July 6, 2004 by s.z.

The Mating Habits of the Pharma Blowhardius  From the segment I like to call Rush and Megan, Sitting in a Tree: RUSH: This is Megan in Chicago. Hi, Megan, welcome to the EIB Network. CALLER: Hi, Rush. Dittos! This is so amazing. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: It's the fox in the red dress, by the way, from Chicago. RUSH: It's what? Oh, Megan Fox, how are you? WLS! CALLER: That's correct. RUSH: By the way, I appreciate that picture you sent me. The perfume on it was just fabulous. CALLER: Thank you for sending it back. RUSH: She wanted me to sign it, that's right. I did. I was in Chicago. She was working at the station, and I signed the picture and sent it back. I'm a nice guy, what can I say? CALLER: A very nice guy especially considering I forgot the Sharpies and the Snapple. RUSH: That's all right, we made do. You're in J-school? CALLER: Actually I'm getting my bachelor's. My major is journalism in communications at University of Maryland and I'm doing online distance education. And I have this professor -- don't I always have professor problems -- I have this professor who just gave us an assignment that we were supposed to write for a broadcast as if it was, you know, going to be on the news. And the story was that President Bush, our President Bush right now, gets shot after the Republican National Convention. Flashback: Limbaugh and the then-Marta Fitzgerald's love affair began in 1990 on the information superhighway. Going by the name of the "Jacksonville Jaguar," Fitzgerald contacted the talk show host through the CompuServe message network to ask his advice on how to challenge her President Reagan-bashing professor at the University of North Florida, where she was a student. Anyway, back the shocking story of a journalism professor who asked her class to write a story about the current president getting shot. RUSH: Okay. And the professor gives you a writing assignment as though you're a broadcast reporter and you've got to write the story -- CALLER: For a television broadcast. RUSH: Huh? CALLER: For television. RUSH: Television broadcast, about how the president has been shot after the Republican convention. You've got to write that. What did you do? CALLER: Well, I e-mailed her, and I showed it to all my family first to see if I was overreacting because I felt very -- I felt just offended. And so everybody else was shocked, and they said I can't believe that you have to write that, and I would say something. So I e-mailed her, and I said I just am very uncomfortable with this. I don't think the Secret Service would think this was funny, either.  Yes, the Secret Service hates bad online journalism school student stories. RUSH: Megan, wait just a second. It doubt that your professor wanted a humorous story. Right? I mean, your professor wanted to see a story how you would write about Bush being shot. She's obviously fantasizing about this. Obviously.  She clearly dreams Bush's murder, complete with lots of blood, guts, and gore.  There's no other reason that she could assign her online class of wannabe journalists to write a story about something non-newsworthy as a (fictitious) presidential assassination attempt. RUSH: She's obviously got some interest in it and wants to see how it would play out. I know, we've got to give some professors out there, "I just want to expand the mental universe of my students." But, you know, this is over the line. Megan, the thing I can't forget here is during the nineties I was said to be the ringleader of the angry white males, remember that? CALLER: Oh, yeah.  RUSH: And I was said to be full of hatred. I have never seen and, of course, I'm nothing but a guy of good cheer, harmless, lovable little fuzzball who doesn't hate anybody and never have. This is real hatred, this is real unabridged, undiluted, raw hatred, and it's now permeating the classrooms. Now it's permeating the American literary left. You say this is a woman professor? Women professors are the most vicious kind, because they're all feminazis.  And the classrooms and leftist literary realms are now permeated with real, undiluted hatred -- proof that the liberals are basically indistinguishable from terrorists, like Rush has been saying for weeks now.  Contrast the Saddam-loving Democrats with Rush, who is just a "harmless, lovable little fuzzball who doesn't hate anybody," but who thinks that the Abu Ghraib abuses were just some guys letting off some steam.  NOW who do you think is a dangerous sociopath? CALLER: But the thing is that all of our other assignments up to that point were based on true facts or they were entirely fictional, and so this is the first one that was totally fictional but using real people, and I asked her why couldn't we do Reagan's assassination? I mean, not assassination. The shooting. Or why couldn't we do Kennedy's assassination or why are we making this up? RUSH: And what did she say? CALLER: She did not answer me. She just said, "You don't have to use his name if it makes you feel uncomfortable." But she would not answer me. So I didn't push it because I don't want to wreck my grade, which I'm famous for doing. So, Megan could write a fictional story about a current President who isn't George Bush -- and yet, she still can't do it without feeling highly offended because any fictious scenario involving a current President is obviously an act of hate directed against Bush by the liberals, and should probably be punished Ashcroft disappearing said prof to Gitmo for an indefinite period of time. RUSH: You know what I would do, Megan? CALLER: What? RUSH: You know what