I Have Moved

Please go to the following link to check out my new blog.  I think you will find it user friendly and also enjoy the photography that goes with my entries.  Also, be sure to pass on the link to the new link to anyone you think will enjoy it. 

 http://www.moorethanjustnewsreport.com/

Some Thoughts About Common Sense

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “Common sense is as rare as genius.” Never before has that been more true than today. We can't all be rocket scientists but that doesn't mean we have to be down right stupid either.

Common sense would tell an educated nurse who has been assigned to care for an Ebola stricken patient not to get on a plane during the incubation period of that deadly virus. Somehow, this escaped the thought process of the nurse in question and now there is a plane load of people who have gone their separate ways to track down with the hope they do not further spread this deadly disease.

In the words of Victor Hugo, “Common sense is in spite of, not the result of, education.” Our president, by all accounts, is a well educated person. Still, in the midst of a middle east crisis that sees ISIS snubbing their noses at the western world, while an Ebola outbreak threatens to infect up to 10,000 people a week by December, and when your poll numbers continue to plummet, common sense would tell you it is not a good idea to attend a democratic fundraiser held at Gwyneth Paltrow's home. My guess is we will see more common sense from our president after the November mid term elections but then common sense also tells me by then it will be too late.

Too bad Harriet Beecher Stowe was not around to advise Roger Goodell. She said, “Common sense is seeing things as they are; and doing things as they should be.” When a 220 pound NFL running back sits next to his wife who weighs about half as much tells you he punched and knocked her out in an elevator, common sense should tell you this guy needs more than a two game suspension. It doesn't even require seeing any video to know the kind of damage he inflicted. Then again, if your fiance' knocks you out with a punch, common sense would ask, “What are you doing marrying this guy?”

“Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced he is well supplied with it.” These were the words of Rene' Descartes. I wonder if Michael Brown Jr. believed he possessed much common sense. You would think if he had any he would not have robbed a convenience store and then gone walking down the middle of a busy street just prior to getting shot and killed by a police officer. Brown's lack of common sense is what led to his demise as much as anything else and common sense would tell the protestors in Ferguson that Brown is not a martyr.

It was Thomas Edison who said, “The three great essentials to achieve anything worthwhile are, first, hard work; second, stick-to-itiveness; third, common sense.” We idolize too many people in our culture who only possess the first two traits Edison mentions. Common sense would tell a football player if they make their living smashing their head into others, they can expect to have brain damage at an early age in life. Lindsay Lohan, Amanda Bynes, and countless other celebrities should know it is difficult enough to make it in Hollywood and even more so if you are constantly needing to go into rehab. Of course, if their parents had any common sense, they might have decided against pushing their kid to become a child star who becomes ill equipped to handle the adult world.

Even W.C. Fields knew what he was talking about when he said, “Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps him from betting on humans.” Just pick up a newspaper or go on line. How many stories are there that focus on people who lack common sense? Even those who cover the stories often lack it.

And before you tell me how easy it is for me to sit and judge others for their lack of common sense, let me admit to some of my own short comings. Common sense would tell me the more I read about others lack of common sense, the less flabbergasted I would become over the current state of affairs. If I had any common sense when I was younger, I would have gone to film school in my twenties and waited to begin a thirty year career as a teacher. I would not have got in that raft on a flooding forty-one degree Stanislaus River after a ranger made sure to get the names of my next of kin along with the guys I was with. And common sense would have told me long ago life is easier to enjoy when you focus on the good and not the bad.

What would this world be like if Voltaire was wrong when he said, Common sense is not so common.”No one knows for sure but my guess is it would be a lot more boring than it is today.

Todd Gurley Does Not Need The NCAA

The University of Georgia has suspended their star running back, Todd Gurley, because he allegedly was paid $400.00 for signing autographs on eighty memorabilia items. This works out to a mere five dollars an item for a young man who brings in millions of dollars of revenue to his school without receiving a dime in return.

Now before you go off and tell me Gurley receives a free college education, you should know the University of Georgia cares only about two things when it comes to their best player; what does he do on the playing field and what does he get into while off of the playing field? The classroom does not come into play.

While Gurley sits out an indefinite suspension, the University of Georgia will be sure to continue selling jerseys with his number three to fans at a far more profitable rate than Gurley was paid for his autograph. The school and the NCAA will use these profits to add to their coffers without thought of the hypocrisy of what they are doing.

