August 13, 2004 by s.z.

Family Circus Miracle! Today's Cartoon  (See it here): Billy and Jeffy, wearing baseball caps and holding baseball paraphernalia, look out the window at the pouring rain.  "Awww! Whyyyy?" asks Billy.  "Oh Mannnn!" exclaims Jeffy.  "Mmph!  Duh!" says Billy's cap. Daddy, who has his arm around Mommy (who is apparently wearing her Miracle Bra today), says, "A reminder of a miracle in the Bible -- turning water into whine." Analysis: What's with Billy's hat?  Sure, it's not speaking English, but why doesn't anyone find its attempt at communication noteworthy?  And is it really the cap that is speaking, or is it one of those brain slugs we saw on the Futurama ep about professional robot wrestling? And re Jeffy -- why does he insist on constantly wearing those leg warmers, even to a baseball game?  And the way he's posed, with hands on hips, he really does look like he's planning on a career in the chorus line, like one of you predicted.  And what's with the number "52" on the back of his shirt?  Does it have anything to do with the fact that Prescott Bush entered the Senate in 1952? Why does Mommy's figure fluctuate from day to day? What happened to Daddy's eyes? What do they do with PJ during those long stretches of time we don't see him? Don't even bother asking -- it's Family Circus, Jake ...  I mean, it's a miracle! Prediction: I think Keane is saying that a major thunderstorm will disrupt the Republican convention, since it will cause the price of hookers to double.  This will result in a lot of whining. Oh, and Keane also predicted that Pete's prediction would be called on acount of rain.  But Alison still came through: "A reminder of a miracle in the Bible - turning water into whine." Analysis : Actually modern fundies can turn anything into whine. Why can't the pet rock stay in the courthouse? Why can't we have prayer in scools? Why aren't zygotes people? Why should all people who love each other be allowed to marry? Why should young people have sex? Why do we have to learn science? Why do we still feel persecuted now we have all this power? As big head fundie Daddy lays his palsied little paw (one that lacks an opposing thumb - take that, evolution!) on Mommy's shoulder, she looks at her whiny spawn and considers the biblical miracle in which children were transformed into swine. Prediction : Pete will whine that Mommy isn't wearing shorts. -- Alison    Okay, now it's your turn.  7:02:43 AM

Moonie Times Fun Day I've found a fun, new source of loony opinion pieces, pieces just as juicy as those at Renew America or The Rant.  Yes, it's The Washington Times, "America's Newspaper"; I think you'll agree that their "commentary" section is chock full of wingnuttiness.  So, let's use today to look at some examples from Washington Times commentators. 1.  Carrie Lukas The latest weapons in President Bush's campaign arsenal are his daughters, Barbara and Jenna. The twins made their political debut in this month's Vogue and will soon begin touring the country to ask young people — particularly young women — to vote for their father.  Yet it's going to take more than a pitch by the trendy first daughters to win over America's coeds. To earn young women's votes, Barbara and Jenna must remind them of the meaning of independence. That's the first step in drawing women into the conservative fold. Yes, the Bush twins are going to remind the young women of America of "the meaning of independence."  Excuse me while I laugh in derision.  Bwaaahahah! Barbara and Jenna have a tall order: Helping students realize government isn't just for the people, it is the people. Any money taken by Washington comes directly from taxpayers. Those lawmakers are being "charitable" on someone else dime.  It sounds selfish to many college students — especially those who don't work — to complain about high taxes. Yet tax policy isn't just about a few extra dollars in your take-home pay; it's a debate about who controls your life — you or the government. So, cheating on one's taxes isn't about being selfish or "criminal," it's about showing the government that it's not the boss of you.  And who better to remind young people of this fact than the rich Bush twins, who have never worked a day in their lives (as far as I know). As government grows, the sphere of individual freedom shrinks. Government controls more resources, leaving families with less to use on their own. High taxes also affect behavior. This is particularly true for women. Married women face disproportionately high marginal tax rates since the first dollar they earn is taxed at their husbands' rate. These high taxes discourage some women from going to work, leaving them less prepared to cope with divorce or the death of their spouse. At the same time, high taxes force other women who prefer to stay home with children into the workplace to help pay the bills. High taxes force some women to stay home and scrub toilets and tend bawling brats, and they force other women to leave their hearth, home, and darling children to enter the cold, cruel workforce.  High taxes are misogynist scum!  Today, feminist organizations and liberal politicians promote a new kind of dependence for women. Instead of husbands and fathers, they want Uncle Sam to be the man in our lives. It's far cry from true liberation.  Jenna and Barbara need to remind young women: Dependence on government is not independence.  But dependence on rich parents is fine, as long as you assert your autonomy through alcoholic excess and general dissipation, in keeping with family tradition. Ms. Lukas is director of policy at the Independent Women's Forum. Enough said! 2.  