When President Obama spoke to school children last week, he gave the kind of speech I would have given:' he emphasized that personal responsibility is the ticket to a life of success and a strong country.' He mentioned that all the equipment, books, and desks were all well and good, but useful only if students took the responsibility to work hard at their studies.I wish our courts (and the rest of the President's agenda) followed that concept of personal responsibility.' Not so.An Indiana court has ruled that a pizza shop must pay for a 340 pound employee's weight loss surgery in order to ensure the success of another operation for a back injury he suffered at work when he was accidentally struck in the back by a freezer door.' I wonder how much his girth was responsible for the accident.' I don't wonder how much his girth is responsible for the fact that the surgery for his back won't be undertaken until he reduces his weight first - no kidding!' But making the pizza shop employer responsible for paying for that weight loss surgery is not in keeping with the President's message of personal responsibility.The man was obese before he was hired.' If he hadn't been hired because of his weight, that would have been discrimination, and would have been illegal.' Employers are screwed no matter what they do to run a business and make a reasonable profit.This is not the only such case.' The most recent was in Oregon, where the state's Supreme Court ruled on August 27 that the state workers' compensation insurance must pay for gastric bypass surgery to ensure that a man's knee replacement surgery was effective.Businesses will definitely and understandably be much more careful about whom they hire.' While they can't not hire a fat person because he or she is fat, they are not obligated to hire the first person who shows up for the job, and they can and should come up with some other reason to protect themselves from unreasonable financial demands because they hired a person who eats more and moves less.'Obviously, this situation is anti-personal responsibility and anti-business.' This ruling will have repercussions beyond obesity and weight-loss surgery.' Employers will be wary of hiring people who have other conditions that expose them to workplace injury.' Developmental and physical limitations of some applicants will likely keep potential employers from being as compassionate as they've been in the past.'This is really sad, because ultimately, it's the individual with some challenges who will suffer. More >>

More >>

William Taylor, from a Washington, D.C. suburb, cheated on his wife.' How do I know that?' Because he held a sign near Tyson's Corner Mall that read:' "I cheated and this is my punishment."' He stayed out on the corner for most of the morning commute, creating quite a commotion.' He and his wife brokered the deal.' He figured he had to do what she asked in order to make things right.When Fox TV interviewed women, they all loved the idea.' The print version of the story appeared on www.foxnews.com and it was followed by a series of reader comments.' Some of the responses suggested that castration was the best punishment for infidelity.' One (obviously male) writer pointed out that women seem to enjoy publicly humiliating men, but would not tolerate the reverse for exactly the same situation.That is true.' Feminism's perspective is that no matter what a woman does, it is the man's fault, and whatever a man does is the man's fault.' Hypothetical example:' a man and woman rob a bank.' He's a bad guy, and she is duped, clouded by love, or dominated by his will.' She's a sad victim, instead of a co-conspirator.' Another example:' a married man has an affair which lasts two weeks.' He comes guilt-ridden to his wife and confesses.' He tells her he's been so emotionally and sexually ignored by her for ten years, that he just absolutely needed some feminine attention and affection.' She ignores everything that comes after the confession and spends her time punishing him and whining to all who will listen.Women rarely take responsibility for any negative relationship issues, and that's largely because of the feminist brainwashing which has made them see all men as Darth Vader.'Here's another point:' in the development of our country, being humiliated in the public square was a standard form of punishment -- remember "stocks" and "pillories" from American history class?' There is something positive to be said about this concept of punishment - for men or women.'When we lived in small communities, the power of shame was potent, and probably dissuaded many from inappropriate behavior of all sorts.' The thought of being embarrassed in public is horrendous to most people, since our reputations are everything in interpersonal relationships.I bet that a lot of spouses, seeing this fellow out there, will remember him when they consider straying.' Consider it a kind of prophylactic for infidelity. More >>

