God Bless the TSA (Transportation Security Administration)

You gotta love the Transportation Security Administration, aka the TSA.
I just cannot understand all the people who are slamming the TSA. Did you know there are some folks who want to protest the thoroughness of the job that the Transportation Security Administration is performing in trying to assure the safety of all who fly the skies in the good ol' United States of America? Yes, indeed, these good Americans want to disrupt the rest of us in our air travel; they want to impede the TSA in the performance of its duty and thereby consequently delay all the airline passengers across all of America, or even causing innocent passengers to actually miss their flights.

Please, go on over to my other blog, Roland's Ramblings, to read The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) Watches Out For Our Safety.

The protesters allege that our right of privacy is being abridged by the new TSA procedures. What these folks fail to understand is that there is no such thing as a constitutional right for privacy, per se. Constitutionally speaking, there is no broad general expressed right to privacy or right of privacy in the United States Constitution.

None-the-less, in regards to an implied right of privacy, there are decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting various sections of the Constitution and applying those interpretations to certain types of situations. Generally, speaking however, none of those situations really apply the right of privacy for an individual in a setting that involves the public at large. As an example, an individual may generally expect an implied constitutional right of privacy to be applicable to conversations taking place in a person's private home or even conversations held on a person's land-line home telephone; but, there is no express or implied constitutional right to privacy that is applicable to conversations being held over a cordless telephone that uses public radio airwaves.

Commercial airlines are available to the general public. Air travel is conducted in the skies of the public air routes. Why on Earth or above the Earth should anyone expect any right to privacy? Come to think of it, why should anyone even think they have the right to wear clothing at anytime during the process of participating in air travel?

This whole thing about a constitutional right of privacy is clear as mud!

Are You A Sarah Palin Fan?

Little Johnny is not a Palin fan

A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Palin fans. Not really knowing what a Palin fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.

The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different... again.

Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not a Palin fan."

The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Palin?"

Johnny said, "Because I'm a Democrat."

The teacher asked him why he's a Democrat.

Little Johnny answered, "Well, my Mom's a Democrat and my Dad's a Democrat, so I'm a Democrat."

Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom were a moron and your dad were an idiot, what would that make you?"

With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me a Palin fan."

MY VOTE IS FOR JOHNNY.

p.s. My thankful appreciation goes out to Jerry Rosen for bringing this cute little story to my attention.
Incidentally, I think that Little Johnny is wise way beyond his years.

Good Things, Objective and Subjective

This entry is not the usual Roland Hansen Commentary. In fact, it is not a Roland Hansen Commentary at all.

Instead, I would like to direct you over to the blog of Nina Amir that is called As The Spirit Moves Me in order that you may read her blog entry about objective good and subjective good:
Is What You Want "Good" For You?

I pretty well think that most people could learn a lesson or two from reading that writing of Nina Amir and take it to heart.

The 17th Amendment and The United States Senate

The history of government of the United States of America is quite interesting as it also continues to be an ever-evolving story. The original form of government with its subsequent changes, the creation of the Senate along with the change in how Senators have been chosen coupled with current proposals in the selection of Senators has got me pondering.

It was the Second Continental Congress that approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. However, it was not until 1781 that the United States of America adopted its first form of national government under the Articles of Confederation. While each state was granted much independence, the Articles of Confederation did not provide the national government with the authority to make the states work together to solve national problems. Under this early form of federalism, early Americans were not all that happy with the national government and decided a change was needed. Consequently, the call for governmental change resulted in throwing out the government entirely with the adoption of a new form of government under the Constitution of the United States in 1789.

Article 1 of the Constitution is known as the legislative article because it establishes the national legislature for the United States. In compliance with this article of the Constitution, the national legislature is composed of a two-chamber Congress consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as stated in Article 1, Section 1: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

According to the Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution, members of “the House of Representatives shall be … chosen … by the people of the several states, …” with each state having proportionate representation, i.e. each state having its number of representatives determined proportionately by the size of its population.

In regards to the Senate, the Constitution provided that each state shall have two senators regardless of the population size. Additionally, the Constitution stipulated that those senators were to be chosen by each state legislature. Section 3 of Article 1 states, in part: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, ....“

Note that the Constitution as ratified in 1789 provided that each state be allowed two senators with each state legislature choosing those two senators. This is how United States Senators were chosen for the next 124 years.

