Common Sense
 

Another interesting email I received and thought I would share:

Rob:cool:


Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, by the name of Common Sense

Common Sense lived a long life, but died in the United States from
heart failure on the beginning of the new millineum. No one really
knows how old he was, since his birth records were lost long ago in
bureaucratic red tape. He selflessly devoted his life to service in
schools, hospitals, homes, factories, helping folks get jobs done
without fanfare and foolishness. For decades, petty rules, silly
laws, and frivolous lawsuits had no power over Common Sense.

He was credited with cultivating such valued lessons as to know when
to come out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, and that
life isn't always fair.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies ( don't spend
more that you earn ), reliable parenting strategies (the adults are
in charge, not the kids ), and it's okay to come in second.

A veteran of the industrial revolution, the Great Depression, and the
Technical Revolution, Common Sense survived cultural and educational
trends including body piercing, whole language, and "new math". But
his health declined when he became infected with the " If it only
helps one person, it's worth it" virus.

In recent decades his waning strength proved no match for the ravages
of well intentioned, but overbearing, regulations.

He watched in pain as good people became ruled by self-seeking
lawyers. His health rapidly deteriorated when schools endlessly
implemented zero-tolerance policies.

Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for
kissing a classmate, a teen suspended for taking a swig of mouthwash
after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student
only worsened his condtion.

It declined even further when schools had to get parental consent to
administer aspirin to a student but could not inform the parents when
a female student was pregnant or wanted an abortion.

Common Sense lost his will to live as the Ten Commandments
became contraband, Churches became businesses, criminals received
better treatment than their victims, and Federal Judges stuck their
noses in everything from the Boy Scouts to professional sports.

Finally, when a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee
was hot and was awarded a huge settlement, Common Sense threw in the towel.

I thought that was very good and truthful. I'm going to send this to my friends.

LOVE IT! :nod:

Thanks for sharing.

That was thought-provoking.

Of course, i don't think our problem is a lack of common sense, but rather a complete and utter lack of personal responsibility.

If our kids do something wrong, we look for somewhere to lay the blame (movies, tv, music), rather than on ourselves or them.

If we burn ourselves with a hot cup of coffee that we sat down between our legs as we drove, then it's the fault of the establishment where we bought it, for having made it too hot... it's certainly not our fault for doing something stupid.

If our daughter gets pregnant, or our son comes home with an STD, that has to be the fault of the school systems that teach our children about sex and contraceptives. After all, we never talk about sex in our home.

If we get addicted to drugs, or alcohol, or if we lose all our money to gambling, it's not our fault... it was due to a tough childhood, or an absentee parent.

We're all about "me, me, me," and one way or another, it's always someone else's fault.

My fav. are the suits claiming the people did not know that if they ate a Big Mac and fries everyday they would get fat :rolleyes: Moreover, I get that the tabacco companies perhaps elevated the nicotine levels of cigarettes and they should be punished for that. But, the way I see it, anyone from about 1990 (I personally would say 1970 - but that is me :laugh: ) on that smokes does so without the right to sue the tobacco companies.

You are right, Johnny Stew, people are so quick to blame everyone else for their own problems or stupidity. There is little accountability. Look at the parents who tried to sue Judas Priest, blaming the music for their kid’s suicide. What a crook of sh*t. Maybe if they paid attention to their kids lives they wouldn’t be in that mess. And, do you think the drug abuse might have had anything to do about it?

Now, I’ve listened to Judas Priest and I sure as hell didn’t want to kill myself (I only got that feeling when I heard some boy band on the radio! :D ). The parents in that case, refused to look at their own failings as parents and their son’s mental issues. They sought out a scapegoat and saw all the money they could win by going after the band as something to ease the pain.

Ridiculous….

Rob:cool:

Let's hold on a second here, folks. While I agree that personal responsibility has fallen by the wayside and that there is a fair amount of frivolity out there, I'm not entirely convinced those suits against McDonald's for the fat content in their food were outlandish. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they become more common in years to come. There is a lot of deception going on about what is actually in our food, not only at fast-food joints but also in the stuff we buy a the supermarket, and since the regulatory agencies have done a piss-poor job of managing that, it will be up to the courts.

Before you start whining about lawsuits and decrying their outcome, think about why they happen. It usually comes down to lack of leadership in the first place.

I agree with you in that the FDA allows IMO too significant levels of fabricated toxins like preservatives in the food supply.

However, the nature of the current suits against McDonald IMO have no merit because McDonald's has been posting in print (handouts) and in huge wall charts, the nutritional content and an explanation in layman's terms of general nutrition (daily requirements, etc.) of their food for at least 10 years. So, for someone to say they had no idea that eating McDonald's everyday was not good for them is disingenuous in my book.

Well anyone who has half a brain knows that McDonalds and fast food are junk food and they make you fat. Every store even has a poster on the wall by their registers with the nutritional information. Is it that hard to figure out that if you stuff yourself with fries and hamburgers everyday that you’re going to get fat? How is that McDonalds fault?

It’s called self control and moderation. I don’t eat that junk because I know what the consequences will be when I get on the scale. I laughed my *ss off when I heard about those lawsuits.

Rob:cool:

I'm having a heart attack!!! Call 9-11!!!

I AGREE with you!!!

:blob2: :laugh: :blob1:

I agree that those lawsuits against McDonalds for full of it. In my mind, those types of actions are the personification of putting the blame on someone else for your own actions. I remember seeing one of these plaintiffs interviewed and they didn't even know why they were suing! These are the types of lawyers who fuel the fire of the "all lawyers are ambulence chasers" stereotypes.