Here's a trivia question:' Who invented the car seat belt?The answer?' Volvo's first safety engineer, Nils Bohlin, who invented it in 1959.' Prior to this invention, Bohlin designed a catapult ejector seat for airplane pilots.'This month is the 50th anniversary of the three-point safety belt, an invention that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives globally.' Volvo also made the patent available to other car makers, because they were convinced of the life-saving potential of this invention.Of course, just about everybody was against it at first:' it added cost to the car, no one wanted to promote cars as "death traps" by saying seat belts were there to save lives, and some people envisioned themselves trapped by a seat belt while a car was aflame or sinking into a watery grave.'Facts eventually won out over emotional responses, and safety experts estimate that seat belts increase your chance of surviving ANY collision by roughly 50 percent (according to a Fox News story).Of course, these days, there are many more safety precautions available to the average driver:' front and side air bags, pre-tensioners which tighten the safety belt straps when a collision is imminent, anti-lock braking system, and cars that talk to you when you're too close to a wall or to another car.'Nonetheless, all roads lead back to the seat belt.' You're just plain stupid if you don't use seat belts, and excuses like "it pinches," or you don't believe you'll ever have an accident or you forget just don't fly.The facts are that you will more likely die by ejection if you don't buckle up.' If you insist on not using your seat belt, please take out a million dollar life insurance policy for your family and friends.' That way, they can at least enjoy some benefit from your being so stubborn! More >>

I am sick to my stomach and soul that Scotland freed the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds, allowing the terminally ill creep to die in his homeland, Libya, and rejecting American pleas for justice in the attack that killed 270 people.Abdel Baset al-Megrahi served ONLY eight years of his life sentence.' Because he's been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, Scottish Judge Secretary MacAskill felt that since "Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power," he should be set free to die in his own bed in Libya.' The mass murderer was convicted in 2001 of taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 - just before Christmas.' The airliner exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, and all 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground died when it crashed.This evil man has been given three months to live, or so the doctors guess.' He is being given the luxury of dying in his country, in his town, in his home and with his family.' Is that appropriately compassionate?' Well, my take is that this is definitely compassionate, but definitely NOT appropriate.'It is an appalling, disgusting, sickening decision made by misguided notions of compassion.' Compassion for this man is an insult to all the victims.' The compassion should be directed to the victims and the ongoing, permanent suffering of their families.' This is misplaced compassion, misdirected compassion, and inappropriate compassion.' All the families of the victims got the bits and pieces of their loved ones returned to them in a box.' The same should happen to al-Meghari.'Why is this happening?' As one wise man once said, "Follow the money...or the oil."' Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi collected al-Megrahi on his private jet.' Western energy companies (including Britain's BP PLC) have moved into Libya in an attempt to tap the country's vast oil and gas wealth.' Gadhafi, as reported by FoxNews.com, has renounced terrorism, dismantled Libya's secret nuclear program, and accepted his government's responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing.' He has paid compensation to the victim's families.' I don't know why he wants this vile creature back in Libya to die.' Perhaps it's because there's more to the story...When al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli, more than 1,000 young Libyans gathered to welcome him, cheering and waving Libyan flags.' You should know that large public gatherings are rare in Libya, and tightly controlled by the government (especially on the tarmac where Gadhafi's private jet lands). For a country that is supposed to have turned its back on terrorism, protecting, nurturing and celebrating a terrorist murderer is perplexing.' Perhaps it means that the roots of Libya are still firmly planted in extremist mentalities.' Or maybe it means that, having bowed to economic and political pressure, Libya wished to flex a bicep at the expense of 270 victims and their innumerable family members and friends.To have put al-Meghari on a plane and then to welcome him as a hero, allowing him to die in peace is, in my opinion, an insult to the values of all civilization which believes that life is precious.' He forfeited the preciousness of his life when he thought it righteous to murder, killing men, women and children who didn't mean him or anyone else any harm.'Shame on Scotland.' Shame on Libya.' Shame on Scotland again, for not inflicting a death penalty on an unrepentant mass murderer.' We do not show the world that we value life when we impose minor consequences on those who devalue and steal lives. More >>