Why is it a young athlete in college on athletic scholarship is not allowed to make money to supplement the living expenses he receives from his scholarship? Gurley, and the thousands of other athletes across the country on scholarship, do not live a lavish lifestyle and often end up leaving college with head, neck, knee, ankle, hip, or back injuries that will cost them a shot of landing a professional contract. These injuries also will often end up limiting what they are able to do for the rest of their lives which includes earning a decent income.

Meanwhile, anyone not on an athletic scholarship is allowed to earn money while attending an NCAA school. Those on academic scholarship can get jobs just as anyone who is not skilled enough to play a sport at an elite level. If a talented art student is allowed to earn money selling their work while in school, an athlete should be afforded the same opportunity. Why prevent student athletes from earning a few bucks here and there?

Allowing college athletes to earn money will actually make the job of coaches, compliance departments, and the NCAA much easier. Who is it harming if a booster wants to reward a player for a great game played? Who cares if an athlete is paid to appear in a local television commercial? Does it affect the outcome of a game if a player is paid to sign a few balls and jerseys to be sold at an auction?

Todd Gurley will come out of this just fine. The NFL will not care that he was suspended a few games. In fact, given that he plays running back, they will be happy to know he will have a little less wear and tear on his body. Suspending Gurley only hurts his team because he is such an important component of their offense.

The NCAA needs to cease their practice of hypocrisy. They are swimming in money and are not hurt when a few star athletes are smart enough to cash in on their talent. As long as they have not signed with an agent or are involved in the gambling aspect of the game, let these athletes profit. It may actually result in fewer athletes looking to leave school early before they are ready to play at the professional level.

Todd Gurley only did what any young person would have done in order to have a little more spending money. His only mistake was charging too little for his name. However, that will all change next spring because the next time he signs his name it will be on a professional contract. Not even the NCAA is powerful enough to keep that from happening.

Euthanasia Should Be Legalized

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, decided it is within the rights of any woman to end a pregnancy under certain circumstances and guidelines. Whether or not you agree with the court's decision is irrelevant. What matters is the court ruled that women have control of their bodies which in essence means all citizens of age have control of their bodies. However, this is not true.

Today, 34 U. S states have the death penalty as part of their criminal justice sentencing. Criminals found guilty of certain crimes and circumstances may face execution.

In cases of both abortion and execution, it can be argued that the state is allowing for the taking of a human life and depending on your religious beliefs, may also be argued we are doing "God's work."

All states also have laws that allow the use of deadly force by law enforcement in an attempt to protect and serve its citizens. Few would complain about the police shooting a crazed gunman who takes hostages but again it could be argued they are doing the work of God.

Unfortunately, we do not allow citizens, under certain circumstances, to take control of their bodies and decide for themselves whether or not it is time to end their life. High rise buildings and hotels have windows that do not open up to prevent citizens from committing suicide. Bridges and over passes are covered in wire to prevent someone form throwing them self over to their demise.

You can easily argue a suicidal people are mentally ill and if they could just receive proper mental health support they might go on to live productive lives. But what about those who are not mentally ill? What about those who are only suffering from the ravages of old age or are terminally ill? Should they not have greater say as to how and when they pass?

Eighty to ninety percent of all the money we spend on medical care during the course of our lives is spent in the final two years of life. This is neither cost effective nor fair to the dying person who may prefer to leave this world sooner and leave behind whatever money they may have to loved ones.

What is so wrong with an elderly person who has decided they have lived enough and they have nothing left to offer this world from taking their life? What about the terminally ill? Is it so wrong that they choose to go out on their own terms rather than feel like a burden to their family? The only people who benefit from keeping an old person alive is often times the medical industry.

Now, I am not suggesting we start authorizing the killing of elderly or sick people. However, I do think the decision to live longer or not should be theirs just as it should be a woman's decision to decide whether or not it is best for her to go through with a pregnancy. What is the big deal if someone with a terminal illness decides they would rather swallow a few pills and end their life instead of going through a slow process that may end up leaving their loved ones emotionally drained while emptying their savings? Some, perhaps many, would prefer to die on their terms with their dignity rather than on society's terms.

Does it make us a worse society if a cancer patient who has put all his affairs in order and said all of his good-byes decides to die on his terms rather than be kept alive as long as possible? We allow citizens to donate their organs to others upon death in order to help someone else live longer. Family members often are encouraged to "pull the plug" so doctors can harvest their organs for someone else. Isn't this playing God? A person of sound mind should be allowed to die in the manner of their choosing and not be forced to resort to extreme measures.

If you support a woman's right to an abortion or believe in either the death penalty or use of deadly force, you should support euthanasia. We either have total control over our bodies or none at all. You can not play God in some cases of life and death and not in others.