I am a lawyer (albeit in family law), but I will be the first one to tell you that I think the majority of lawyers are self-serving SOBs.
:laugh:

Honestly, one of the main "issues" that I have with the liberal agenda is the lack of personal responsibility - the "someone else has to be responsible for me" or the "it's someone else's fault" type attitudes. Of course, I am generalizing here - I know alot of you do not subscribe to this opinion.

I guess what it comes down to for me, is "Get up off your fat ass and do something for yourself" and "make things happen in your life instead of letting life happen to you".

I submit that is a bipartisan agenda. :cool:

Now clean your plate, honey, you wanna grow up to be big and strong, right? Good boy!

EEEWWWW :laugh:

It is a bipartisan agenda. The Clinton administration held off on implementing standards that would have reduced the chicken industry's listeria problems. Toward the end of his term they finally had them put together but he never signed off on it. Once the Bush administration moved in, Andrew Card threw dismantled the whole idea. Our current Secretary Of Agriculture was formerly a lobbyist for the cattle industry. Thus her on tv a few weeks ago reaasuring everyone it was okay to eat red meat.

Ok - I will give you that - I know that both parties are at fault for that - I guess it just seems like liberals tend to "lead the charge" more often (*ducks*).

AHHH!!! The end of the world is near!!!:laugh:

Rob:cool:

And that, my friends, is the core of my beliefs...:nod:


Rob:cool:

Leadng the charge for safe food. Those liberals are horrifying. :)

The whole Bush admin. must have liberal agendas, then. After all, everything is someone else's fault, not theirs. :laugh: :nod:

Rather stinks that it isn't the belief of the Republican party. ;) More like "let others work their asses of in life and let us benefit from it."

:wavey:

I know. Wouldn't you rather get mad cow instead of eating quality beef? I hear that the federal government will actually pay $10 in your medical bills if you're poor and get mad cow. :nod:

That's why I don't hold sway to a particular party. I make up my mind and vote on issues.

But then...thinking for yourself will do that! ;)

Rob:cool:

One cow in like 45 million cows had the stupid disease - I mean that is hardly an epidemic.

That's not the point though. The government has known about this for a long time and hasn't done anything about it.

Well, apparently it was contained if only 1 in 45,000,000 has it :cool: It reminds me of New Year's Eve Eve when my friends and I were in a pizza joint on the Upper East Side at like 3:00 a.m. and I am very tipsy and ordering everything in sight. My drunker friend who is louder than I am :laugh: screeches "don't get the sausage roll - you'll get mad cow!!!!" I am like "You idiot sausage is made of a pig AND only one cow out of like 45 million cows has MCD and that cow is now dead. Plus, you have so much hard liquor in you NOTHING can survive in your bloodstream" :laugh:

I have to take issue with that statement, as I don't believe it's the "liberal agenda" to pass blame elsewhere.
And if liberals do blame conservatives for certain things, they're certainly not alone, as I hear plenty of conservatives blaming various problems on "those damn liberals."
So it's another one of those two-way streets.

I'm about as liberal as they come, and I'll go on until I'm blue in the face about the importance of personal responsibility.

I often wonder when this all started. I'm not so old to remember the days when people still felt it "takes a village to raise a child."
I know my neighbors certainly weren't opposed to letting us kids know about it, if we were doing something wrong... and my parents had no problem with that.

Perhaps it was the "me first" nature of the Reagan era that changed all that. But I'm not "placing blame," mind you! :D

Us PA folk should stick together :laugh:

Seriously, I know it is not the "fault" of the liberals that people don't take responsiblity for themselves. I just don't like to see that attitude glorified by anyone, conservatives included.

I do decide on the issues one at a time, but I try to be as logical and consistent as possible.

Example: I believe that all life is precious - My personal belief system cannot make sense of the fact that GENERALLY conservative want to outlaw abortion, but kill all murderers and liberals want to have abortion available on demand, but save the lives of the serial killers. I just can't resolve that.

That is kind of goofy...the reasoning that I have heard from the the pro death penalty people is that a convicted criminal has been found guilty and that is the punishment whereas, a fetus hasn't committed a crime and therefor deserves to live.

But this is a whole new thread, I believe!:D

Rob:cool:

Actually, the "Me Decade" was the 70's :cool: You youngins :laugh:

Yes it is, but why kill this juggernaut of a thread!!!! :laugh:

Actually, in Roe v. Wade, the USSC recognized the judicially created and much debated and perhaps falsely maligned "right to privacy" included the right of a woman to terminate a fetus in the first trimester for any reason. The Court based its decision solely on the time that a fetus could survive or sustain life outside of the womb; The Court used the term "viable" or "viability." Thus, the Court, after much discussion including ancient Greek History, determined viability of the fetus outside of the womb began after the end of the first trimester; they termed the end of the first trimester as the "compelling point" at which they drew the line of allowed abortions for no medical cause.

The Court determined Roe over 30 years ago on January 22, 1973. Medical science has advanced in strides since then. So, I wonder if the Court will revisit their rationale regarding this "compelling point." I am not saying the Court should overrule Roe. I am just saying the advancement of medical science has made the Court's sole reasoning for the dispositive "compelling point" in the Roe decision somewhat specious. Surely now or in the very near future a fetus will be able to be created and brought to term totally outside of the womb. I submit that will be the death of the effect of the Roe decision – but perhaps not the death of abortion because I think all states have laws allowing abortion. The demise of Roe would not automatically rescind these laws. Rather, the Legislators would have to rescind them or the courts would have to over turn them, which without Roe, they would be free to do.