to actually run though, I will likely throw my support and my time behind a candidate who I can believe in, thus becoming more politically active in that regard.

What will this mean for this blog called Common Sense? Well, a couple of things. The biggest difference to you the reader and me the writer will be a changed course for future posts. Up to now, my essays have been longer than most other blog entries, in large part because I wanted to fully enunciate my thoughts for reform. My posts have also tended to focus on the bigger picture, as a political platform should do. But having completed, to a large extent, this part of my entry into political discourse, I can now turn my attention to the topical issues of the day, framing them in ways that illustrate the positions I have formed over the last year. There is so much to address specifically, and from here on out, Common Sense essays will likely be shorter and more targeted towards a current topic or problem. For those with a short attention span, these newer, shorter posts will hopefully draw more voices into the discussion. I don’t want Common Sense to become a “cut and paste” online newspaper so much as I want to interject my own views on current issues. As always, your comments will be valued and answered, so please keep them coming. Hopefully, the shorter format will allow me to post more frequently, but with the other avenues I’m exploring, it may not change my posting schedule much at all. However, there will likely be more to talk about than ever before.

I look forward to this next phase of Common Sense and the peripheral projects I mentioned above. I hope you’ll stay along for the ride.

Archived Essays are listed here by date and title. To access a specific post, simply correspond the essay date with the weekly archive dates at the right. Click on the weekly link that your chosen essay’s date falls into.

(Introductory Essays)
1-4-05 “A Return to Common Sense”
1-5-05 “What is Common Sense?”
1-6-05 “America, America”
1-8-05 “Not My Party”
1-10-05 “Freedom Isn’t Free”
1-13-05 “Making a Case for Rapid Reform”
1-16-05 “Specific Steps You Can Take Now”

(Reforming The Judicial System)
1-18-05 “A False Sense of Security”
1-20-05 “Reforming Our Justice System”
1-24-05 “Criminal Justice Reformed”
1-27-05 “A New Day in Criminal Court”
1-30-05 “Making Crime Pay”
2-1-05 “Is That Really A Crime?”
2-3-05 “And Justice For All”

(Reforming the Legal Code)
2-6-05 “Morality and the Law”
2-9-05 “Ending the War on Drugs”
2-10-05 “Sex, Morality, and the Law”
2-13-05 “The Right to Die”
2-16-05 “The Abortion Debate”
2-18-05 “Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That…”

(On National Security)
2-21-05 “WANTED: National Security That Makes Sense”
2-24-05 “A Line in the Sand”
2-27-05 “Foreign Relations Roulette”
3-2-05 “Wielding a Big Stick”
3-6-05 “You Call That Intelligence?”
3-9-05 “The Effects of Immigration on National Security”
3-12-05 “Brother, Can You Spare A Gun?”

(Discussing Infrastructure)
3-16-05 “The Framework of Society”
3-19-05 “Man vs. Earth (A Fight to the Finish?)
3-22-05 “The Future of Energy”
3-28-05 “Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle”
4-1-05 “Mayberry or Metropolis?”
4-5-05 “From Here to There and Back Again”

(On Social Programs)
4-10-05 “Social Consciousness Or Social Charade”
4-13-05 “The Purpose of Public Education”
4-17-05 “A Nation of Teachers”
4-20-05 “Realistic Expectations For Successful Education”
4-24-05 “School Funding and Local Control”
4-28-05 “Poverty, Homelessness, and Hunger”
5-3-05 “Defining Social Security”
5-6-05 “Crafting a National Pension Plan”
5-9-05 “The National Whole Life Pension Plan”
5-13-05 “Salvaging Social Security’s Retirement Benefits”
5-17-05 “Is There A Doctor In The House?”
5-22-05 “Your Money or Your Life- the Costs of Health Care”
5-26-05 “The Doctor Will Be With You Shortly…”
5-30-05 “ Affordable Health Care Does Not Mean Free Health Care”

(On Politics I)
6-4-05 “A Necessary Digression”

