Jump to content
And there we have it. Government insists on taking over everybody's health care, and then demands the right to control even what we choose to put in our own mouths, because, after all, it must pay the costs for our bad decisions.
Obesity is NOT a "public health" issue just because a lot of members of the public have it. It's a private health issue. Taxing sugar as a way to "nudge people from destructive behaviors" may be "less coercive" than other means (like what - re-education camps, implantable electrodes that zap you if you consume a soda, public lashings?) but it's really just one more method for the government to take our money while pretending to do us a favor.
The true take-away from this editorial is that government has spent billions in the last few years, and imposed thousands of pages of regulations to try to control obesity and FAILED. OK. Gave it your best shot. Now move on to something that really IS your business, like catching the criminals who spray bullets around our urban cesspools.
Names go on the TSA watch list by "random selection"? Boy, doesn't that make us feel secure?
Pretty sure Winston Churchill, and even FDR, would say that's just a bunch of hot air.
For one thing, all that "tackling" and "preventing" requires a little more oomph than just a "pretty please".
And for another, it is not necessary to "bomb an ideology out of existence". The Nazi ideology still has its adherents in the American Nazi Party, for instance, but that doesn't mean WWII was a complete failure.
As for "our youth", the three for whom I have had any direct responsibility and authority have so far made it into self-supporting adulthood without committing any acts of violence against anyone, despite owning a small arsenal of hand guns and long guns between them which I'm sure the UN would happily remove from them as part of their "arms trade" program.
Finally, the UN? Since when has the UN shown the slightest capacity to do anything useful? Is ISIS waiting with bated breath to hear the latest UN resolution?
"The U-B letter pages should welcome various points of view, but there should be some minimum standard of truthfulness and basic human decency."
Yes, indeed. Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Beginning in 1941, the Nazis collected about 400,000 Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, an area one-tenth the area of the City of Walla Walla, surrounded by an 11 foot wall. Children who would be attending elementary school here found ways under that wall through the sewers to try to find food to keep from starving. Many failed.
From there, the Nazis deported most of those people to places like Treblinka, until early 1943, when the remaining Jews realized they were not being sent to “labor camps” but to death camps.
The Warsaw Uprising - the Jewish resistance to their own murders - was fought with Molotov cocktails, only a few handguns, a few rifles, some captured from Germans, some smuggled into the Ghetto, only one automatic rifle and even with handmade guns that often jammed and sometimes didn’t work at all. Even so, the resistance managed to kill 300 German soldiers (or maybe only 16 if you choose to believe the Nazi commander’s report to Hitler), and hold off the deportation of the remaining Jews of Warsaw by months or weeks or days.
But even if it didn’t save a single Ghetto Jew (and it did), that was 300 or 16 or whatever German soldiers our military did not have to fight on D-Day and after. Walk over to the VA and tell a WWII veteran it wouldn’t have mattered if those German soldiers had survived to shoot at him.
There is not the slightest doubt that if Jews (and other Germans and Eastern Europeans) had not been previously disarmed by the Nazi version of Bloomberg, they would have been able to mount a more effective resistance. Would they have defeated Hitler? No. But they would have made it much harder for Hitler to accomplish his goals. Which is exactly what Ben Carson said, and is undeniably true.
That it should be necessary to debate whether it would have been better for Germany’s Jews to be armed during Hitler’s tenure makes me sick to my stomach. How could it possibly have made it worse for them? How could ANYONE be so ignorant, so besotted with liberal anti-gun propaganda?
What Ben Carson didn’t say and could have is that the blacks of the American South would also have been far better off if the original “gun-control” fans, the Bloombergs of that era - the KKK - had not been successful in disarming them.
The strong don’t need protection against the weak. But the weak always need it against the strong. That’s what the drafters of the 2nd Amendment understood - and moreover, they believed that even the weak are entitled to defend themselves. How can ANYONE not understand that? I just can’t fathom it.
Doctors are "pressured" by the ads to prescribe medications that are NOT medically indicated? Doesn't that mean they are incompetent, unethical or both? It seems to me the AMA should be focused on raising the competency of doctors, including their ability to say to their patients, "No, this medication is not appropriate for your condition."