The Politics of Containment Will No Longer Work

Our leaders, and nation as a whole, could stand to follow the ways of physicians who believe in practicing a preventative approach when dealing with potential problems. Unfortunately, we increasingly see and evaluate leadership in terms of crisis management. All too often, the first goal of leaders is to get reelected. This results in them lulling us into a false sense of security and focuses their energies on containing problems rather than trying to prevent them in the first place. It is why today we have serious concerns facing us in the forms of Ebola, a serious water shortage, ISIS, and whether or not our own president is adequately protected.

In 1976, the first Ebola outbreak was recorded along the Ebola River in Africa and struck 318 people, killing 280. At the time, we learned this was a new and very deadly virus and breathed a sigh of relief that is was contained to a small portion of Africa.

There have since been other Ebola outbreaks, each striking primarily western Africa. In 1995, Ebola hit another 315 people and killed 254 in the process. Since the new millennium, there have been at least seven other Ebola outbreaks resulting in a death rate of over 75 percent. While each has been contained to the African continent, these outbreaks have always resulted in the worry of whether or not it might reach the United States.

Unfortunately, since the initial outbreak in 1976, not much has been done to combat the virus beyond keeping it from spreading. By identifying and isolating its victims, we have spent 38 years trying to contain it without making much progress in treating it. When you compare this to the progress made in fighting AIDS over the same period, you begin to see just how little progress has been made since 1976.

Some will argue that in 1976 we did not know enough about Ebola to do anything about it. What they fail to grasp is we knew enough about viruses at that time to know they could not be contained and they would eventually spread. That knowledge alone was enough to jump start our fight against AIDS. But because Ebola was contained in Africa, there was no urgency to combat it at the time.

However, now that Ebola has reached the United States and current estimates predict well over one million people world wide will die from this current outbreak, we now have a crisis on our hands. The fact that we waited nearly forty years to view it this way should outrage anyone who contracts Ebola or has a loved one who falls ill from it.

That the first Ebola outbreak happened at about the same time Americans faced an oil crisis at home resulting in gas shortages is more than just a coincidence. Today, we have made little progress on our crude oil dependency and continue to find ourselves at the mercy of oil producing nations for our energy needs. Little progress has been made in weaning ourselves from foreign supplied energy and if, or when, another oil crisis strikes, we are ill prepared to deal with it.

Today, in California, we are also in the midst of a horrible drought and water shortages are now at a crisis level. In 1976, when Ebola first broke out, our state was experiencing a terrible drought. Like today, wells dried up, agriculture suffered, lawns turned brown, and showering became a luxury. Unfortunately, since the end of that drought, and subsequent droughts that have followed, California has failed to keep pace with its population growth so today we are suffering through another water crisis.

Too often, state leaders tell us there was just no way to predict such a drought. The fact we have been able to trace a history of previous droughts, predict population growth, and estimate our future water needs seems irrelevant to them. Nor is it a fault of anyone that we have failed to build sufficient sources of back up water supplies or gray water collection systems to help meet our growing needs. We have; however, been able to find the funds to build an unneeded bullet train at the cost of billions of tax payers dollars even though it will never irrigate an inch of parched land.

Then there is ISIS. No, they were not around when Ebola first arrived in 1976. However, terrorism in the Middle East was and again, we chose containment over prevention. We learned nothing from the tragedy of the Munich Olympics in 1972 when terrorists murdered members of the Israeli Olympic team. Subsequent terrorist attacks that resulted in planes shot down, American hostages taken, and a failed attempt to bring down the twin towers by Al-Qaeda in the 1990's failed to wake us up. The attacks of 9/11 placed us in two wars and we all rejoiced when Bin Laden was hunted down and killed only to see our president take the view that ISIS was nothing more than a JV team.

The fact we continually practice the politics of containment, also known as the politics of dodging bullets, when we know it only leads to one crisis after another is inexcusable. And yet the very leaders who help cause these crisis' pat themselves on the backs for how well they handled them rather than doing what was needed to prevent them in the first place.

Next month marks 51 years since the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In that time, there have been two close assassination attempts made on Gerald Ford and another one that nearly cost us the life of Ronald Reagan. We have also seen numerous White House fence jumpers in the past but only until the most recent one made his way into the White House East Room that we have started to question the security of our president.

We can no longer afford to simply look at our problems and seek to merely contain the damage done by them. Containment only leads to larger crisis' down the road.