(Cultural Issues)
6-8-05 “Society and Politics”
6-13-05 “A Tolerant Society”
6-17-05 “Are You Really A Victim?”
6-22-05 “Family Values?”
6-26-05 “What Every Kid Needs to Know”
7-1-05 “Some Thoughts on Philanthropy”
7-5-05 “The New Fourth Estate”
7-10-05 “That’s (Mass) Entertainment

Yet in an increasingly expensive society, where trips to the museum or sporting event or theme park can set families back a hundred bucks or more, movies, television, music, and video games are becoming the cheapest source of entertainment for many families. And with parents most likely spending more time working than with their kids, children are increasingly being nurtured by the glowing boxes in our living rooms and bedrooms. We are easily into our second, if not our third television generation, and the effects on our society could only be described as dismal. Children become desensitized to violence before they even know what violence really is. They become entranced with physical appearance and relationships before they can even properly bathe themselves without help. They become obsessively materialistic before they can appreciate the value of money. And they have a difficult time differentiating between reality and fantasy. Today’s children grow up in a world full of promise and technological advancement, yet all we seem to be offering them is the same kind of entertainment enjoyed by ancient civilizations: gladiator-like violence, rapacious sexual play acting, and extreme caricatures acting in stereotypical, but unrealistic, manners.

Art, they say, is just a reflection of life. But what happens when the reflection is turned back upon itself? What then? Entertainment executives, when pressed about “family entertainment” often exclaim that there are plenty of options for parents and kids, and that no one is forcing people to watch, listen, or play with their products. And to some degree they are exactly right. But they also say that they only give the public what the public wants, and this is where their disingenuousness shows through clearly. In reality, the public gets what they executives think will get them the most return on their investment, either through commercial advertising, merchandising efforts, or direct sales. And the public, for the most part, reinforces this perception by continuing to consume all that they have to offer. But, again, if all that is offered is of the same ilk, what real choice does a consumer have?

Unlike most denouncements of the entertainment industry though, this is not a call for government regulation or censorship. This is a call for Common Sense. And it is a call to parents and entertainment executives alike. For though it is hard to evidence with hard facts, it seems obvious that there must be a direct correlation between the attitudes and actions of our society and the things we see or do for entertainment. It is easiest to perceive in children, and unchecked or unseen, the things we learn as kids shape who we become as adults. Children are mimickers, it is how they learn what is and what is not acceptable. They see someone act a certain way and they emulate that behavior. They have no innate concept of right or wrong until we teach them. Yet the insidiousness of today’s mass entertainment is that it reinforces socially negative behavior through its subtleties. Seemingly innocuous programs for kids often depict parents and adults as aloof providers who offer little real guidance and nary a scrap of discipline while the kids are know-it-all super heroes, capable of solving any problem in just under 30 minutes. After weeks and weeks of ingesting this kind of fantasy, children unconsciously adopt the behaviors of their television role models, creating havoc in the home and school and disrespecting their parents and teachers. And these are the least harmful attitudes they adopt.

So what should be done? After all, we don’t want entertainment to be exactly like reality since the whole point of entertainment is to forget for a while our own complicated lives. And certainly, we shouldn’t prevent adults from viewing or enjoying violent or sexy cinema if that is their choice. In truth, I enjoy a good war film, suspense mystery, or lusty love story from time to time. I listen to rock and roll music as well as love songs. But as an adult, I have both the life experience to understand what I am seeing or hearing and the established sense of behavior to know the difference between acceptable and unacceptable actions. As a parent, I have to recognize that my child does not have these same attributes, yet, and it is my job, not mass media’s, to teach them.

I am a big proponent in turning off the television. As parents, we need to engage our kids more often than our busy lives sometimes seem to allow. If there needs to be censorship of modern mass media, it is first and foremost our jobs to be the censors for our families. Parents need to remember that children will not raise themselves, at least not in a socially responsible manner, and that the decision to become a parent means that life does not carry on as before. Sacrifice of our own personal desires are a necessary element of raising children, which sometimes means missing our favorite sit-com and reading to our kids. Or playing a board game. Or taking walks around the neighborhood. Or staring up at the stars. If you don’t feel comfortable listening to sex jokes and fart noises with a four year old, turn off the TV and do something else. If you don’t want your ten-year-old thinking that girls must be thin, blond, and sexy to be beautiful, turn off the TV and talk to your kids about individual self worth. If your 13 year old seems obsessed with war and weaponry, don’t buy the newest shoot-em up video game and then leave him in his room for all hours to master the skills of street killing. Use some Common Sense.

