Dennis, this is without a doubt your best summary of the the problem with the nanny state, and perhaps one of the easiest to understand I have ever read by anybody. You have a gift for distilling complex derivatives back down to their basic elements, rich versus poor, good versus evil. Yours is a message that anyone can understand, and everyone should.

Who is John Galt!

Ditto to Searchlight. This is one of the best, most succinct columns on this subject I have ever read.

I would like to add, though, the state replacing a man is a good thing in the eyes of a liberal feminist. Men are unnecessary. And you most definetly cannot promote liberalism and socialism if you have strong men and strong families, so promoting family would be against a liberal's political interest. The damage done to society and the subsequent chaos is part of the overal plan to get more votes. imo.

Last time I checked, men were necessary to procreate. "Liberal feminists" can spew their venom all they wish. When it comes down to them dying out, how will they "make more"?

For someone who says he values work, Dennis Prager sure recycles his own work a lot. He seems to have stopped thinking years ago, because I haven't heard a new thought from him in ages.

And this column in particular is sloppy even for Dennis.

Aside from just being a rehash of his daily litany about "the left", it's in a list format that is a cheat for lazy writers who don't want to develop the article.

And it's even sloppier than that, some items don't even fit into the theme of the list. Dennis just threw them in there to fill up the column.

Stoney - don't forget the queers. In a generation or two the population of San Fransiko should be close to zero. No matter what the democraps and RINO's legislate they can't change this basic biological fact.

I am a liberal but I actually agree with the first two comments. Yes, a stronger welfare system creates less need for volunteers and charity, but the problem with that is that then not everyone who needs it gets help. And I feel that with the benefits of living in a functional society you need to support your weakest members.

Yes strong welfare can make a government corrupt- but so can a strong military.

And so what if males are "unnecessary" to women? Why is that such a problem? Shouldn't they commit to a man because they care for them and want to raise their family together? At least single mothers can get aid so that they aren't forced into abusive relationships or being with an alcoholic for money.

This article, while making some good points, assumes that the majority if American liberals want a complete nanny state, or even welfare for the majority of people. All I want is to make sure that people don't starve in the US and that people can pick themselves up (with a little help) when they fall. You make being on welfare sound like a walk in the park- it's not like you get that much money, believe me, people on welfare want to make enough money to get off of it.

Rachel, you are correct about some people on welfare wanting to be off of it. But they would be a small minority.

I have quite a bit of experience with the people in the welfare system. Most see it as a means to live off and have no interest in changing. Where I live, those who won't work (cause they don't have to), are 'entitled' to get their grocery bills paid, their housing paid, their medical bills paid, and possibly disability, depending on how horribly they've wrecked their health. So don't go idolizing a 'safety net'. We are long past anything of the sort. We have been rewarding laziness and/or stupidity and we get what we asked for, a society of just that, lazy and stupid.

@ Rachel,

You wrote, "At least single mothers can get aid so that they aren't forced into abusive relationships or being with an alcoholic for money."

Are you serious? If modern American women dropped toxic feminism in favor of femininity, they would not have a brood of illegitimate children fathered by the local thugs, druggies, and drunks.

Don't want to love with the father of your children? Easy solution. Rather than using the government to pick my pocket: just refrain from having sex with scumbags.

And for the record, about 4% of couples experience Domestic Violence. Of that, about half the couples are mutual combatants with no primary aggressor. In the other half the woman is the primary aggressor 70% of the time. Why? Because DV law empowers women at the expense of men, as does family law in general.

Modern "slut walk" culture encourages young women to shack up with every "alpha male" who crosses her path until the day she loses her ability to do so, then grab onto a nice "beta male" provider-type. If she gets bored with Mr. Dependable, she gets to play "Eat, Pray, Love" (70% of divorces are initiated by women), knowing that she'll get to keep the bulk of the marital assets AND the courts will force Mr. Dependable to be her personal ATM for years.

I have NO sympathy for single mothers unless they're widows. They're not brave, or virtuous, or any of that. If they weren't human beings there would be a bounty on them.

@ArmyOfficer,

Where do you get your statistics from? Because the National Center Against Domestic Violence says that 85% of domestic violence victims are women. I am not saying that men don't get abused by their partners, but historically because of our dominant male culture, women are more often abused. And it doesn't matter if 4% of couples experience domestic violence (although I question that statistic too), that's 4% too many.

And what about the women who marry the fathers of their kids and then they become abusive? I agree that our society promotes extramarital sex, but that cant be blamed on women alone. Men have been taught that women who don't put out are prudes and that they deserve sex. It takes two to tango.