It was in 1913 that the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. It is the 17th Amendment, adopted 124 years after the Constitution of the United States was ratified, that changed the manner in which United States Senators are chosen. It is the 17th Amendment that took the responsibility, authority, and power of electing senators from the state legislatures. It is the 17th Amendment that gave the power of electing Senators directly to the people of the states. Amendment 17 to the United States Constitution states, in part: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof … “

Now, 97 years later, there is a group of people, most of whom have aligned themselves with the Tea Party movement, who wish to change the method of choosing Senators by going back to the original method of having Senators chosen by the individual state legislatures.

So, if we are to essentially repeal the 17th Amendment, are we taking a step backwards or are we correcting the error of our ways to go back so that we may move forward?

I have heard some pundits criticize this proposal of having the state legislatures choosing U.S. Senators as taking away the right of people to vote. If we return to that method of selecting Senators, do the people really lose power? In our republican government, our representative democracy, are not the state legislators elected by the people and empowered to act on the behalf of the people? If we do not trust our state legislators, why did we elect them? If it concerns a matter of having a direct vote and a direct voice, why do we have a representative democracy, why not just go to a direct democracy form of government?

Why do we keep going back and forth about how we select members of the United States Senate? I get so confused with the arguments, pro and con. Do we want a representative democracy, a direct democracy, or what?

University of Toledo: More BS, as in BULL

With the University of Toledo being the topic of Roland Hansen Commentary today, a reference to BS might refer to Bachelor of Science; but, that is not the case.

I just read with great interest a story from The Independent Collegian. After having read the article, all I can sputter is "What a bunch of BS!" (Hint: the "B" stands for "bull" and the "S" - well, you can fill that in for yourself.)

Tell you what. Click on over to read Board approves restructuring plan, University to be reorganized into new colleges and schools; implementation process to begin by Hasan Dudar; and then, tell me of your reaction.

Ya know? This is not the first Roland Hansen Commentary about the University of Toledo. I have made several blog entries about the University of Toledo. To get the flavor of my perspective of U.T. under the watch of Lloyd Jacobs, you might click over to read these three previous commentaries of mine:
University of Toledo: A Non-Responsive Bureaucracy
University of Toledo: A Success As A Failure OR A Failure At Success?
University of Toledo: President Dr. Lloyd Jacobs Should Resign Or Be Fired

There are more Roland Hansen Commentary entries about U.T. that you may read; and if you so desire, go ahead and knock your socks off. But, I think you catch my drift.

Postnote: The University of Toledo is a great place to learn, thanks to its excellent faculty and faculty support staff, and no thanks to (or should that be "despite"?) its administration

Consumer Alert: 760-284-4698 Scam By Telephone

Most people are aware that I have two places that I call home. One is the home of my legal residence in Toledo, Ohio. The other is my little retirement home in Dreamland Villa, a 55 plus community in a Maricopa County island of Arizona surrounded by the municipality of Mesa where I am at the moment.

Well, the other day, I received a telephone call from my brother, who lives in my Toledo house. He was frantic and was quite distraught. He started out with, "I do not know if you are in trouble or not; but there was a telephone call that I answered that, as it turned out, was for you. I took a message and promised the caller that I would give it to you."

He then proceeded to give me the message, as paraphrased and summarized below:

"A fellow using the name Frank Jefferson telephoned. He said his name was 'Frank Jefferson' but he spoke with a really strange accent that sounded like it might be East Indian. He said that a friend of yours (note from Roland: name being withheld to protect the innocent) is involved in some legal matters with American Cash Advance and since you (Roland) are named as a reference that you are equally involved. He aid that it is very important for you to call him back at the telephone number of 1-760-284-4698 or you can be in real trouble."

Wow! That is some heavy stuff, but something just did not seem correct. I, mean, give me a break - How could I be in trouble just by being named as a reference for someone else? I figured no way I will call this 'Frank Jefferson' person until I let my friend know about the call. I had absolutely no clue as to why either my friend or I would be involved in legal matters with American Cash Advance. I thought my friend might be able to shed some light on this.

