About Me

Name: Laura L. Hollis,...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Thomas Sowell's latest wisdom

A characteristically astute article from Dr. Sowell.  Here is a great excerpt:

"Those who are pushing for legal action against CIA agents may talk about 'upholding the law' but they are doing no such thing. Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Geneva Convention gives rights to terrorists who operate outside the law.

There was a time when everybody understood this. German soldiers who put on American military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge were simply lined up against a wall and shot-- and nobody wrung their hands over it. Nor did the U.S. Army try to conceal what they had done. The executions were filmed and the film has been shown on the History Channel.

So many 'rights' have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don't meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn't protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.

That should be especially obvious if you are part of an international network bent on killing Americans. But bending over backward to be nice to our enemies is one of the many self-indulgences of those who engage in moral preening.

But getting other people killed so that you can feel puffed up about yourself is profoundly immoral. So is betraying the country you took an oath to protect"

So here's a question: if you deliberately betray the country you took an oath to protect, it is treason, is it not?  What do we call it when it is done out of abject stupidity?

"Diplomacy"?



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

All these marriages

Somebody finally mentioned Ted Kennedy's first wife, Joan, in an article.  She who is now best known for her alcoholism.

When I read articles like these - whether about politicians, or athletes, or actors, or rock stars, I always wonder: why do we hold ourselves out as being so morally superior to cultures that have legalized polygamy?  After all, that's really what no-fault divorce has wrought in this country: serial polygamy.  Only in a legitimately polygamous culture, First Wife always has higher status, as do her children, and (perhaps even more importantly), husbands cannot take second or third wives unless they can afford to support all of them.

In our country, however, we call our marriage culture "monogamous," and then we allow husbands to divorce their first wives, toss them out onto the "street" (the courts now call this "getting a job"), go off and start a new family with another woman, and leave the first wife to fight for every penny of child support, while the child or children fight for whatever scrap of time they can get with their dad.  Who wins?  The matrimonial lawyers, of course.  (And, speaking as someone who has done a bit of matrimonial law, I can tell you that most of the lawyers doing the work hate it, too.)

And yes, I know all about the women who divorce perfectly decent men for no reason other than that they are "tired" of them, soak their ex-husbands for every damn dime they can get, try to turn the man's children against him, and make him a criminal by filing trumped-up requests for "orders of protection" every time he gets pi$$ed off about the once-a-week-dinner-and-every-other-weekend the court systems "allows" him with the children he still wants to be living with.  I think she'd be better off, too, if the legal system made her continue to live with her husband AND whatever new man she's decided she likes better.

The whole system sucks.  And reading the blurb about Joan Kennedy made me think about it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More bad news from Canada

From a Brit.  The comments from posters are even more telling.  One admits that while city care in Canada is fine, in smaller towns or rural areas, it sucks.  He seems to think that's no big deal.  The thing is, medical care is usually quite good in the United States even in smaller cities and rural areas.  (Many would say better, since they would tend to be smaller, more personalized, and less overwhelmed by the stresses of urban emergency roon issues.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gosh, I don't know

I'd love to think people can understand this.  Dare we hope?  In any event, it's one of the best efforts I've seen to explain BASIC ECONOMICS to the average person in the context of this health care debate.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Brilliant in every way

From the title on down.  Kudos to Andrew Breitbart for an extremely well-written article.  It echoes my own sentiments.  I didn't have any particular antipathy for Ted Kennedy - beyond recognizing that he should have been prosecuted for manslaughter at the least.  And I thought Michael Jackson was the most pitiful of characters.  But I have the deepest loathing for the media's efforts to canonize these two people, and otherwise use them to advance their sociopolitical ends.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They ARE covered, unless...

... there are any provisions in the bill requiring proof of citizenship, and creating sanctions for violations.  Which there aren't.  In other words, add this to the many lies being spun by Obama about Obamacare: "It won't cover illegal immigrants!"  Why?  "Uh, 'cause we say so."

Really?  Then why isn't there a provision in the bill requiring proof of citizenship to get non-emergency medical services?  And why did every Democrat vote against an amendment which would have required it?

Because if there is no enforcement provision in the bill, then any prohibition in it is meaningless.  And they know it.

Don't take my word for it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Which only shows she needs to get out more

Uh, yeah, sure.  And Hitler appreciated art.  Mussolini made the trains run on time.  Andropov ran a mean (literally) KGB.  People like this idiot don't appreciate freedom and liberty; they admire totalitarianism as long as it's done with style.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why CAN the government simply take your property?

Your house?  Your car dealership?  And give it to someone else?  Put you out of business?  Put all your employees out of a job?

All of this is so d@mned unconstitutional, it is a wonder that the bones of the Founding Fathers haven't risen from their graves to haunt us.  How devastated they would be to see what we tolerate now.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's wrong with capitalism? Nothing. It's what's wrong with US.

Great article here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Question: What do Massachusetts, Tennessee, Hawaii, and Maine have in common?

Answer: State-provided health care programs that drastically exceeded their initial budget estimates.

It doesn't matter how well-intentioned the programs' drafters are, human nature being what it is, the costs of these kinds of programs always soar out of control.  And there is, contrary to what Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid might think, an upper limit to what you can confiscate in taxes.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Andy McCarthy understands why the term "death panels" resonates

with the American public.  To my way of thinking, too many conservative writers are trying too hard to look "fair."  It's one thing to refrain from ascribing malevolent motives to someone (à la, "Barack Obama wants old people to die.")  It is quite another to pretend that, when (not "if") rationing happens, government bureaucrats aren't going to make decisions pursuant to which real people actually die.  They will.

Read the whole thing here.  It's refreshing in its honesty, and I like it when conservatives take on other conservatives!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And the specifics are even more frightening

When you go from talking about "health care" or "medical treatment" generally, and start talking about the specifics of actual medical specialties, the implications become even more grave.

Compelling article here by Dr. Ronald Dworkin.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This kind of thing is EXACTLY what people fear.

It's one thing to initiate an end-of-life conversation with your doctor, your spouse, your attorney, your children.  It's quite another when the entity that is paying your medical bills starts asking, "Have you ever wondered when life wouldn't be worth living anymore?"

It's called being railroaded.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's God complex

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death"??????  What kind of unsurpassed arrogance is this?  I swear, maybe some of the people who think B.O. is the Antichrist are onto something here.  Has any other politician in modern memory claimed to be a "partner" (and thus "equal") with God, and in matters of who lives and who dies?  And he says this as the country erupts with angry citizens, terrified at the prospect of a federal bureaucracy set in place by Obama to decide who gets what care - if any?

And I don't want to hear any blather about how he "misspoke."  There are dozens of things he could have said.  He could have said that God asks us all to aid each other through life and death.  He could have said that our faith requires that we assist those who are sick and dying.  His particular phraseology, however, says something very different. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yet another reason not to emulate Sweden

More nonsensical governmental interference with parents' rights to raise their children.
 
Every study I have seen has shown that homeschooled children do better on virtually every single metric that matters - yes, including "social" skills. How ironic that government schools suck not because of the teachers or administration, but because of the problems at home (problems that no school or teacher can solve), while the families who are doing an excellent job of raising and educating their children at home are being told they have to be in government schools.
 
Ridiculous.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive