July 3, 2004 by s.z.

Family Circus Ps and Qs Again, excellent work yesterday, everyone.  Who said that sometimes a crayon is just a crayon? Now, on to ... Today's Cartoon  (See it here) A sad Jeffy is sitting at the dinner table.  He is balancing his elbow on the chair's armrest while holding a fork with his index finger.  In front of him is a plate containing a blob of mashed potatoes (or a dead slug or something) and a dozen peas.  Three peas have found their way to the table.  Jeffy says, "The peas keep jumpin' off my fork!" Analysis:  Did you ever notice how Jeff's nose looks a lot like a snout -- and that he only has one nostril?  And that his eyes are just pupils?  Does looking at him bring that "pigman" episode of Seinfeld to your mind too? Anyway, Jeffy (George W. Bush) is whining because he can't manage to convey the peas to his mouth.  In typical Dubya fashion, he blames the peas, unwilling to admit to his own incompetence (and laziness and bad manners -- if he wouldn't try to eat while resting his arms on the chair, maybe he'd be better at it). Keane is critiquing Bush's inability to bring any of his projects to a successful conclusion.  What happened to that manned mission to Mars?  If jumped off his fork.  What about helping the elderly thorough his prescription drug Medicare plan?  Well, the drug companies have their raised prices, so there are no savings for the people who use the plan (and the drug companies are the only beneficiary).  Damn those jumpin' peas!  And what about the increasing instability in the Middle East following the invasion of Iraq?  Well, that one was the fork's fault! But note that Jeffy's glass of milk is more than half full.  This means that there is still some good news for America -- and it's that Jeffy, who can't feed himself, will eventually starve to death (be voted out of office due to incompetence). Prediction: When asked about the new claims of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, Bush will claim that the country "jumped off of his fork," and refuse to talk about it ever again. Well, that's one woman's opinion.  Now, let's hear from Donna: Let's see if s.z. is fair and balanced and lets others "cheat" or if Pete M is special... Hey, let's leave Pete M's special education classes out of this! Tomorrows Family Circus: Jeffy is in his royal purple shirt, indicating he is Dubya. He's talking about his fork, as in a fork in the road, choices to choose and decisions to be made. But his peas keep jumping off his fork. (Peas=P's=Presidency) Prediction: it doesn't matter what choices or decisions he makes, it's too late, he has lost the election! The presidency will elude him again like in 2000. Not a bad analyis.  Now, let's hear yours. 6:05:09 AM

For the 3rd of July, Belated Fathers Day Stuff 1.  Trish Wilson has some very interesting background information about Stephen Baskerville (the guy who wrote that piece about how The Government Plans to Steal Your Children and Give Them to Adam and Steve*), and about his American Coalition for Fathers and Children.  You'll love Trish's account of the group's big rally in Washington (the guy who was supposed to bring the coffin was a no-show, which pretty much sums up the whole event). Anyway, Trish's research inspired me to find out more about Dr. (he has a Ph.D., you know) Baskerville.  Here's part of a Human Events Online profile of this distinguished conservative thinker: Baskerville, whose articles have frequently appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, specializes in research on and activism in how public policy affects fathers and families. He believes that the government began the disintegration of the American family. "The family crisis is caused by a government assault on the family," he said. "The position of the father has been weakened. The two big things that have weakened fathers have come from the government. One is the welfare state, which replaces the father's income....The other, which grew out of that, is the change in divorce laws--no-fault divorce since about 1970." He noted that divorce law is the province of state governments, not the federal government. "If you go back and look at it, it's amazing how much culture follows law," he said. Other trends have developed out of these, said Baskerville: "Abortion. Day care, which becomes the way of further increasing institutional and government control over children. Perhaps also the massive growth of fast-food restaurants and even the obesity epidemic." Social thinkers throughout history, including the most influential thinker of the 20th Century, Sigmund Freud, have affirmed that the patriarchal family, with the father at its head, is the basis for civilization. Okay, I can see where some people (stupid ones) might think that if the man isn't the boss of the family, it spells the end of civilization.  But claiming that the government's assault on the family (through no-fault divorce and welfare) caused fast-food restaurants and obesity???  That's the kind of originality of thought which  makes Dr. Baskerville a special kind of wingnut. Oh, and I note that Kathleen Parker interviewed Baskerville for today's column, which is concidentally about gay marriage doing away with fathers. Ever since the same-sex marriage debate began, I've wondered: Where are the fathers? If ever there were a cause to which the once-robust fatherhood movement might attach itself, this one logically should be at the top of the list. The answer I got when I posed the question to one of the movement's leaders was threefold: One, fathers have avoided the issue as marginal, believing that same-sex marriage doesn't directly concern them. Two, though people have a visceral reaction to the idea of same-sex marriage, they have trouble articulating why they oppose it. And finally, “Nobody wants to be called a bigot,” said Stephen Baskerville, a Howard University political science professor and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. And that's why the fatherhood movement is lucky to have Baskerville, a guy who isn't afraid to come right out and say that gay marriage is all part of the government's plan to force you to eat at McDonalds.  (* Thanks to Frederick, who blogs at BeatBushBlog, for alerting me to the fact that the government has already given my children to Adam and Steve, since I don't see them around here anywhere.) 2.  We still get the occasional comment on that piece from a month ago on the "Stop Paying Court-Ordered Child Support" Manual.  Here's part of what Tony had to say about it: Any of you people think think family court is not a sham, think again. MEN ARE SHAFTED WHEN IT COMES TO REPRODUCTIVE LAW!!! Think about the Constitution's 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. The law provides protection for women who don't want to be parents through abortion, legal abandonment, and adoption. Men do not receive the same protections. "Oh, well men can't abort", you say. The Constitution doesn't address biology, it does address equality. An abortion is one way women can terminate parental responsibility; men could do it with a signature on a legal document. Simple enough. As for legal abandonment or adoption, again men are left out, even though these options are viable for men. Only women have these options. For those of you that say men should have stayed zipped up, well so should she, yet she gets the choices. For those of you who say that she should have practiced abstinence, well, so should have he, and yet she gets pregnant, not him.  This just isn't fair, and should be addressed by the Constitution. Okay, it may seem unfair that a man can have a one-stand stand with a woman and end up having to support an unwanted child for the next 18 years, while she can get an abortion if she doesn't want the child.  However, since it takes two people to make a baby, the man had his options before conception occured.  But once it has, since she has to carry the child, she gets more say in what happens next than he does.  If she decides to have the child (either because she is opposed to abortion, or because she just wants a child), then once the child is born, that child has rights too -- to include the right to financial support from both of the people it took to create him or her.   And since sex can result in babies, if you don't want to have to support a child, then take your own precautions, or don't have sex.  If you think that's unfair, then take it up with biology, not the Constitution, which never promised you that life would be fair. I'm not a bitter dad or a woman hater. (I raised my son alone.) I have an inflated sense of justice instilled by my early feminist leanings; feminist that is until I saw that the feminists were only out for themselves. Those of you that are Democrats, you have no one to blame but Democrats. The Democrat party is supposed to be one of "Equality" and "Reproductive Choice". Ever hear a Democrat politician offer a speech for "equal reproductive choice"? They won't. They can't, because NOW and NARAL own them. That's why I vote Republican. Not because I'm a conservative, but because I hate two-faced liberals. Bush will win again. Kerry only has 36% of the white male voters because WE'RE PISSED OFF! TonySprout • 6/29/04; 5:19:46 PM Tony, I hate to break it you, but having the support of the pissed-off white male bloc isn't enough to swing an election these days.  And since there can't be "equal reproductive choice" until women can choose to let the men carry any children that might result from a sexual encounter, then I think your cause is out of steam. Tomorrow: the story of a man who went to jail for the cause (and for kidnapping his son), and his inspiring letters about life in the joint, and his musings about how the entire no-fault divorce racket is designed to "legitimate adultery by women." 4:40:38 AM