Meanwhile, Sherlock Roland decided to let his fingers do the walking on the computer keyboard connected to the internet armed with trusty Google. So, into the google search space went the telephone number that was to supposedly be this 'Frank Jefferson' character.

Lo and Behold! Upon seeing the results, I got all kinds of warnings that it is a big scam to get money by fraudulent means. I thought I should share this information with everyone I can and to advise you all:
BE CAREFUL. IT IS A SCAM!

Here, click on over to the following embedded link to take a look for yourself at the Google search results for the telephone number 760-284-4698.

This is a public service announcement of Roland Hansen Commentary.

Seeking Intelligent Life

It is often said that astronomers, other natural scientists, and some other enthusiasts on Earth are seeking intelligent life in the Universe. Hell, I would be happy if we found some intelligent life right here on Earth.

I mean, come on people, look around you and do so objectively. How many people do you know actually have any real level of “smartness” sufficiently enough to be labeled as intelligent? Now, take another look around you, and tell me how many people you know that you have at sometime thought to yourself “Wow, he (or she) is really dumb (or stupid)!” Come on; be honest.

In everyday contacts with people and in observing others, I bet most people who read Roland Hansen Commentary think the majority of folks are dumb. Chances are good that there is not a majority of people who can be called intelligent. Chances are that most people around us do not keep current on the affairs of their community, let alone the affairs of the nation. Chances are that most Americans do not even know the basics of our governmental system. Chances are that the bulk of Americans have absolutely no understanding neither of the authorities, responsibilities, or of the limitations of the various branches and levels of government, nor of our elected officials.

And yet, these are the very same people who elect our leaders, our representatives, and all the other various elected officials. These are the same people who constantly slam and criticize our government and cry about those who have been put into office through the electoral process. My, gosh! Stop and think. The elected officials who comprise our government are a reflection of the American electorate. To those people who are so critical of our government, of our elected officials, I say, look in a mirror. What do you see? It certainly does not reflect any intelligence on your part. I say, if you are intelligent, you would realize that all our elected officials are smarter than the majority of people; otherwise, you tell me how the elected official got there in the first place.

Oh, I cannot believe the lack of intelligence that permeates the American citizenry! The other day, I saw a campaign sign for a candidate to the state legislature with a few key phrases on it that left me scratching my head. A little elaboration of that perplexing and confounding political sign: One phrase stated “better schools” and yet we elect boards of education for that important function; another phrase stated “lower taxes” but did not say what public services should be eliminated as a result of decreased public revenues; and another phrase on that sign proclaimed “create new jobs” and yet that candidate was of the political party that professes the government should stay out of the affairs of private business enterprises advocating that capitalism of the marketplace regulate itself and should set its own pace.

Give me a break! How stupid! And yet, the public falls for such irrationalism. People lack the intelligence to properly read (or listen) and interpret the real message. People lack the ability to think for themselves. People also lack the initiative to obtain the facts for themselves. All they do is react. That is why negative advertising in campaigns works so well. The receivers of the negative campaign ad do not stop to process the information; they just knee jerk, saying “yeah, that’s right” and then vote for the other candidate without ever taking the time to gather objective information in order to intelligently assess that “other” candidate.

I dare say, none of those people even read Roland Hansen Commentary or any other material that requires their attention and mental processing. Most people are just too damn lazy; they prefer to complain and criticize and moan and groan and attack the few people who do have intelligence and initiative and a sense of real, true public service.

I am seeking intelligent life. Who wants to help me in my quest?

Religion and Politics

Religion and politics do not mix, just like oil and vinegar do not mix. Or at least religion and politics should not mix, regardless of all the so-called "good Americans" who think their personally held religious beliefs should control our everyday lives here in the United States of America. However, people do mix religion and politics, in the same way as they mix oil and vinegar, as described in part of the article to which I linked in the opening sentence, "There is a way to make oil and vinegar combine. For example, if you were to get grease on your hands..."

As I wrote over on my Roland's Ramblings blog:

Out of respect for the First Amendment, I cannot help but have the opinion that candidates for elective office, especially those persons who seek election to the United States Congress, and/or those who already hold elective office, should keep religion out of politics.