This is the only effective means of getting mass media to change the menu of offerings. By turning off the television, by not buying the games, by going to the park instead of the movie theater, parents can send a more effective message to the entertainment industry. By not supporting what they have to offer, they will be forced to give us something else or go out of business. PBS is perhaps the last bastion of quality children’s television, yet the politicians and the corporate broadcasters want to kill it off. This should tell us something about their true motives, since PBS is also non-commercial and tax exempt.

The industry has proven to be ineffective at controlling themselves. Government has no role in legislating entertainment, except when it crosses the line into illegality. Therefore, it is up to us to call for change. It is not a push to eliminate the violence or sex from entertainment altogether. It is a call for industry movers and shakers to dedicate themselves to creating family movies and programs that are both fun and responsible. It is a call for parents to be more parental and more involved with their kid’s entertainment choices. And it is a call for families to spend more time doing things together and relying less on mass media to teach and entertain us.

The Value of Education is one of the greatest concepts we can instill on our kids. Mankind’s ability to learn and be curious is the one gift that really sets us apart from the other animals on Earth. Our ability to pass on what we learn, to expand upon what we learn, is what has enabled us to move from the caves into our condos. But just because we are inherently curious, that is no guarantee that we will use our ability to its potential. As parents, we must show our kids that learning is fun and learning opens doors of opportunity. We must foster their natural inquisitiveness, while reminding them that learning isn’t always an easy process. Learning requires listening, studying, testing, and more listening. Parents can better help their children to embrace learning by answering their questions when they can and by insisting their children show respect for their teachers. Parents and teachers need to work together instead of as adversaries to ensure that kids learn to their best ability. Outside of structured school, parents can increase their children’s curiosity with trips to museums or sporting events or libraries or with experiences in nature. To help parents achieve these things, costs for event tickets shouldn’t be out of reach for anyone making less than six figures a year. Employers could embrace more flexible work schedules to allow for more family time and yearly vacations. Society in general could learn to demand less instantaneous satisfaction in favor of a saner pace of life.

The Need for Tolerance is another important trait to instill in our children, for without tolerance we can’t coexist with any sense of normalcy. The perpetuation of racism and prejudice creates much harm to the progress of civilization, wasting so much effort, resources, and lives, that their continued existence lacks all Common Sense. As people, we are each different from each other in some way, and for someone to decide to hate or deny equality to another because of race or religion or sexual preference is as illogical as one can be, for even if you were wronged by someone of a different race or religion or what have you, this is not evidence that all others in that generalized classification are bad too. As parents, we must not only teach this to our children with words, but with our actions as well. Children perceive the subtleties we think we reserve for adults, and though they may not understand them, they certainly adopt them and make them their own. As a society, we must stop painting portions of our country as evil or idiotic simply because they have different priorities in life. We must insist on an end to the political rhetoric that serves to divide rather than unite. And just to be clear, tolerance does not mean the acceptance of heinous criminals like murderers or rapists or condoning acts that harm others or ideas that deny others equality and freedom..

The Meaning of Respect is another invaluable tool to give to our children, one that is sadly missing from today’s world. From the loss of formal salutations and assumptions of respect for ones elders to an overriding sense of self-importance, showing respect for each other is becoming archaic, much to our detriment. But the breakdown starts in the home when parents don’t demand respect from their children, and instead attempt to be their own kids’ best friend. This attitude is not how one teaches respect, as it places children on the same plane as adults, when they are neither psychologically or intellectually ready to be there. Children need authority figures and disciplinarians, and they seek them first in their parents. When they find no firm authority in the home, they equate all adults with their parents and learn to respect only those they fear, which is not really respect at all. As they grow older, this lack of respect can only offer a lifetime of combativeness or separation, certainly not positions one finds success and happiness in. Respect has many levels. There is respect for a position like doctor or teacher or firefighter. We respect these people for what they do whether we know them personally or not. We extend a certain amount of respect to them collectively, in spite of bad actions that may arise by certain individuals. Another respect is based on our personal knowledge or admiration for someone or their actions. While the first is easier to teach, the second is just as important, for through it we can reinforce the other lessons we strive to teach by holding up the success and behavior of others who exhibited those traits. Respect doesn’t necessarily mean we have to like someone or even agree with them, but a good rule of thumb is to show respect to someone until they prove themselves unworthy through their actions or through their words. We need to move back, as a society, to addressing each other with respect, or at least insisting on it from children.