Paul Greenberg Mr. Greenberg thinks that the IRS should just keep its nose out of church business and allow Baptist ministers to preach pro-Bush sermons. My strictly extralegal and completely unauthoritative opinion is that even a modest restriction on a minister's freedom of speech — no endorsements allowed — violates the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment. It runs counter to the Constitution's guarantee of both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Nor does making a federal case of a minister's sermon respect the First Amendment's finely balanced words barring an establishment of religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. After all, why does the government refrain from taxing churches in the first place? In order to respect their independence, their separation from the state. Nice try, but no.  My strictly extralegal but slightly informed (I read the summary of the IRS guidelines) opinion is that the reason that the government refrains from taxing churches is the same reason that it refrains from taxing various charitable organizations and other non-profit groups: because these groups are supposed to be doing stuff beneficial to society, such as "relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law," etc.  And since being a lobbyist group doesn't actually benefit society, once a group starts using its time and resources to aid a particular candidate or political party, it loses its tax exempt status. A church now must to toe the line the government has laid down to get its tax exemption. If it doesn't, and allows its minister to preach what he — or she — wants, that church may find itself taxed. Isn't this exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent? No.  The First Amendment wasn't designed to empower churches to have tax exempt status while functioning as subsidiaries of Bush-Cheney 04.  There is no "freedom from taxes" in the Bill of Rights. Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist It figures. 3.  Julie Gunderson What causes Generation Y to be more accepting of same-sex marriage than the Boomers?  (Or "same-sex 'marriage'" if, like Julie, you're a Gen Y-er who doesn't approve of it.)  Julie says that psychologists attribute it to young people knowing more gay people than their parents did, because homosexuals "come out" earlier than they used to.  Julie's friend thinks it's because of "Will and Grace."  However, Julie blames it on those damned liberal universities and the homosexual agenda. Conservatives know universities are petri dishes of liberalism, breeding a culture of political correctness and phony diversity. Nothing's new now. What conservatives don't realize is that homosexual activists target students. In much the same way they look to the courts to advance their agenda, homosexuals look to college students for validation of their agenda. And to show just how committed  those "homosexual activists" are to "silencing student dissent," Jules writes that after a column of hers criticizing MA's supreme court ruling appeared on her school paper's website, she received "more than 30 emails" from all over the country.  And some of the writers made fun of her! Why would anyone waste time responding to a college newspaper column? Perhaps it shows how scared they are of dissent. Or heaven forbid this shows college students aren't as accepting of their lifestyle choices as had been thought.   In any case, the writers obviously wasted their time responding to Julie because the homosexual activists have an organized campaign designed to silence her. Students, who argue against the homosexual agenda, can expect an epic fight when they return to campus this fall. The antiwar protesters, who failed to stop the liberation of 20 million Iraqis, hope they've found a new battle they can finally win. Not only is our battlefield full of traditional-value-resisters (a k a college professors and administrators), but now insurgents have joined the fight. That's why I ask, with an advanced apology to my secularist and atheist readers, please, pray for us. I will certainly say a prayer for those poor, beleaguered college students like Julie, who may be subjected to mocking email from evil antiwar protesters after these heroic students write snotty columns for their college papers. Ms. Gunderson is a Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow, this summer at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute. She is a senior at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minn. That explains why Julie was so amazed that anyone would waste their time responding to items in her school paper.  4.  Henry I. Miller  Henry says that while vigilantism is mostly looked down upon these days, it can be good, like when the passengers on Flight 93 fought the 9/11 hijackers.  The enormous gray area between these two poles was brought to mind by airlines reporting would-be terrorists apparently have made dry runs of attacks on airplanes to provoke, test and analyze security measures. There also was the July incident on a Northwest Airlines flight from Detroit to Los Angeles, in which a group of 14 Syrian musicians indulged in several hours of bizarre and terrifying behavior that passengers and member of the flight crew suspected was terrorism-related.  Those passengers who suspected terrorism were, of course, Annie Jacobsen and spouse.  The "member of the flight crew" who suspected the incident was "terrorism-related" was presumably the imaginary flight attendant who told Annie that the whole crew was peeing their pants in terror because the Syrians were carrying a deadly McDonalds sack.  