June 3, 2004 by s.z.

Family Circle of Mystery and Horror The Cartoon (You can see it here) Dolly is standing next to a blonde girl wearing a purple sweater and black gym shorts; Dolly's arm is behind the girl's shoulders, apparently holding her up or controlling her as Dolly introduces her to Mommy. The girl's hands are clasped tightly in front of her stomach, her eyes are closed, and her slit of a  mouth is in the middle of her face.  The whole effect is that of inbred imbecility combined with a kind of repressed emotion that will someday erupt in violence. Mommy's face expresses nothing, but her body is half way out of the strip's "circle," as if she's trying to flee. Dolly delivers the caption: "Emma's new little brother is named after the President.  They call him Dubya." Explication and Prediction I think it's just what it seems to be -- Dolly has a little friend whose baby brother is called "Dubya."  Okay, this one freaked me out.  You analyze it. 5:06:55 AM

Son of TownHall Review Just when you thought it was safe to get back on the web. Terence Jeffrey Terence thinks that Presidence Bush should "vigorously oppose" California's "Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative" because nobody in the Golden State is going to vote for him anyway.  Bush should fight it because (a) lab-created embryos are people too, even if they are clones; and (b) the Nazis invented cloning in order to develop their race of super soldiers, and we don't want to be like them. Winning California's electoral votes may be a long shot for Bush. But he ought to vigorously oppose this California initiative both as a matter of principle and as a means for sparking a much-needed national debate on what liberty means in an age when some American scientists -- and some business interests -- are insisting that taxpayers fund research on human subjects that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. Unimaginable, that is, outside Nazi Germany. [...] Backers of Loan-to-Clone-to-Kill will spend millions painting it as a charitable effort to find cures for horrible illnesses. But it is really all about coercion. It is about using the power of the state to deprive people of their lives and their property. Under this initiative, every human being created by cloning will be treated as a piece of property and then exterminated. Every taxpayer will be made to pay for that extermination, even those who recognize it for the abomination that it is. Yes, hardworking clones will be forced to pay for their own executions unless this initiative is defeated.  I too think that Bush and his cloned daughters should speak out against it. Maggie Gallagher Maggie sees Oregon's assisted suicide law as an all-too-convenient way for families to get rid of relatives they're tired of. If your father is old and sick in Oregon, the subject of suicide becomes part of the family discussion. Your cousin will raise it as you try together to glimpse the future. Your mom may share her feelings about it with you as she works through the implications of her newfound legal right. If you refuse to treat suicide as a normal possibility, you may be stigmatized as lacking in compassion or respect for her rights. If suicide is a legal choice, then it is a moral option. Thinking through moral options together, that's what families do, right? To Maggie, anything legal is "a moral option" because the state determines our morals.  (Well, she really believes that the state determines the morals of other, weaker people, and that's why she's so insistent on making the laws reflect her morals, so that those others won't be led astray.)  Anyway, once suicide is a "moral option," then families will get together and decide if Dad should off himself -- because that's what families do.  Just like how the whole clan got together and voted on whether Bob should marry Steve once same-sex marriage became a moral choice -- and Bob wasn't even gay before MA made it legal (and therefore, moral and mandatory).  Ann Coulter Ann is still sticking to her story about the Iraq war (I mean, "invasion") going "fabulously well."  Which reminds us that Ann looks a lot like Patsy Stone, the binge-drinking, chain-smoking, pill-popping man-eater from "Absolutely Fabulous."  Do you think that our blonde trailor-trash bitch godess could actually be a character portrayed by some British actor, and that the whole "Ann Coulter" persona is just part of an extended episode of "Punk'd"? Consider the evidence: the opening of this week's column: The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations – certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals.  "Ann" then writes that since the war is going so well, the liberals are reduced to claiming that before the war Paul Wolfowitz said that Iraq could pay for its own recovery, that a post-war Iraq would be much like post-war France, and that our troops would never become an occupation force.  And Wolfie never said those things!  No wait, he did.  So Ann finds a NY Times mag article where he says some things she likes better, and quotes from that.  And then she says that liberals lie about stuff like that anyway. But you'd have to put liberals in Abu Ghraib to get them to tell the truth about what people were saying before the war – and then the problem would be that most liberals would enjoy those activities. Yes, liberals love being raped, abused, humiliated, and killed.  They're just funny that way.  Maybe that's why they're all traitors. And then Ann reminds us that we couldn't have waited to find out if Saddam really posed a threat to us, because then it would have been too late!  You know, like how cops are allowed to shoot people before learning whether they have weapons, because waiting could be risky and might not help spread democracy. "If we have proof of nuclear and biological weapons," Daschle asked, "why doesn't [Bush] show that proof to the world as President Kennedy did 40 years ago when he sent Adlai Stevenson to show the world U.S. photographs of offensive missiles in Cuba?" The answer is and was: Because by the time Saddam had nuclear weapons, we wouldn't be able to do anything. That's why it's known as the "Cuban missile crisis," not the "Cuban missile triumph."   