We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, December 3. 2012
4 Benefits of Marrying Young - What are you waiting for?
" I have been encouraging people to read Haidt for a half-dozen years, not with unqualified approval, but because he is clearly onto something. "
The Sadistic Brutality of England’s Government-Run Healthcare
Can the Republican Party Avoid the Fate of the Whigs?
Dem Rep. Hank Johnson: Amend the Constitution to Control Speech
Cannot believe the WaPo headlined this
Anti-capitalism film not making money
The Palestine Mirage - A futile U.N. gesture that violates the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Bruce Walker: The Founding Fathers did not risk their lives and their fortunes to get richer, although that is what Marxist professors teach our kids.
That's very odd. What Marxist professors? Can you point to a standard high school textbook that says the Washington fought the American Revolution in order to get richer? Most textbooks seem to go the other way, providing a patriotic caricature rather than a balanced portrait of the American founders.
I recall a history professor critiquing a talk by Howard Zinn. Zinn, he said, would say that history textbooks only give the story of the 'great accomplishments' of the powerful, and ignore both their failings and the fate of the common person -- and the audiences would lap it up, unaware that this hasn't been the case in decades.
The Sadistic Brutality of England’s Government-Run Healthcare
Should those close to an inevitable death be kept alive artificially?
So, that's a yea of Death Panels, then?
So let's see, advocate for murdering babies in the womb. Okay with letting babies starve/dehydrate over a weak or so until they die. Okay, with starving/dehydrating those no longer of use to the State.
Yes, that is utopia, socialist utopia ,that is.
It's about allowing the terminally ill die a natural death in consultation with their family. Where the system can be improved, it should be. Did you have a better idea?
The problem with letting people die who are seeking medical help is we don't "know" in all cases when people are going to die. Bill Clinton had heart surgery why didn't we "let him die a natural death in consultation with his family"? If the health care system is allowed to take drastic steps to save some lives and at the same time decide to let others die to save money just who do you think will get to live? Should we let people over the age of 70 just die when they have a serious disease? We all know old people who have had serious diseases and are still kicking. I have a cousin who is 88 who has had 12 operations, should she have been allowed to just die 40 years ago and saved the health care system a fortune? Why do we have a health care system if we are going to just let people die? If you get two people in from a car accident with identical life threatening injuries one is over 65 and the other is 40 do you save the younger guy? Not only will it cut the health care costs in half but it will save Social Security a lot of money. Hell! Why not just kill them when they reach 65?
Here is the problem we all have to face if Obama care is allowed to stand: The day will come when you or your spouse or parent or other loved one will be allowed to die because they are very sick and very old and it costs too much to save them, but at the very same time the health care system will spend a lot of money on an illegal alien to save their life for no other reason then because they are young. In other words you will be forced to contibute to a system that will someday fail you but will be twisted by a court ruling down the road to make the health care system give care to non-citizens who have never been forced to contribute to the health care system.
Every government health care system in the world does exactly what you suggest and they do it for one reason; to save money. They do this because a socialized health care system is an oxymoron. By design it cannot afford to provide health care for everyone with the income it gets by taking from a decreasing pool of "rich" people. Every socialized health care system is failing and busily allowing people to die to save money. Socialism is a failed political theory and it is no suprise it failed in health care as well.
GoneWithTheWind: The problem with letting people die who are seeking medical help is we don't "know" in all cases when people are going to die.
No, medicine is not a perfect science, but that is not to say we know nothing whatsoever.
GoneWithTheWind: Bill Clinton had heart surgery why didn't we "let him die a natural death in consultation with his family"?
Because he wasn't terminal.
GoneWithTheWind: If the health care system is allowed to take drastic steps to save some lives and at the same time decide to let others die to save money just who do you think will get to live?
End of death decisions should be based on the best interests of the patient.
GoneWithTheWind: Should we let people over the age of 70 just die when they have a serious disease?
The Liverpool protocol only applies to terminal patients in the last few days or weeks of life.
"The Liverpool protocol only applies to terminal patients in the last few days or weeks of life."
Well, if you're going to lie about it, you can win any arguement. There are multiple cases of people who have been taken off thte Liverpool Pathway who have LIVED. For a lot more then a few days or weeks.
The Liverpool Pathway is euthanasia for the inconvenient who don't have strong and knowledgable advocates to speak for them.
I'm not going to bother with references to persons who have been taken off the death pathway and lived- the British press has covered it in detail. If you are not aware of any such cases, you are deliberately ignorant.
HH: There are multiple cases of people who have been taken off thte Liverpool Pathway who have LIVED. For a lot more then a few days or weeks.
Sure, sometimes that can happen, and where the system can be improved, it should be. Nevertheless, prolonging life is not always the best option for the patient. Average survival rates on the Liverpool Care Pathway is ≈30 hours, so for the vast majority of cases, the patients are clearly terminal. Making the decision to go from life-saving to palliative care is an important one, and the most important aspect is consultation either with the patient or guardian.
Sol Sanders: Unanswered national security questions in Benghazi
Good questions overall.
1. There may be reasons having to do with reports of an ongoing CIA operation, but that may be inaccurate. In any case, you avoid unnecessary risks to the ambassador.
2.3. It was over before military forces could be deployed. Turns out there is no magic military færy.
4. Presumably on-going. It took a decade to get bin Laden.
The Obama Administration made significant mistakes in providing adequate security. Certainly not on the level of a 9-11 or Iraq War, but something that should be addressed. Not sure what a political investigation would accomplish, unless there were a real intent to improve security going forward.