I would do? Here's what I'd do. I'd write a story. I'd follow instructions. I would write a story, the assassin misses and the assassin is killed by the Secret Service. CALLER: (Laughing.) Yeah. RUSH: I would write -- she didn't tell you that the president -- there is a shot fired, but the president isn't hit, and the country rallies to his side after this and he wins in a landslide. Write her that. Great to hear from you. COMMERCIAL BREAK RUSH: Hey, Megan, I know you're still out there. We're still working on this scenario. We want to you write the piece. Go ahead and write the piece exactly as assigned. Here's what happens. The assassin fires on Bush, misses, Secret Service fires on assassin and hits. Assassin identified as your professor. She is known to be one of a concubine of Terry McAuliffe of the Democrat National Committee and has been seen clutching Algore's book "Earth in the Balance" in days prior to this assassination attempt. So make the assassin your professor, she gets hit by the Secret Service, and it's later learned that she is a concubine of Terry McAuliffe of the Democrat National Committee. Bush survives because the assassin misses because women don't know about guns -- this woman doesn't know about guns -- and Bush goes on to win in a landslide. (Laughing.) And then Congress presents Bush the Purple Heart. (Laughing.) After all this happens. Do it, Megan. Do it. She gave you a premise. You can take it and make it what you want. You're the student. Screw the grade and just do it. Send us a copy. Yes, that's what Rush would do -- because he's just so gosh-darned fuzzy and harmless, like a  plush teddy bear stuffed with love for everyone. 9:25:50 AM

comment [] trackback []

Family Circus Circles Today's Cartoon  (See it here: An exuberant Billy is sliding around the inside of the cartoon's circular border.  His red sneakers apparently working like ice skates, Billy puts his arms above his head and glides down the slope of the arc on one foot.  He exclaims, "Goin' around in circles is a lot easier than goin' around in squares!" Analysis: Billy is John Kerry this time.  He has chosen John Edwards as his running mate -- and it feels good!  It's a lot easier going around in political circles (accepting the conventional political wisdom that a rather boring, patrician guy like Kerry needs a warm, likable, young Southern VP like Edwards), than going around with a square like Richard Gephardt or Bob Graham. Prediction: By the end of the month, Dick Cheney will tell nice, young Mr. Edwards to "Go f--- yourself."  Okay, my analytical and fortunetelling skills are off today.  So, let's hear from some other people: At last, Keane has given us a happy moment in the life of one of his "children"; and look, it's a boy in a bubble with not another soul in the world. One might be tempted to think that this is George, whose world view inlcudes only one person, himself, and after he gets the rest of us cleared off of his planet, he will go skipping and jumping like a circus clown. But look more closely! Could that be a sneaker-clad, t-shirt-wearing Michael Moore? However, if you point your head sharply to the right, you will find an unfortunate gay caricature, the kind that someone with the integrity of Bil Keane ought to try to avoid. Clearly, this is one of his multiple meaning strips. And I think if you print it out, cut it out, and glue it to something portable, you can swivel it around and see different meanings all day long. I can't wait to hear them. • Ekstase • In regards to tomorrow's cartoon, nice work, Ekstase. I like your Circus George idea the best. It has another meaning as well, though, and I feel obligated to share it before Turkee makes another of her watermelon-induced "prognostications." Analysis: Billy runs around a circular frame that is, without a doubt, meant to represent the jogging track from the spaceship in Stanley Kubrick's haunting movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Surreal even by Keane standards, this one shows little Billy (meant to represent Yosef who represents the hottest young conservative writers on the internet) "pleasuring himself" in a soul-less, emotionless, sterile world. Prediction: As our planet becomes completely overrun and infested by corporate marketing and branding, all true meaning will been replaced by the simple capitalistic response of "buy buy buy." Our only emotions and passions will be sold to us by Nike, Coke, and McDonald's. The only people who will be truly happy in this world will be the Wing Nut pundits and they'll run around shrieking about how things are so much nicer now than back when the "squares" enjoyed things like nature (as not seen from the window of an SUV), non-Clear Channel music, or independent bookstores. It's unfortunate that my predictions so frequently come to pass because this one terrifies me. • Pete M. •     Square : even, equal, impartial.Circle : spin, whirlpool, treadmill, clique.Yeah, I can see where circles would be easier for Billybush. • Alison •   Or maybe only YOU know the true hidden meaning of Keane's work, which may have something to do with the shape of the space-time universe, or circular reasoning, or something. 8:38:52 AM

comment [] trackback []