"Technology is the Evil Empire, Bent On Destroying Family Intimacy!" That's the headline I'd like to put on this post, but guns don't shoot people - people shoot people - so technology is not destroying families. People are destroying their own families.The technology I'm talking about is texting, video gaming, Facebook, email, Twitter, MySpace and more. Remember when the only complaint about lack of communication in families was when family members were all in separate rooms watching different television programs? Well, now, family members can all be in the same room, totally ignoring each other for the sake of fake friends and useless information, instead of for family conversations. Some family members even text each other from different parts of the same home, rather than walk the 15 feet, hug, and talk to each other.I remember the not-so-recent TV ads that promoted a family eating dinner together. Now, if you showed an ad with a family at the dinner table, there'd have to be a sign nearby that said "No Wireless Zone." I wonder what depth of interaction is being missed because one is getting superficial "quickies" from texting or emailing or Facebooking?' On the other hand, I already know that we're less able to engage in reasoned, significant discourse and profound intimacies these days, because, from the age of 4 or 5, we're geared toward the superficial, faceless exchange of comments on each other's web pages.Parents, you must get yourselves into gear and limit the amount of time per day donated to the wireless world outside of work. Otherwise, over time, there'll be no need for lips and vocal cords and eye contact, and we'll evolve into "thumbs only" beings who just peck away with a false sense of actually participating in the real world. More >>

Of the people who commented on a recent news story in which several so-called "mistresses" and a wife blindfolded and bound a man and then Krazy Glued his penis to his stomach, 68% of them LAUGHED.' They actually LAUGHED at this story.They wouldn't have laughed if it were the other way around, i.e., if several men glued a woman's genitals closed.'I am amazed that these women don't think they did anything wrong in this attack!' I can immediately think of a whole bunch of things, including false imprisonment, assault, sexual assault - and that's just for starters.This is the story.' The married man from Wisconsin planned to rendezvous with one of his several lovers at a motel.' The four women (including his wife) planned to have one of them make that "date" so that then they could ambush him together.' One of the women told investigators that she met him online through Craigslist, fell in love (online), and paid for his use of a motel room for the past two months.' She, like the others, gave this man money.' So, let's review:' these scummy women picked up a guy off the Internet, decided it was "love," and paid for motel sex and gave him money!' And they were expecting what?' True romance, honesty, integrity and everlasting love??I honestly can't understand why they're even angry.' They brought this on themselves, by acting like they were somewhere between sluts and purchasers of prostitution.'' During this ugly episode, unbelievably, one of them asked him which woman he loved the most!' What does love have to do with any of this?' Another threatened to shoot him.Apparently, his wife knew all about the honeys he had on the side, but instead of hitting the "eject" button, she decided to participate in this assault.'Obviously, he's a jerk.' But now, these women are all possible felons. More >>

A female professor from Oxford University in England, in an article published in the Journal of Population Economics, has decided that American and British men (who don't mind lending a hand when it comes to housework), make the best husbands, while Australian men are the worst.' She's also "decided" that Norway, Sweden, and Northern Ireland, where men "lend a hand in housework," are egalitarian countries which produce better husbands.I say: unbelievable feminista hogwash!! The professor's definition of a good husband is ridiculous.' Men who are sexually faithful, who work hard to provide for and protect their families, who take care of the plumbing and the lawn are not good husbands, because they don't do what used to be called "women's work."' This is just one more salvo in the war against masculinity, in which men are completely emasculated because they're told that they're neither good men nor good husbands unless they fold the laundry.When women call me complaining about such things (usually women who are at home), I ask them if they drive their husband's route in traffic every day, or if they deal with difficult bosses or co-workers, or if they aren't able to take breaks whenever they choose or take care of all the car and house repair issues.' They say "no," but expect him to do housework in addition to all his other responsibilities.In those situations where both husband and wife have full-time jobs, and there's a "war" about who's going to take care of household chores, I say they should budget and pay for part-time housecleaning help, or one of them ought to reassess their life and decide if having no one at home to make a nest is worth the money they both make.There are biological and psychological imperatives in females for nesting/child care, and in males for conquering/protecting.' When these are turned inside out, there is usually (but not always) a reaction in the female to feel less respectful and sexual toward her mate.' Women don't stare at skinny guys with spectacles when they walk by, but they do stare at Bowflex-toned commercial male actors with huge pecs and biceps.' Why?' It's the animal attraction of a male who, potentially, is sexually healthy enough to produce offspring and then provide and protect.Women who want emasculated men generally have huge hostility issues with masculinity (which they got from their mothers or the feminist teachers of their women's studies courses), and want to be able to control the man (never as much as their mother could) or are just too scared of their normal natural dependency on a real man.A better study would be to find out what household situations make MEN happiest, because those are the ones which, overall, are going to attract the men who make the best husbands.' Happy husbands spend more time with their families, and would swim through shark-infested waters for them.' This particular study?'' Just another piece of feminist propaganda flotsam. More >>