It is time we begin practicing preventative politics. In the long term, this is a much healthier approach because it requires forward thinking, proactive solutions, and most of all, leaders who seek to leave a positive lasting legacy for all the people rather than creating leaders who seek to do as little as possible.

Preventive politics would have resulted in a much better prepared medical plan to combat Ebola today. It would continue to keep it on the African continent by already having developed vaccines as a result of nearly 40 years of research and medical breakthroughs.

Preventative politics would have placed our nation on the fore front of alternative energy today and provided much needed jobs for Americans. It would no longer link our economy to the price of crude oil in the Middle East and give us more international political and economic leverage than we currently have.

Preventative politics would have resulted in scores of back up water construction projects throughout our state and resulted in plentiful jobs rather than seeing the Golden State become a welfare state. The central valley would not be a modern day dust bowl and all of California would enjoy plentiful water as we weather another drought.

Preventative politics would see us one step ahead of terrorists rather than scrambling to play catch up. It would see more people working at jobs to protect our borders, airports, embassies, and overseas interests rather than seeing the political finger pointing that goes on today.

Most of all, the politics of prevention would see cooperation between political parties which is far healthier than the politics we currently see played out. The politics of prevention is based on a premise that the best politics is looking out for our future rather than placing blame on the past.

Just like with the human body, our country is better served when it practices preventive care. It requires we demand whoever we vote for places their ego at the door and work with the opposition party rather than merely setting out to block their political progress.

We have tried containment long enough and look at where we are today. Perhaps it is time to rethink this failed approach and consider what we can accomplish through healthier means.

Republicans Could Benefit Have The Supreme Court To Thank In 2016

Now that the Supreme Court has effectively ended the debate over gay marriage by refusing to listen to challenges over state laws allowing it, it would appear this is a huge loss for republicans. In fact, if they play their cards right, the opposite might be true.

While supporters of gay marriage can celebrate the court's decision, republicans can thrive if they learn from their past. With the 2016 presidential election just two years away, thanks to the Supreme Court, gay marriage should no longer be an issue. If asked for their position on gay marriage, republican presidential candidates simply need to reply, “While I personally do not believe in gay marriage, the legal process has played out and the Supreme Court has decided the matter once and for all. We have more pressing matters that face this nation and it will be those matters that my presidency will focus on.”

By respectfully disagreeing with the court's decision while telling the public the matter is dead, republicans will be able to begin the process of ending the practice of allowing religiously influenced politics to direct their presidential goals. If they are wise, republicans would also do the same when it comes to their stances on abortion, euthanasia, or any other issues that are all too often bible driven.

In doing so, the Republican Party can begin concentrating on convincing millennials they are the party best suited for the future of this significant voting population. Jobs, war, tuition reform, the environment, taxes, health care, and housing are not bible driven issues and all are more important to the children of baby boomers than who is or is not allowed to get married.

Republicans would also be wise to forget about a litmus test for their future judicial appointments, expecting them to be pro life, pro death penalty, and pro heterosexual. All these do is send a message to young people that republicans are not an all inclusive party. If they want to gain the vote of women, minorities, or the young, they need to return to focusing on the issues that matter most to the majority rather than those of the overly influential extreme right.

Millennials do not care whether or not a person is gay or straight, christian or other, white or black, or conservative or liberal. All they want is to trust a political party with their future, a future that today is no better off than it was when they got behind President Obama in 2008 and 2012.

In 2016, democrats will have to run on their record. They will not be able to blame the war, economy, health care, or social reforms on republicans. The republican candidate who can focus on the short comings of the past eight years rather than on undoing what the Supreme Court has allowed and what most Americans support, will have a much better chance of winning the White House. This candidate will be able to paint the democrats choice, most likely Hillary Clinton, as a representative of failed past policies that only stand in the way of the future progress of this nation. Republicans might actually have a chance at painting themselves as the more level headed and moderate party, something most Americans are hoping to find in one of our two major parties.

So in two years, if republicans win back the White House, they can thank the Supreme Court once again. Only this time it will not be over their interpretation of dangling chads or voter recounts in Florida but rather because they took a divisive issue that made republicans look out of touch with the rest of the nation and took it off the political table.

Our Future Economy Could Be Linked To The Military

In a day and age where our economy seems unable to fully recover from our great recession, it is time to rethink what is in store for our future. Americans finally seem resigned to the fact that many of our major corporations have relocated overseas and we are destined to lose jobs to China and India due to their much larger pool of available cheap labor.