A Letter From Jail Trish Wilson has been covering the story of Lowell Jaks, the former president of an influential fathers' rights group who is currently in jail for kidnapping his son.  It's a very interesting and instructive tale, and Trish has done an excellent job of presenting it, so I recommend you check out that section of her blog.  But as a prelude to our letter from jail, here are some highlights: Lowell Jaks founded the Alliance for Noncustodial Parents' Rights (ANCPR) in 1997 (which was not long after his second marriage, and the birth of his son Alec); per an A.P. item, he started the group because "he had been married before and did not want to pay child support for his daughter."  Not exactly a good omen for the future of the new marriage and welfare of the new child. In 2002, Jaks was interviewed for an A.P article entitled "Suicides and Violence by Divorced Men: Fathers' Rights Groups Contend Court Bias Plays a Role" (the link is to a copy saved on a Fathers' Rights page -- note the drawing at the top called "Radical Feminism colluding with the courts" depicting a giant hand with the Nazi-ish symbol on it tearing away a hapless man from the arms of his crying children).  Here are the Jaks' highlights from the piece: One divorced father committed suicide on the steps of San Diego's courthouse, another set his car afire outside Alaska's child-support office.  Others, in an all-too-common scenario, killed their ex-wives, their children, then themselves. Men who snap in such violent ways have few defenders. Yet fathers'rights groups, joined by a few academic experts, see a common denominator in these recent bursts of rage, and ask whether America's family court systemcould be partly at fault by deepening the despair of many divorced men. None of these guys are poster children," said Lowell Jaks, president of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights. "But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions -- a certain percentage are going to crack." Women's groups and government officials doubt that courtroom bias is the cause for most of these destructive outbursts; some experts say divorced men simply experience more isolation after divorce than women. But Jaks is convinced of his position. He has even distributed newspaper articles to his organization's members noting the problems with child custody and child support that angered John Muhammad, the alleged Washington-area sniper, and Robert S. Flores Jr., who killed three University of Arizona nursing professors before killing himself. "Some guys kill themselves, some snap and go out and kill others," Jaks said. "You can dismiss them as crackpots, you can say we need more protection for women, but it's not going to take away the problem." [...] Lowell Jaks recalled fantasizing about suicide during his divorce. "You're just expected to move on," he said. "And you know that by moving on, that might be interpreted as neglecting your child." So, basically if a guy kills his wife & kids and then commits suicide, or becomes the D.C. sniper, it's the court's fault for letting his wife divorce him and then giving her the kids and making him pay for their support.  And not, you know, because of something wrong with the guy.  Thus, it's probably not surprising that Jaks "snapped" and fled the country with his son (reportedly because he didn't want to have to pay back child support to his ex-wives). I don't know when Jaks' second marriage ended; he established the "Homepage of Lowell and Alex Jaks" circa 2001.  His "What's Happening" page from 2002 indicates that: Alec is attending St. Ann's School, a Catholic School in Ridgecrest.  Each day he comes home to my place, and some days he then is picked up by Elaine.  It's called "Shared Parenting" or "Joint Physical and Legal Custody".  Jaks later lost custody of Alec, reportedly because of his threats to take the boy out of the country.  In early January 2004, Jaks added this item to a "psychic reading" page: Intuitive Readings by Lowell Jaks PsiBlogs are intuitive readings by Lowell Jaks for anyone who writes and asks for one. These readings are then posted (blogged) to PsiBlog.com. If Jaks really had psychic ability, you'd think he might have seen the outcome of the act he was already planning, but just a couple of weeks later Jaks kidnapped his son and fled to Mexico, and then the Dominican Republic.  Jaks was arrested there a month later, and extradited to the U.S.  He plead guilty to child abduction charges, and was sentenced to a year in jail.  And the poor guy apparently isn't getting any mail from his fellow Fathers' Rights advocates, despite all he's done for the cause! Here's are some excerpts from a post to the "A Kid's Right" mailing list:  Write to Lowell Jaks - a parent in jail. John Murtari, our group Coordinator, wanted to share a letter he received from Lowell Jaks.  A parent who took their child and left the Country.  Some background at: http://www.kids-right.org/archive/archive2004/0003.html.  Lowell started ANCPR, Alliance for Non-Custodial Parent's Rights, http://www.ancpr.org. We don't endorse what he did.  It is a crime.  He should be punished.  But all of us know the anguish of being separated from our children,and perhaps similar thoughts we've had to "make things better." ...Is Lowell a bad man - NO!  Is he a bad parent - NO! Yeah, the group doesn't endorse what Jaks has done, but they don't exactly condemn it, now do they?  Personally, I don't think that Lowell is a necessarily bad man (I think he's a man with some mental health problems, and some anger and control issues, but I'll leave it to God to judge his soul), but it's obvious that he's a bad parent.  After losing joint custody of his son because of his threats, he took the boy to a third-world country -- away from home, school, and mother -- all because of his anger at his ex-wives and the financial situation he had made for himself.  Not the hallmarks of a good parent.  