Ann Coulter Nude Jim of Rittenhouse Review presents his choices for the week's best searches that brought people to his blog. It's a very funny post, and makes me think maybe I should copy his idea some time, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.  However, I stopped looking at the referrer information about the searches that brought people to Wo'C when I noted how many people were looking for "Batman & Robin porn" (and presumably felt cheated when they didn't find any here), leaving me depressed about disappointing so many perverts. But speaking of reader feedback, a couple of days ago I got this email from Dean:   Just wondering if you hold to one side of the political party or the other?  This was my first time on this site, by accident, and I noticed a lot of Republican bashing and it seemed that perhaps you were bashing the Christians as well? Please correct me if I am wrong.... I never got back to Dean, partly because I don't feel it's my job to tell people what to think about this blog, but mostly because I don't want him to have my email address.  But I'll answer him here: Dear Dean, Yes, you did notice a lot of Republican bashing -- not that it means that I'm a Democrat (like Bill O'Reilly, I am a registered independent).  It just means that this is primarily a humor site, and the Republicans just offer greater scope for satire, snark, and good-natured ribbing than the loyal opposition does. And yes, it may have seemed that perhaps I was bashing the Christians as well, but that was a mistaken impression on your part.  Some of my best friends are Christian.  Heck, I am even a Christian myself (my G-rated language and my refusal to use that word made popular by Dick Cheney might have given you a clue as to my religious status).  However, because I feel that religion is important, I do not approve of those who would use it for political purposes or self-aggrandizement, and I see a danger in those who would push a state religion (because freedom of conscience is vital).  I also think that stupidity, even when purportedly arising from religious beliefs, deserves to be held up to ridicule.  Hey, you can mock my religion (and you probably have) and I'm going to laugh along with you, if your comments contain an element of truth (and are funny); but if you're too thin-skinned about seeing your own religious beliefs to enjoy seeing them gently (or not) skewered, I will understand if you don't wish to return to this blog. Regards, S.Z. But you know, I am curious about all these people who keep finding this blog "by accident" and then email me to tell me that they don't much care for it.  I can't help but wonder if they the ones looking for the Batman & Robin porn. So, in conclusion, I recommend that you go to Rittenhouse Review, read Jim's marvelous prose, and then vote in his "Who Was the Best Law & Order Cop?" poll.  (You will be gratified to know that while there was no overwhelming favorite in the  "Who Was the Best ADA poll," that the people have spoken loudly to say that Serena is their least favorite.) 2:02:17 AM

"Damn!  They Must Have All Called While I Was Checking to See If the Phone Worked!" Here's James Taranto, making everybody's lives seem a little less pathetic in comparison: If you're a radio or TV producer and are looking for a last-minute Independence Day guest, drop us an e-mail at opinionjournal@wsj.com. We'll be checking our messages at least a few times a day. Don't miss out; as one reader/viewer writes, "I'd never have thought you were that robust a fellow with so sonorous a voice." Translation of one reader/viewer's comment: "I'd never have thought you were that chunky if I hadn't seen it for myself.  And your blather about your book put me to sleep.  But hey, if you really want to, I guess you can come to my barbecue on the 4th, since it sounds like you have nothing else going on in your life." 12:39:44 AM