I got this email from a self-described former "bad" wife, and I'll let it speak for itself: Dear Dr. Laura: Some people are recovering alcoholics.' I am a recovering bad wife.' I don't know much about the 12 step programs, but from the little TV I watch, I recall that the first step is to recognize that you have a problem, so here I go: My name is S., and I am a bad wife.' My addiction is not alcohol.' My addiction is the "blame-it-all-on-the-husband" or "take-it-all-out-on-the-husband addiction. I know you've described all of my symptoms much better than I can and much more eloquently in "The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands," and that you've also given me the solutions to become a better wife, but I think my first step needs to be acknowledging my problem. I acknowledge that I have too much on my plate, and that I cannot do it all well, and that my husband's needs and desires have been at the bottom of my priority list for a long time.' People will tell you I am a really nice person, always ready to help, and yet the one person I should be caring about the most (my husband), does not get the respect, the love, and the care that he deserves. As of today, I am no longer a bad wife.' I am a recovering bad wife, and I vow to be the girlfriend and wife my husband deserves. Thank you, Dr. Laura, for hammering good sense into my head. S. More >>

I have a friend who is temporarily without a computer, so I've been texting him.' I've found myself using the letter "u" for "you," and "r" for "are," but other than that, I try to use the English language the way it was meant to be spoken and written.I've complained quite often about how this text messaging thing is completely out of hand, and how your children should not be able to use such technology as it occupies way too much of their time without depth and without development of language skills.' Quite the contrary - spelling and syntax and content are out the window when it comes to these mindless exchanges.' Additionally, people of all ages are so focused on that little gadget that they ignore their responsibilities as well as their environment.Numerous states have had to implement bans on texting while driving - that's how utterly stupid people can get.' Text-related injuries and deaths are not limited to the vehicular variety.' In 2008, the state of Illinois proposed legislation that would make texting and walking (with or without gum) illegal!' Pedestrians who ridiculed the idea might now need to reconsider their stance.A 15 year old girl on Staten Island was obliviously thumbing away when she disappeared into an open manhole, falling five feet, scraping her back and arms, and landing in a pile of mush.' The workers were off getting cones and markers to barricade the opening, so it was a potential hazard.' However, if this teen were actually looking where she was going, not a thing would have happened to her.' Of course, her parents are going to sue.' Well, why not?' Your daughter behaves stupidly, so naturally you're going to look around for someone to sue.' Money versus common sense.' Oh well.If I were a purse snatcher or predator, I'd keep my eyes open for texting women who are moving through life without any awareness of their surroundings:' whether people, entities, or holes in the ground.' They make easy prey.I keep wondering...what if we looked at everyone's text messages over a 24 hour period of their life?' Would we find anything important being discussed?' I doubt it.' More likely, we'd just find them attempting to create a mini-universe to live in, where meaningless discourse makes them feel important or connected - or provides an activity where they avoid dealing with real life issues.What if this teen had stepped on a baby?' What if she had tripped over an elderly person who had then fallen?' What if she walked right into the hands of a kidnapper?' What if she didn't see a person doing harm to another (so she couldn't provide witness testimony to help the police)?' I could go on and on....but you get the idea.Yes, the manhole should not have been left unattended - those guys should all be fired.' Yes, she should have been looking where she was going.' That's just plain common sense.' This would have been a preventable accident if the men had done their jobs properly, and if this girl had shown better judgment. More >>