Is there Common Sense out there?

I have opened this blog dedicated to the Search for Common Sense. Why? you may be asking yourself. The answer is quite simple; I am fed up with being angry about the happenings in my world by people with obviously no common sense.

Throughout the years, I have heard many comments like; “She is smart but lacks any common sense.” or “He may have a doctorate but he doesn’t have any common sense.”  I find it odd that ”any” is usually the quantitative measure, indicating that “no” common sense is present.

How can that be? How can one have a level of intelligence but possess no common sense? In seeking to answer that question I went to several dictionaries to obtain a definition of exactly what is common sense.  The Compact Oxford English Dictionary provided a basic definition of common sense being: good sense and sound judgment in practical matters. The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary added another dimension by defining common sense as:  sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts. The Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition further expounds upon the inclusion of perception by defining common sense as: sound practical judgment derived from experience rather than study.

Hmmmm??? If common sense requires no extensive study in particular area, but rather is simply arriving at a judgment based on past experiences, why is Voltaire’s (1694-1778) quote: “Common sense is not so common.” so true in today’s world? Is common sense lost when higher education is attained?

I think the answer lies in the definition of common sense provided by Wiktionary: Ordinary good consciousness, awareness or understanding of something, arrived at though taking in account recent events and thoughts of others involved, used for the greater good of all involved.

 It seems to me the problem with having, or I should say, not having common sense lies in the use of knowledge, not the possessing of knowledge. I believe everyone has common sense, they just choose not to use it for the greater good of all involved. Instead, individuals all the way up to governments choose to make decisions in their best interest for wants and desires based on rationalizations from any number of fields of knowledge except for common sense.

Case in point for my first post: Nadya ‘Octomom’ Suleman

I know, I know. You are probably sick of hearing the woes of the Octo-Mom.  But don’t leave just yet.  This post is not about Nadya and her family of now 14 children per se, but about what I believe should be done, based on my common sense, due to the affects of her actions (and the actions of others giving birth to children they can not financially support) on the greater good of all involved, including not just the children, but also you and me.

I believe the time has long past coming to address the issue of women having children they can not financially afford. I, and I am sure you also, know there is more involved in raising a child that just the financial aspect, but, at the very least a person or couple needs to be able to financially support the number of children they choose to give birth to. For the sake of the length of this post I am only addressing the financial affects on the greater good of all involved.

I believe a woman or couples who can not afford to feed the child/ren she or they already have and relies upon government food stamps should not be allowed to have another child. Yes, I said allowed. If a woman or a couple can not afford to pay the doctor and hospital for giving birth to a child, she or they should not be allowed to get pregnant again. Yes, I said allowed. Ohhh, ahhhh. I am tramping on the rights of someone to have a child. Or am I?

With rights come requirements and responsibilities.

In America, we all have the right to vote, well not everyone. A requirement to vote is being18 years of age. Another requirement is actually being a citizen of the United States. And yet another requirement in order to vote is a person must take the responsibility to register him/herself in the county in which they live prior to an election. Although it is not a requirement, a voter should also take the responsibility to know the persons and issues on the ballot. The reason for the requirements and responsibilities for the “right to vote” is to ensure the greater good of all involved; that being a fair election of offices and issues resulting in the wants of more than fifty percent of those voting. Granted, there is an argument to be made for alleged fraud involved in our elections even with the requirements and responsibilities we now have, but how much worse would it be without them?

We have many more rights in America, with all of them coming with requirements and responsibilities Why is it then should we, as a nation, not place requirements and responsibilities upon those wanting to increase our population? More specifically, at the very least, place a requirement and responsibility to be able to financially support the number of children one chooses to bear.

Obviously, our government has placed some requirements and responsibilities when it comes to having children. Parents are required to ensure an education, whether it is public, private or home-schooling, for their children. However, should a child not attend school on a regular basis, the powers that be are slow to address the situation, if even at all. In no voting precinct can a citizen go to the polls on election day and demand being permitted to vote because he is over 18 and is a citizen but never got around to registering. All criteria must be met, not just the ones we choose to meet. But, when it comes to the rights of American citizens to have children and to raise those children, our country wears “kid-gloves” (pun intended) and continues to increase services and benefits for those who do not accept total responsibility for their choices.

I believe it is time to have a responsibility clause to place a limit on the amount of children a person may have if she or they receive direct government assistance in the form of food stamps, federal housing, or medical payments through Medicaid. If a woman has a child in which the medical expenses for the birth of that child was paid by government money, then the woman would be required to have a birth control device implanted immediately following the birth. Women who have families that are receiving food stamps or federal assisted housing, the woman would be required to have a birth control device implanted. If at some point her life turns around and she can show two years of her family being financially self-supporting, she would be permitted to have the device removed.

 Drastic measures you say? Drastic times require drastic measures. And folks, we are in drastic times!

I watched a program, The Other America, on CBS news last summer that raised my eyebrows and clenched my fists. The program reported almost 28 million Americans generated their meals from food stamps assistance. When you consider our nation has a population of 301 million, which is about 9% of the US population! Of the 28 million, the vast majority were families, with the majority of those being a single parent household. According to statistics I found on the U. S. Health and Human Services website, 42% of the two-parent households living at 200% below the poverty level qualifying for food stamps actually claimed the benefit. However, 76% of single-parent households qualifying because of their income level collect the benefits. Additionally, two-parent households typically use the program for a short period of time, four months or less, with single-parent households remaining on the program for extended periods, often years and years.

Before I go further, I want to make clear I in no way begrudge those needing temporary assistance. There by the grace of God go I! I do however have an issue with generational welfare. I have relatives who use the act of having more children to increase their monthly benefits from our government. I also have a nephew who was living paycheck to paycheck, like many Americans, who received a temporary layoff for 3 weeks. After the second week, he went to apply for food stamps and was told he did not qualify because he had no children, was purchasing a home and not living in government subsidized housing, and owned a vehicle with a Blue Book value of over $2000. There is something wrong with a country that gives an incentive to families to have more children they can not support. Which brings me to Nadya ‘Octomom’ Suleman.

Anyone watching the octo-saga, either intentionally or just because it is constantly on the news, now knows Nadya chose to have all the children she has because she “loves children.” The fact that she chose to use the money she received from a worker’s compensation claim to pay for the in vitro fertilization which resulted in the eight babies instead of helping her mother make payments on the house in which she and her already 6 children lived, displays she has limited intelligence resources. She knew she did not have the finances to even feed the first 6 children as she was participating in the food stamp program. In addition to food stamps, three of her first 6 children receive federal supplemental security income due to learning disabilities. Why does that not surprise me?! As reported, all of her children were conceived through in vitro, which is another whole can of worms. And, as I stated at the beginning, it takes more than money to raise a child. Even though it has not been reported the exact nature of the learning disabilities, it stands to reason being in this looney-bin of a family is just enough cause. And could those children have been spared a lifetime of difficulty?

Just when did Nadya go on welfare? It is reported all of her children are under the age of six. She has been on workers compensation for at least six years. If America had a responsibility clause in its welfare program, odds are Nadya would only have two children at the most today, not 14. She could have been counseled to fulfill her love for children by volunteering a day care center or a school. But instead, our country’s inability to address the issue of citizens having children that they, at the very least, can not financially afford has led in part to this octo-circus.

How many more children must be born into poverty before we as a country stand up and say no more? How bad does our economy have to get before common sense tells us we can not afford generational welfare?