Yup.  Because Kennedy waited until he had proof that Cuba actually had missiles, we couldn't do anything, our cities were destroyed, and we became part of the USSR.  And that's why we need to all say, despite evidence to the contrary, that Iraq is going magnificently well. Joel Mowbray Yesterday Joel wrote about how the CIA and State Department invaded Chalabi's compound for no reason except that they were jealous of him because his intelligence was so much better than theirs.  And then the story came out about Chalabi telling Iran that we broke their codes.  Now Joel claims that the CIA and State Dept. are framing Chalabi in order to get his best friend George Bush our of office.  (See Atrios for the touching story of how Bush can't seem to even remember the name of his pal these days.) To fully appreciate the mutinous sentiment at State, consider that it is a place where its employees feel free to display on desks and doors political cartoons lampooning President Bush.  And people who display anti-Bush cartoons are capable of anything! So far, the White House has not refereed the open revolt within its ranks.  This has only emboldened the president's enemies at State and CIA.  If there is evidence against Chalabi—beyond Iran sending a message in a code it had supposedly just been told was broken—it should be put on the table. Any evidence against Chalabi (other than NSA intercepts) would presumably come from CIA human or technical sources, and revealing that evidence would probably compromise those sources (which would probably mean death or imprisonment for the human sources).  So, if the CIA doesn't make this evidence public, then it means that Chalabi is completely innocent.  And if our soldiers weren't greeted with sweets and flowers like Chalabi promised, it was the State Department's fault. Michalle Malkin Israeli TV showed footage of Arab terrorists in Gaza using a UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) ambulance for a getaway vehicle -- proof that the U.N. helps terrorists.  And if they assist Palestinian terrorists, then they are undoubtedly helping Islamofascist terrorists kill American soldiers in Iraq.  And yet the U.N. condemns the U.S. for war atrocities!  What nerve! While jihadists gain shelter in its emergency vehicles, the U.N. continues to lambaste the U.S. for assorted wartime "atrocities." Not one more American dime should go to fund the bloody self-righteousness of the world's most generous terrorist relief organization. Well, President Bush did say "we will treat terrorists -- and those who support, harbor, finance, and assist terrorists -- the same."  So, I guess we're going to be seeing some shock and awe at the U.N. headquarters in NY.  Ben Shapiro Ben references that same Israeli TV footage of the U.N ambulance.  He comes to the same conclusion as Michelle.  If U.N. peacekeepers worked with Hezbollah terrorists, there is no doubt in my mind that they would work hand in glove with Iraqi terrorists and their allies. Why would we expect American soldiers to be treated with more respect than Israeli soldiers by an organization that actively supported the Saddam Hussein regime? Why should we continue to use our tax dollars to support enablers of international Islamic terrorism?   I think we need to separate our two young whiz kids so we don't have any more identical test answers.  Or worse!  (Ben is starting to grow up, and Michelle is still practicing her slutty look.) Oh, Ben does throw in one original point: According to the Israeli Defense Ministry, the terrorists also used U.N. ambulances to steal body parts of Israeli soldiers killed in a Gaza Strip military operation  I bet those body parts were flown out of the country for use in magic charms and/or secret organ transplants. Thomas Sowell Once again, the media has claimed that there are poor people in America -- and while there are, most of them are young or only employed part-time, so it really bugs Thomas that we're still supposed to care about them. The front-page headline on the May 31st issue of BusinessWeek says: "One in four workers earns $18,800 a year or less, with few if any benefits. What can be done?"  Buried inside is an admission that about a third of these are part-time workers and another third are no more than 25 years old. So we are really talking about one-third of one fourth -- or fewer than 10 percent of the workers -- who are "working poor" in any full-time, long-run sense.  So, why should we be concerned about the "working poor" when you can practically make them go away if you just keep juggling the figures. And besides, if anybody is poor in America, it's because they're too lazy to get off their duffs and get a good education. While the economy is "rewarding the growing ranks of educated knowledge workers," BusinessWeek says, this is not so for "workers who lack skills and training." In a country with free education available through high school and heavily subsidized state colleges and universities, why do some people lack skills and training? Maybe they have learning disabilities?  Maybe they had bad experiences with the educational system and are afraid to go back?  Maybe they can't afford to take time away from their various low-paying jobs to get trained?  I don't really know, Thomas -- this could be a good research project for you. BusinessWeek wants "better day-care options" -- "especially for single moms." In other words, unmarried girls should have babies and expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab for taking care of them. And if we subsidize such irresponsible decisions, will that not have the same effects as subsidizing other things?  Yes, offering better day-care options for single moms would be subsidizing out-of-wedlock sex, or sex in a marriage that will someday end in divorce.  And the next thing you know, we'll have millions of women becoming single mothers, just for the day care.  And eventually, men will have to marry rocks, children, and puppies, just like Randall Terry predicted.   So, there you go -- all the Townhall that's fit to print.  And more.  Way, way more!  That's what makes this country great.  1:20:48 AM