Consequently, it is important for our economic future to rethink where future jobs will thrive and accept that we may need to rely on a much larger influence from our military for providing Americans with a variety of available jobs. With President Obama admitting the bulk of the responsibility for establishing peace in the Middle East falls on the United States, we have an opportunity to cash in on our superior military. By becoming the “police force” of the free world, we can exploit the military deficiencies of other nations and use a much larger military than we currently have to serve as a military presence in nations unable or unwilling to protect their own self interests or the interests of friendly outside nations.

Perhaps, rather than investing less of our GNP in the military, we might be wise to invest more into it. Other than Russia, no other nation in the world comes close to the four percent of our GNP that we invest in our military. In fact, we come close to out spending all other nations on the planet in the amount we presently spend on our armed forces.

It has become clear that American companies can not afford to pay a large work force the low wages it needs to produce the type of goods we love to consume at an affordable rate. Raising the minimum wage will only cost jobs and add to our unemployment rate so we may be better off allowing those companies to pursue cheaper labor elsewhere.

But with the Middle East in a state of political and religious chaos, Russia making waves in the Ukraine, and our border leaking like a sieve, it may be wise to invest more in the areas of defense, anti terrorism, and border protection. As it is now, we do not have enough man power available to meet the demands in these areas so it only makes sense to begin investing them, both via the government and private sector.

Technology whizzes are desperately needed to keep us ahead of the rest of the world on the military front so we should be pushing to hire more college grads on this front rather than paying them to make more video games for our children. We will continue to need newer and more diverse drones that can be employed to protect our interests both abroad and on our border. More sophisticated weapons from a workable “Star Wars” defense system to even smarter and more powerful bombs will allow us to become a military employed by nations like Saudi Arabia rather than selling them weapons that may fall into the hands of the wrong people and be used against us. Wouldn't it make more sense to trade Middle East oil for American provided protection instead of selling arms for oil?

By allowing other nations to outsource their protection to the United States, our military will have a much greater need for manpower which creates jobs for a variety of people with anywhere from low to high skills. Yes, we will need more people on the front lines in other nations but we will also need specialty trained men and women with the skills that keep our equipment running, supplies flowing, and medical needs met. Again, many of the young men and women who are unable to find work in their fields of study will now be needed to apply their skills while employed in the armed forces. Doctors, teachers, psychologists, physical therapists, pharmacists, maintenance mechanics, and scores of others will be needed by expanding the role of the U.S. Military.

Expanding our military will also weaken the power of people like Vladimir Putin. As it is now, Russia's economy can not handle spending four percent of their GNP on their military and be vibrant. It was our country's ability to spend so much on our military that brought an end to the cold war because Russia could not maintain our spending rate while keeping Russians employed. The headache we have in the Ukraine today goes away when the Putins of the future know if they invade a neighboring nation they will be matched up against a much stronger and far better equipped military than they face today.

This also renders the UN Peace Keeping Forces useless, which is what they have been for decades. No longer will a country have to turn to a dysfunctional governing body for help when they can turn to the United States. Who would you rather have protecting your nation from an enemy invasion, the UN or the United States?

Finally, there is our border. Like it or not, we can no longer protect our border and keep out terrorist threats with any degree of certainty. Border patrol agents claim they are lucky if they nab thirty percent of the people trying to enter illegally. If I am ISIS, I chomp at the bit over those figures. An increased investment in border protection, airport security, and coastal surveillance will provide Americans with much needed jobs as well. What good is it to have the strongest military in the world if we can not keep the enemy outside our borders?

We all know that need equals jobs and if the government opens many of these defense/security/anti terrorism jobs to the private sector, it will create competition. Competition in the work force allows for less wasteful spending and greater efficiency than we currently see when the government runs everything. It will stimulate our economy in a way never before done and allow us to no longer dwell on the jobs we see going overseas. It can create an economy built around our providing a much needed service to nations all over the world much like oil provided nations in the Middle East.

Americans will only be able to remain consumers of more products than any other nation in the world if they are able to afford to purchase cars, boats, electronics, and the endless number of toys we devour. That requires jobs that provide the worker with a stable income and job security which can only happen in fields that are needed. Nations need protection now more than ever and there is no reason why nations like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Ukraine, and countless more can not hire a nation like ours to do for them what they may be unable or unwilling to do for themselves.

It may well be time to rethink our place in the world's economy. We will no longer be a provider of cheap labor and goods. We can not afford to become a nation of haves and have nots and expect to thrive. We have to find a way to create much needed jobs that provide a valuable service to not just Americans, but to people all over the world.

President Obama is right when he says no other nation in the world is equipped to take the lead on matters of protecting and preserving peace in the world. Why not make that a focal point of our economic turn around?