I found an article in Wikipedia to be very interesting and I highly suggest you click on over to read:
Religion and politics in the United States

It seems to me that some people think that their religion is the correct one and that everyone else should conform to their religious beliefs. Gee, if memory serves me correctly, I learned at a very early age in elementary school history class that the early colonists came to the New World in order to escape religious persecution and oppression and to safely observe their own religious beliefs.

Political conservatives and many persons who have embraced the Tea Party movement seem to have forgotten that very basic principal of the United States of America as they try to force their religious beliefs on others who do not share the same religious beliefs, things like prayer in school, returning CHRIST in xMas, declarations that the USA is a Christian nation, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera (as Yul Brynner said in The King and I).

It is my passionately held opinion that religion and politics do not mix and that religion and politics should be separate. "And now you know… the rest of the story." as told by me. This is (with all due respect to Paul Harvey) Roland Hansen ............. Good Day!

The Cost of a Colonoscopy

Okay, many people I know keep saying that a person of a certain age should get a colonoscopy at regular intervals just as a preventive medicine health care measure. I understand the necessity for a person at risk, i.e. for someone in which a health problem is medically suspected; but to have a colonoscopy on a regular, just because basis, I don't know. Especially when I see what the costs are for a colonoscopy.

Recently, my wife, Judy, was in need of a colonoscopy due to medical necessity in that the primary care physician suspected some problems after a physical examination and the return of some medical tests. I will not even go into the costs of these preliminary exams and tests.

However, I feel compelled to tell you about the costs of the colonoscopy including the associated costs of the removal of the five polyps that were discovered and removed during the process of the colonoscopy itself. All total, there have been five different medical providers involved. i.e. the surgeon, the facility, the anesthesiologist, the laboratory, and the pathologist.

Are you ready?

$3517.83 or $1363.10, depending upon how you look at it.

If a person has no medical insurance, the medical providers would make that person pay $3517.83 out of his or her own pocket.

But, if a person has the same medical insurance as I do, the medical providers would accept $1363.10 as payment in full. In our situation, my insurance company paid $729.90 and we paid $633.20 out of our own pocket. The medical providers actually wrote off $2154.73 of their charges because - - - well, basically because the insurance company said the medical providers were overcharging by that much.

This is a summary of that of which I just wrote:
Amount billed: $3517.83
Amount allowed: $1363.10
Insurance paid: $729.90
We paid: $633.20
Written off: $2154.73

If you want to know the details of all that, like how each of those line items are broken down by medical providers, go over to read my comments on Judy Hansen Commentary Medical Cost Ripoff and see the precise amount for each of the medical providers --- and I name names.

A person without health insurance would have to pay $3517.83 for a colonoscopy and removal of polyps. But, as you can see in the case of Judy, those same medical providers are willing to accept $1363.10 as payment in full for persons who have insurance such as mine. That means the person without insurance is charged $2154.73 more than a person with my type of medical insurance. HECK, for the uninsured, that is almost three times as much as it is for the insured. That kind of gouging of the uninsured by the medical providers is a real pain in the ---, just like a hemorrhoid.

I will never ever understand the compassionless political Conservatives and Republicans who think it is all right for low and moderate income people without adequately sufficient health insurance to go without needed health care because of the expensive, overpriced American Health Care Industry.

I do not need to go on with my thoughts on that particular matter because, as my regular readers may recall, I have written a previous Roland Hansen Commentary about health care in the United States.

Sarah Palin: Harmful to Women's Causes

Jill Miller Zimon is a woman I admire. Jill Miller Zimon is a real leader, a true thinker, an active advocate, and a genuine champion of women.

To me, Jill Miller Zimon is "She Who Could Be President" - SWCBP.
Or maybe,
I should proclaim Jill Miller Zimon: SWSBP - "She Who Should Be President."

Not so for Sarah Palin, "She Who Wishes To Be President" aka SWWTBP.

Read what Jill Miller Zimon has written about Sarah Palin in regards to advancing the social and political positions and causes of women. Just click on over to:
Palin Continues To Damage Women While Others Spend Time, Money To Help Them

In my opinion, it just seems to me that Paling Palin is harmful to women's causes. Speaking of women's causes, I would like to suggest you check out the website of Women for Women International.