Teaching Honesty is among the harder values to instill in our children, especially when the prevalent mood of society is to spin the news towards one view or the other, starting in our halls of government and working down to the classrooms in our schools. We all want our kids to be honest with us, yet we lie to them each and every day. We promote propaganda regarding sexual behavior, the effects of drugs and alcohol, personal image, and other seemingly moralistic issues. We tell our children that there is only one truth when in fact there are often multiple facets to every truth. Does this mean that we should never tell our kids anything not provable by science or direct observation? Should we give up our fairy tales with their moral lessons simply because they are fiction? This is not what I mean when I speak of being honest with our kids, for there is also an element of magic associated with childhood, a time of naivety that is enriched through fantasy. But when we sense a child is asking a serious question, for the purpose of learning, let’s give them the unblemished truth, to the age-appropriate degree that they can understand, instead of perpetuating wives tales and repeated mantras. And governments and businesses must stop twisting the truth about their actions and start being honest with the public. The truth may sometimes hurt, but they say it also sets you free.

The Concept of Service is one that shows our children that a free society depends upon the participation of all the citizens, and that by volunteering our time to help others or to clean up our cities or to coach a little league team is time well spent. When one embraces the idea of giving back to their community, one feels more a part of that community and helps to keep that community safe and clean. As parents, we can teach the concept of service by making our kids he
lp out around the house, helping relatives and friends with bigger projects or daily needs, and not paying them in cash or rewarding them in kind for every act they perform. The concept of service implies that your efforts will be returned to you when you need help, and that sometimes it is more rewarding to lend a hand than to demand a dollar. Society depends upon people helping people, and the upshot is that with an increased sense of service, many of the more mundane or everyday tasks now performed by government agencies could be handled by you and me for less costs and with better results. We should remove many of the barriers that prevent people from helping out, including a propensity to sue each other over every minor slight or mishap.

Personal Responsibility is something all children must eventually learn if they are ever to earn the respect of others, care for themselves financially, and provide for their own families someday. Personal responsibility is the ability to pay one’s own bills, hold down a job, keep one’s word to others, provide for their family, and stay out of legal trouble. When parents make excuses for their own child’s bad behavior they are not teaching personal responsibility. When a parent does their child’s homework for them they are not teaching personal responsibility. When a parent buys kids everything they ask for, or when a parent ignores their child’s dishonesty or when a parent never demands their child pick up after themselves, they are not teaching personal responsibility. When there are no consequences to actions, there is no personal responsibility. The end result is an adult who can admit no wrong, who is never to blame, and who always knows the best way to do everything. As a society, we need to stop idolizing those figures that do not espouse the tenets of personal responsibility. We need to stop promoting behaviors that are based only on selfish motives. And we must each try to keep our word to each other and to our children.

Common Sense parenting isn’t as much about what practical skills you may teach your kids so much as it is about making sure they have the tools to learn those skills themselves and to put those skills to good use. It isn’t about following a particular path or walking the same road as everyone else as much as it is about treating each other in a similar way and expecting the same in return. Society has a stake in successful parenting, and should work together to help parents teach their kids. Business leaders should make time for families more valuable than they do now, for eventually, they will need to hire these kids, and they’ll want them to have some manners and social graces. And parents need to quit trying to be their kids’ best friend. It’s time to reinforce our social values together instead of indulging our own egos and perpetuating our own irrational prejudices at our kids (and society’s) expense.