Fred is 34 years old and he is still single.
One day, a friend asked, “Why aren’t you married? Can’t you find a woman who will be a good wife?”
Fred replied, “Actually, I’ve found many women that I have wanted to marry, but when I bring them home to meet my parents, my mother doesn’t like them.”
His friend thinks for a moment and says, “I’ve got the perfect solution, why not find a girl who’s just like your mother?”
A few months later, they meet again and his friend says, “Did you find the perfect girl? Did your mother like her?”
With a frown on his face, Fred answers, “Yes, I found the perfect girl. She was just like my mother. You were right, my mother liked her very much.”
The friend said, “Then what’s the problem?”
Sadly, Fred replied, “My father doesn’t like her.”
Back in 2013, my colleagues at the Cato Institute, Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes, released a study looking at the value of welfare programs in various states.
The most shocking finding was that the overall package of welfare benefits was greater than the median salary in eight states. And more than 80 percent of the median salary in half the states.
That sounds like a hammock, not a safety net. No wonder taxpayers feel like they’re getting ripped off. This system has been bad for taxpayers and bad for poor people.
Now Mike and Charles have a new study that looks at excessive welfare handouts in Europe. They start with an elementary observation about how people can be trapped in dependency when government benefits are too high.
Israel has a dilemma. Is it better when confronted with hunger-striking “activists” belonging to terror groups to let them starve themselves to death or not to let them starve themselves to death, even if it means feeding them by force.
In Britain, for instance, decisions about force-feeding in prisons have in general been governed by legislation that relates to the medical profession — and in particular those laws which pertain to mental health and mental incapacity — as well as being influenced by considerations linked to the criminalisation of aiding and abetting suicide.
There has been nothing on the statute book specifically relating to hunger-striking detainees with the exception of the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act. This was adopted in 1913 by way of response to a specific set of historical circumstances. Suffragettes who were imprisoned for public order offenses and related illegal activities had embarked on hunger strikes.
The law, given the popular nickname of the Cat and Mouse Act, allowed hunger-striking prisoners, whose fasting had placed them at risk of death, to be temporarily discharged. Once their health was deemed to have been restored, they were to be recalled to prison to complete their sentences.