"I seriously wanted to punch Oprah after watching that."

A great line from an Althouse commenter after watching a segment on Oprah in Copenhagen oohing and ahhing over their universal coverage:

"Just imagine, you don't have to work or marry to get health insurance. Everyone has it at the moment of their birth!"

(Oprah, pretending to have heard of this situation for the first time ever in her life, with dead-on mimicry of Michael Moore in France, in "Sicko")

"So wait, you tell me that a woman doesn't have TO MARRY A MAN TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE OR TO SURVIVE IF SHE LOSES HER JOB? That they can marry a man for LOVE and not like they do now, for benefits??"

I seriously wanted to punch Oprah after watching that.

Hey honey. Just because you hate men, or people from your background primarily want a man for their ability to pay your rent and groceries, doesn't mean the rest of us were raised like that.

The world isn't a ghetto, where life would be so much easier if the government would support you, without any effort on your part. Moocher. Man hater. Get lost lady.

Update: Here is the video of the Oprah show (with her comments 1 min. 15 sec in) (via commenter vbspurs).

BaltoNorth blog: Martha Coakley, the Amirault case, and the demonization of men in the 1980s:

I remember it as a milestone in the rise of day care sex abuse hysteria in the 1980s and think of it still as a tipping point in the demonization of men in our culture.

I remember it as the case that caused a generation of men to view interacting with other people's children as a risk.

It was the case that caused men to hesitate before volunteering at the Y, hesitate before helping out with the girl scout cookie drive, and hesitate before signing up to coach youth sports.

It was the case that caused men to think twice before watching a neighbor's kid, think twice about driving a child's teammate home from practice, and think twice about entering the teaching profession.

That's just sad.

''They're not going to save you any money. I can sit down and write 100 ways to save on health care.''

I saw an article (via Newsalert) about a new book that sounded interesting called 101 Ways to Save Money on Healthcare:

Fighting a stomach bug? Stay home and drink Gatorade or make your own rehydration solution using one teaspoon of salt, eight teaspoons of sugar, five cups of water and an optional half-cup of fruit juice.

Want a cheap way to banish those acne blemishes? Use an over-the-counter product with benzoyl peroxide, a tried-and-true, inexpensive acne treatment.

Need a wheelchair? Check out your local Goodwill or Salvation Army stores.

These are just a few of the no-nonsense, consumer-friendly tips offered by Akron family medicine specialist Dr. Cynthia Koelker in her new self-published book, 101 Ways to Save Money on Healthcare.

''I wrote this for the patient,'' Koelker said. ''If people would take the time to look around, they would find a lot of things.''

During 20 years in solo practice in Akron's Ellet neighborhood, Koelker has dispensed plenty of advice to patients looking to make their medical care more affordable.

So when she heard politicians on TV early last year talking about how they wanted to fix the nation's health-care system, she thought: ''They're not going to save you any money. I can sit down and write 100 ways to save on health care.''

I kind of like the idea that this doctor felt there was something she wanted to say, in the way she wanted to say it and self-published her own book. Just for that alone, it makes me want to support her by buying it.

Is Statism the new normal?

Rasmussen: 32% Favor Marriage Law That Punishes Verbal Abuse:

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 32% of Americans say the United States should have a law that punishes individuals for verbal and psychological abuse of their spouses. Forty percent (40%) are opposed to such a law, and another 27% are not sure.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of men are against a law that cracks down on arguing in marriages. Women are much more narrowly divided on the question. Adults ages 18 to 39 think the law’s a better idea than their elders do.

Interestingly, married adults are less enthusiastic about a law against verbal and psychological abuse of spouses than unmarried adults are – by a 43% to 36% margin.

When I read that 32% of people agreed that verbal and psychological abuse should be prosecuted and 27% are unsure, I really start to wonder about a society that even considers such draconian ideas. How did we get to this point?

And why is it when someone threatens to kill others or harm others in institutions such as schools or in the military, that is okay--especially if they are politically correct about it? The worst that happens is a psychological evaluation, typically. Or is it is just the same old war against boys (and men) that is really the key here? Or is statism just the new normal in the US?