Why do you think being more feminine would make men any better? Or that feminism is toxic for that matter? I see no problem with believing that a man and I are equal and deserve the same opportunities. And if you believe differently than at least I'm lucky that most people (including conservatives) are smarter than you.

And I disagree wholly on single mothers. Yes there are many who are single by choice, but many who aren't. Yes two parents are preferable. But our society has made being a dad an option: a good father is one who stays. While it takes a lot to be considered a good mother.

I was raised by a single mom and she was a mother and a father to me when my dad left when I was 4 and my brother was 3 (they were married I might add). He decided not to pay child support and since he moved to another state, our state couldn't do anything (I also believe child support needs to be more well enforced and should be a states' collaberation issue). We were on welfare a couple of times, which is why I am glad that we were able to have that safety net when my mom got laid off or it didn't cover the bills for three people. It wasn't a great life, but it was a life. Now I am a successful college student. But I guess you would rather I starved in the street or had relied on people's fleeting good will.

>For someone who says he values work, Dennis Prager sure recycles his own work a lot. He seems to have stopped thinking years ago, because I haven't heard a new thought from him in ages.<

Typical Leftist drivel: can't argue any of the points made in the column, so resort to personal attacks against the author.

Maybe if more people grasped the essential points made in columns like these, people like Dennis (and myself) would not need to repeat ourselves. In a world in which better than one-third of the public thinks President Obama is doing a swell job, it's vital that we expound these points as often and as strenuously as we can until people get it.

Rachel:

>I agree that our society promotes extramarital sex, but that cant be blamed on women alone.>

So let me see if I understand you. No means no, and women have all the power in the sexual relationship -- according to the same Feminist drivel that got us where we are today. According to Leftist ideology, if a man asks a woman on a date even one time and she doesn't want him to that singular act constitutes sexual harassment. And according to popular Feminist authors, men can't be raped, therefore all the sexual power sits in female hands (such as it were).

Yet, if women sleep with bums and druggies and abusers, that's the MAN's fault and she's a victim? Interesting double standard.

Basically, what you're arguing is that if women want to sleep around, that's a RIGHT and we're all just supposed to pony up and pay for their bad choices. Where can I get a nice easy gig like that? All the free sex I can handle and someone to pay my way through life when that setup goes bad. Talk about trying to have everything both ways. Whatever happened to taking responsibility?

And I remember a time when Feminism was about EQUALITY, not sticking the public with the bill for your poor choices. There's a reason women used to have higher standards, because the stakes were higher. Bums and abusers had a tougher time finding decent women because decent women wouldn't have them. Who talked women into lowering those standards? Liberal men. Why? So they could get more free tail.

What a racket. Plenty of free tail by convincing women it's "liberating" to have no standards, to be loose and shack up with 20 different men before college. To treat sex as no more meaningful than a video game or movie -- or a battery-powered toy. Then when the inevitable consequences of all that free tail come back to haunt you, those same Liberal men declare themselves too "Progressive" to own up to their responsibilities -- and you join hands to demand that government pick our pockets to pay for your stupidity. What a con game!

@Michael:

I really don't think you understand what I am saying. You are correct that No means No, because somebody who thinks No means Yes and proceeds anyway is a rapist. Men can be sexually abused and molested, it's just physically harder for a man to be raped by a woman, but it does happen.

And that is not what sexual harassment means- if you are asked out by a man and you say no and he leaves you alone, that's fine. The EEOC defines it as "Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature". It's when someone talks to or treats you as a complete sexual object or as somebody lesser than them, as opposed to an equal human being that it becomes an issue of sexual harassment.

Sleeping around is a choice, I'm not saying that it is the right thing to do. Welfare is designed to help struggling families, and that means that some people who are either promiscuous or are playing con games are going to get some money. It's just like war- some people get hit by friendly fire, or innocents are killed; that wasn't your intention, but would you stop fighting wars? I would rather people who don't deserve it get money along with people who do deserve and need it, than nobody get it and letting the truly needy starve.

Feminism is still about equality. Yes, part of the feminist agenda is welfare, but it also includes fair family laws (enforcement of child support), advancement of women in the work place, and supporting women's health programs.

Fine, if you don't want the government to "pick our pockets" then why not support early abortion? By outlawing abortion, women are going to end up with either more children or if they're given up for adoption, they may need to be on welfare while they recover from labor. It may kill babies, but at least you'll get to keep your precious tax dollars.

There have been a lot of things that I haven't supported that our government does- the Iraq War for instance. But I acknowledge that I don't get to decide where my tax money goes, and that there are some things the government has to do, like war and welfare. Maybe you should come to the same conclusion.

It was the progressives whom worked and achieved outlawing discrimination against Jews, Blacks, and other minorities in education, real estate, sales and other business practices. If the conservatives had their way, this would not exist.