For as we all know, the actual flight crew told the authorities that the musicians actually do anything that out of the ordinary, and the sky marshals said that this event wasn't terrorism-related (or terrifying). Anyway, this column shows how the Annie Jacobsen urban legend is now accepted as fact by some elements of the populace (those who read and write for the Moonie Times).  And, like most urban legends, it's mutating to become even more terrifying.  Let's watch! The Arab men loitered in small groups during the flight; made innumerable trips to the lavatories, often carrying a large paper bag that passed from hand to hand; and finally, as the plane made its final approach into Los Angeles, "suddenly, seven of the men stood up in unison" and walked to various parts of the plane, according to what a fellow passenger later wrote. "Innumerable trips"?  If each musician made three trips to the lavatory, that would be 33 trips in all.  And if every passenger on the plane went to the lavatory three times, that would be maybe 300 trips.  Yes, we do have numbers that go up that high.  "A large paper bag that passed from hand to hand"?  That would be the McDonald's sack (and you know how large THEY are) which was, per Annie, taken to the lavatory once (by the guy later identified as the band's drummer), and then given to a fellow musician.   Of course, the "seven men stood up in unison and walked to various parts of the plane" story has already been debunked by the airline crew and the air marshals.   "A fellow passenger"?  Is Henry claiming that HE was on board that flight?  Here's your assignment, kids: see how scary YOU can make the Annie story, write an editorial using it, and see if the Moonie Times will print it. Anyway, Henry uses the scary skies story as an excuse to give us tips on how to practice effective airplane vigilantism. Passengers should obey the directions of the flight crew but they should be prepared, mentally and physically, to act. Like a basketball player getting ready for a jump ball, or a sprinter in the starting blocks, every able-bodied passenger needs to be ready to move, and to act definitively, not tentatively. Spend the entire flight poised to jump those swarthy types the minute they try something! Experts feel it is unlikely terrorists would be able to get firearms or explosives on a plane. The need to rely on "softer" weapons puts them at a disadvantage against scores of passengers, who have plenty of potential, improvised weapons at hand: a hard kick in the knee (more likely to succeed than in the groin, according to experts); an elbow in the face or ribs; any sharp object in the eyes; a soda can torn in half yields a sharp edge; a computer cord or belt used as a garrote; an oxygen canister (in one or more of the overhead bins), metal coffee pot or wine bottle used as a club. (Go for the bridge of the nose or the temple, and swing for the fences.)   Don't mess with us, pardner; we've got the drop on you. The next kid who kicks the back of my airline seat is getting a torn soda can in the face.  Don't mess with me either, punk!  Henry I. Miller is a physician and a fellow at the Hoover Institution.  Yup.  He couldn't cut it as a doctor, so now he sells vacuum cleaners. 5.   R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. R.  Emmett was disappointed that nobody used the 30th anniversary of Nixon's resignation to say mean things about Dick -- you know, so that R. could compare him favorably to Clinton.  But he goes ahead and bashes Clinton anyway. Only one other president has ever found himself in the condition Nixon was in 30 years ago prefatory to his resignation. He too had lied and obstructed justice.  [...] Rather than shoulder the blame, Mr. Clinton palmed it off on others, brought the nation to the brink, and created an enduring controversy with hatreds that will last a generation. Brought the nation to the brink of what?  Nuclear war?  Apoplexy? Scandal overload? And it's hardly fair to blame Clinton's failure to 'fess up about Monica for all the Clinton hatred, since the "Arkansas Project," which R. Emmett's mag undertook at the behest of Scaife, was proposed even before Clinton took office.  But R. Emmett does blame Clinton, not only for the Clinton-hatred, but also for the Bush-hatred. Quite possibly the intense enmity that embitters politics today — and this presidential election in particular — is a malign byproduct of the Clinton impeachment, an impeachment that never would have taken place had the president shouldered the blame for his own conduct. Thus I end with a question. Is it possible the media let the 30th anniversary of Nixon's resignation pass unnoticed because a comparison between his behavior and Mr. Clinton's would be inescapable? The media have forgiven Mr. Clinton after his every scandal. Could they ever forgive him for behaving more loutishly than the disgraced-Richard Nixon? Watergate involved: political burglary bribery extortion phonetapping conspiracy obstruction of justice destruction of evidence tax fraud illegal use of government agencies such as the CIA and the FBI illegal campaign contributions use of public money for private purposes. Most of all, "Watergate" is synonymous with abuse of power. In Wingnut World, lying about extramarital oral sex is way worse than any of the above. R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the editor in chief of fhe American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.  The Scaife Foundations are among the largest donors to the Hudson Institute.  I'm sure it's just a coincidence, though. 3:30:37 AM