Number 5 reason to get married young. You get to pay alimony longer.
Number 6 - you won't live any longer but it sure will feel like death will never come.
Regarding the free speech of corporations. Of course The Barrister would recognize this for what it is. Take a subject that is up for discussion now--the role of corporations in the US--should they be treated as individual human beings, or should they have another type of category? That of course will have to be decided by the supreme court--ultimately. HOWEVER, this nutcase dem decided to throw in the other and far more sinister movement that is taking shape in the bowels of the democratic party--the issue of free speech itself--for one and all. They hate free speech, most importantly they hate the constitution. This poorly educated boob just through everything into the same rhetorical plot. Mr. Barrister what is it when you "seem to attack" one issue, but you are using bad comparisons and links to something else? Memory fails me . . .
On the benefits of marrying young. Or, The Marriage Contract and all things Larry, Moe and Curly. Where shall I begin? First, JKB makes a good point, marriage is not very appealing. Certainly not for men and certainly not if you have any level of awareness about how the decrepit institution of marriage is administered. This, despite my opinion that women, of all ages, are more beautiful than ever. And the prettiest and smartest girls always skip over everything in parenthesis. (always toss in a compliment, so they don't sue you) (women are easily distracted by compliments and shiny objects) Nope, after subsidizing millions of parasitic government employees and the multitudes entrusted to their care, who needs another money pit?
But, I was thinking there may be a way to improve the situation. This is where attentive readers should think, "Uh oh, this isn't going to be pretty".
However, I'm not even going to be that nutty today, so relax. I was thinking we might bring back the practice of dowry and bride-wealth. Stripped down to their essential elements, I see many potential benefits. To begin with, we must assume the rule of law, respect for private property, etc. The first benefit is how it would keep wealth in the family and away from the government. But, the government would steal it because the rule of law is just a legal fiction. Second, just as the family is the building block of society, the extended family makes for more and bigger blocks. Keeping construction costs down. Dowries and such being wealth passed from one family to another and doing that in a reciprocal manner as I suggest, would tend to reinforce family concrete. Mostly because money has a way of focusing people's attention. I think of it as a hostage or bond held against the potential of cheating, bad breath, farting and ingrown toenails. Or, in other words, defective blocks. The details about who comes up with the loot and what it can be used for during the marriage aside, it would help ensure that neither party is impoverished after a divorce since the money would be returned, the young married couple would get some working capital to build on and so forth. The children of divorcing couples would be sold into servitude of course, nobody really cares about lousy kids and it may further discourage divorce in the unlikely event the parents actually tolerate them.
If the families are poor, even a modest dowry would help and in every case would serve to discourage divorce and encourage cooperation. Nothing is perfect and it wouldn't work if the extended families are feuding or the bride and groom were disgusting. We don't want extremely ugly people reproducing do we? Overall though, families being more dependent on each other and less on a completely disinterested and irresponsible government can't help but be better than what we have. Or, maybe my idea is just stupid?
On the so-called palestinians going from "non-member observer" status to "non-member state" status: Is this yet another example of the near complete breakdown of language? I always thought observe meant looking without speaking or touching. Why and how did these 'observers' get speaking status? I object, sit down and shut up Mr. Abbas.
That's your claim, and maybe theirs. In practice, though, somebodies are going to be dead bodies much sooner.
Obama Takes Hard Line On Debt? Of course! He wants more of it!
Alanis: A comment for Juba Doobai there: "The ballerina blames Netanyahu for treating Obama badly. What did Netanyahu do?
“Emanuel also said that the White House expects that Netanyahu’s treatment of President Barack Obama will be different, especially at this time.
He said the President was not willing to accept degrading treatment by the Israeli Prime Minister. “It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister would behave the way Netanyahu is behaving,” said Emanuel, according to Channel 2."
After the way Obama treated Netanyahu, Bibi is entitled to get in his licks.
"Anti-capitalism film not making money": as well it shouldn't.
Anti-Grover? Another Sesame Street problem?
When I was a young man I gave no thought to marriage, I wanted to see the world and enjoy life. I think a lot of people are like that and marriage "happens" to them rather then planned by them. But now at 69 my advice to a young man would be to marry young, marry a woman you love and who loves you and have many children. Make this woman and your children the most important thing in your life and work hard to keep it that way. Will it guarantee you love and happiness? No guarantees but it may well be your best plan if you don't have a plan. Marriage brings stability and seperates you from many of the less desirable pursuits in life and a family is the most important thing in the world.
My vote for the most important reason to marry young is you will have grandchildren and great grandchildren at a younger age and can enjoy them longer.
As long as this item is regularly including links like the Immortal Dairy Queen Princess, survey takers can pound sand! The balance is purrfect.
"Don't Promote Grover Norquist as Voice of Resurgent Tea Party Movement"
This just in, Grover Norquist takes money to advocate causes. Bad causes like freaky religions. By golly, that sounds suspiciously like something a lobbyist might do. Darn those lobbyists and may a government agent from the Prevention of Barnyard Animal Perversion Agency (POOP) examine every single one of them for fleas, ticks and suspicious rashes. It would be much better if the Tea Party hired Glen Beck. He's really sincere.
"Obama takes hard line on debt" is a perfectly reasonable and true summation. He's taken a hard line to increase it as fast as possible, and faster if possible.