One of the greatest things to get is a letter! He did NOT ask, but we are sure a few dollars would be welcome. Most of us think $5 or $10 doesn't do much.  Well, it is a big help when you are in jail. Do not send checks, just postal money orders written to his name. Since Jaks reportedly used dues from the ANCPR to pay what child support he gave to Alec's mother, using other angry men to finance his way in life is not unfamiliar to him.  So by all means, send him $5 or $10 (his jail address is there in the "A Kid's Right" post). Anyway, on to his letter, which was sent to Murtari, who shared with the world (that they might send cash): Thank you so much for your letter. And also, thank you for the $10 you included. A precious few have written to me, each appreciated greatly.  I am not surprised that news and discussion of me has receded - you of all people, I'm sure, are aware of how lonely is the effort to raise awareness of the issues we face. Yeah, poor Jaks -- he goes and kidnaps his son to raise awareness of fathers' rights issues, but he's already been forgotten!   I am actually doing quite well here in jail.  As I'm sure you know, jail is actually quite liberating.  I even have people who wash and fold my underwear for me, at the county's expense!  It's really amazing how many people are faced with family law issues here in jail.  I would say most are.  One observation, which is apropo -- most of the guys are fine with flaunting the laws with respect to drugs and alcohol, yet to risk incarceration because of a protest action on child support, or some other family law issue would, I'm sure, be out of the question.  Isn't that really the problem though?  Self centered, self absorbed, hedonism, consumerism, etc. -- It blocks one off from what is real -- from what really matters. Yes, most people are too self-centered and self-absorbed to go to jail because they refuse to pay child support.  It just goes to show how bad society really is. I treat this time - I conceptualize this time - as if I had taken vows in a monastery.  It really isn't much different.  In truth, I have often thought of living as a monk.  The stories of those who have had themselves sealed off in a cave for years had held appeal for me since I was very young.  Well, no wonder Jaks isn't getting the martyr's recognition he had hoped for -- jail is the fulfillment of a life-long dream! I am not allowed any contact whatsoever with my son.  I expect that in month or so that may change.  Before we left on this adventure,while we were discussing the possibility of leaving -- I had let him know that if we were caught, we would be separated for a long time. He's very resilient -- a real 'go with the flow' kind of a kid. Yeah, keep telling yourself that, Lowell.  In fact, being kidnapped and taken to a foreign country, and then having his dad arrested and sent to jail for it, was probably the best thing that ever happened to the ten-year-old. I'm glad we did what we did.  I'm proud of what I did.  I went ahead with this action, not out of vengeance, but out of the conviction that it was the right thing to do, under the circumstances. Well, it was better than a murder/suicide or a killing spree, but hardly the right thing for his son, his wife, or for society. Look at the size and ubiquity of the Child Support Industry.  Look at the size of the additional industry surrounding custody issues.  Look at the size and proliferation of the entire legal and social edifice surrounding Domestic Violence issues.  We got there because few people any more are even capable of critical thought.  We are a culture driven by emotionalism and utilitarianism.  This leads to a system in which the ends justify the means, with zero tolerance becoming the norm. Huh?  While I can't fathom the reasoning here at all (probably due to the paucity of people capable of critical thought these days), I think Jaks is saying that the courts, driven by emotion and utility, have zero tolerance for refusal to pay child support or for domestic violence, and that's just not fair!  (I note that in a comment to Trish's blog, Jaks' daughter from his first marriage wrote that he was physically abusive of her and her mother --  I would imagine this had indeed came up in divorce and child custody hearings, and tended to cause judges to side with his wife).  So, claiming that the ends justify the means is wrong -- except when one kidnaps one's child to get back at an ex-wife.   There is also a very sordid side to all of this.  I would make argument that the entire edifice of modern family law -- which, by the way, is wholly and entirely new, as of the institution of so-called "no fault divorce" in the late 70's -- has one motivation and only one.  That is, to legitimate adultery by women.  Every single lawgiver in the history of mankind has warned of this - from Moses to Manu.  This has led to a wholesale denigration of fatherhood on a scale never before seen.  Moses and Manu warned of how modern family law would be set up to legitimize female adultery?  That's all well and good, but what did the mighty Bil Keane prophesy on the subject?  Anyway, that seems to be one of the foundations of the fathers/mens rights movement: that women divorce good men for no reason at all, and then they later remarry, which proves that they are harlots and were probably having affairs all through the marriage.  And then the feminazi courts bleed the man dry by forcing him to pay child support, and he doesn't even get possession of the children, who should be HIS, like ancient law says.  So, write Jaks a letter or something.  In honor of all he's done for fathers' rights. 6:55:46 AM