Banning speech, even commercial speech, is a far too broad-brush remedy to whatever lack of gumption a few doctors may have in being honest with their own patients about the benefits of a drug.
And the fact that spending on prescription medication is going up is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it replaces more expensive medical measures like surgery, physical therapy, mental health counseling and round upon round of tests and referrals to specialists. Oh, wait! NOW I get why the AMA would like to ban pharma advertising!
I'm so tired of the "when that occurs [whatever the WRITER believes is a bad thing] the terrorists win" line.
The terrorists are trying to do one thing: Kill their enemy. Not make them fearful but kill them. Remember, THEY did not pick the name "terrorist" for themselves - that's the name picked for them by their targets. Maybe fear is a bonus for them, but since many don't expect to be around to enjoy it, I don't know why it would be.
When someone is trying to kill you or your countrymen or co-religionists, both hate and fear are perfectly normal reactions, but hate is probably a more useful one.
And why exactly should we NOT hate ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram? Because some of that hate might slop over onto non-violent Muslims?
Give us some credit, please. I can recognize that 94% or more of violent criminals in this country are men, and manage not to hate my male relatives, neighbors, co-workers, or passers-by on the street.
Even if 100% of the current crop of violent terrorists are Muslim, even people who never fully understood set theory in school probably understand that doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists. All Koalas are Australian but not all Australians are Koalas. See? Not hard to understand at all. Just think of terrorists as Koalas. Very very hate-able Koalas.
And seriously, "friends are unfriending each other"? This is some kind of tragedy? Do people really believe that because someone "friended" you on FB you have a real relationship? That shallowness makes me more "fearful" for the future of America than any number of terrorist attacks.
I agree; it was a great performance and their skill and professionalism when the lights went dark was awe-inspiring! (I thought the piece they played at the beginning was by Albinoni, but not sure. )
This is simply ahistorical nonsense.
First, Islamic "extremism" has existed in its modern form since at least the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, and arguably in its classical form since the writing of the Quran.
Second, you might as well say that FDR "created" the 1950-1980s Communist insurgencies throughout the world, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, by his alliance with Stalin against Hitler. For that matter, why not blame Woodrow Wilson for WWII, for siding with the Allies against Germany? If Germany had won WWI or come to better Armistice terms, Hitler would probably never have come to power and there might never have been a WWII. Pull out your 'alternate universe' cap and pretend like you know what would have happened if what did happen hadn't happened. Or stare at your navel for a few hours. Both about as productive.
Sometimes you can wish both sides of a conflict would lose and leave them to it, and other times you can't. Unfortunately, you often don't know what the right choice is until hindsight reveals it, and sometimes there IS no "right" choice that will lead to a good outcome. If the Soviet Union hadn't gotten bogged down for years in Afghanistan, would it have toppled? Will we ever even know for sure it was a good thing that it did topple? After all, who knows what Putin will do next? (Or whether he would have been heading Russia even if the Soviet Union had survived?)
I tend to agree that Ms. Bardsley's concern about importing Syrian terrorists is overblown. The average American campus is more likely to breed our future terrorists than a Syrian refugee camp.
However, our immigration system is currently overwhelmed, and there is no good reason for its resources to be further stretched to do the "thorough vetting" we are promised for the 10,000 Syrians Obama has decreed we will import.
Syria, for those who haven't looked at a map recently, is in the backyard of plenty of wealthy countries who have a greater stake than we do in the outcome of the conflicts there.
Conversely, we currently have over 11 MILLION illegal immigrants in our country today, who produce over 300,000 new children a year. This creates massive burdens on our schools, health care system, employment options, and criminal justice system. Many of these immigrants could reasonably be considered refugees from the violence, poverty, corruption and other ills of their own countries South of our border. Willingly or not, we seem to be stuck with them.
We have our problems, and they are more than big enough. Why, exactly, except as a "feel good" measure, are we even involving ourselves in the Syrian refugee problem? How many Central American refugees has Europe or Saudi Arabia taken in?
Last login: Tuesday, November 24, 2015
2015 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.