NEWS OF THE WEIRD: Stories of the strange, the sublime, the supernatural, the silly and the stupefying

<<<Continued from previous...

What about the clinic? What was THEIR responsibility in such a situation? Their mandate is to provide "health care", which includes, at present, fertility, prenatal and obstretic services, to those who seek it, WITHOUT regard to their patients' age, marital status, income, motivation or maturity. Some states may well require a mental health evaluation, which is also necessary for certain surgeries, such as lap band, breast augmentation or sexual reassignment. Such evaluations are a mere formality, a (usually) single session with a well-compensated pshrink who may only object if you say something aloud like, "I sure want me some babies so's I kin feed 'em to mah dogs. They's LOVE that pink soft meat, they is." MAY. Any efforts on the part of the doctors, the labs or the facilities to put a halt to these services will undoubtedly result in lawsuits so massive and so public as to make saying "no" a virtual impossibility. Want to see how fast the ACLU can drain your hospital's endowment, ruin its reputation and drive off its most promising talent? Try denying a physically healthy prospective mom fertility and pregnancy services because you deem her too immature, too irresponsible, too financially unfit for motherhood. I dare ya.

What about the grandparents? Sad to say, there is no state that boasts a Pre-Child Protection Agency. Maybe we ought to be federalizing childbirthing under a department using the dubious gifts of three kiddie-pool-residing pre-cogs named Agatha, Arthur and Dashiell, but I'd call that hasty. Can you sue to have a restraining order imposed on potential conception? Love to see THAT one on Law and Order, wouldn't you?

So, WHAT ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE? Pre-authorization of conjugation? Panty police? A Department of Uterine Security? I really don't think so, folks.

Anybody who's ever actually BEEN a parent (and I have, for going on ten years, now) can tell you the following: Financially, professionally, socially, you're NEVER "ready". Women especially know this to be true, and, further, they know that if they were to wait until their husbands or significant sperm-producing others deemed themselves and their family unit ready, well, we'd have negative population growth, as a species, and always would have had, and the human race would have petered out somewhere around Enoch. You don't ever "get" ready, you get busy. No one's EVER at the point where they say, You know, honey, I think we have enough saved up, now, and we've done all the things we wanted to do as a young, relatively irresponsible young couple; we've seen enough movies, had enough fun with our friends, we have a big enough house, now, and we're finally to that point in our careers where we can take our foot off the gas and coast, and enjoy the fruits of our previous labors, and stop angling for that next step on the corporate ladder, that next promotion, that next, hopefully corner, office. There's time and money and stress to spare, so, hey, let's get to it and pop out a kid or two, shall we, since we've pretty much done everything we ever wanted to as individuals in this world, and now it's time to live for our children. Riiiiiiight. Doesn't happen, unless you're, like, seventy, and a PowerBall winner to boot. No, what happens is this: Man and wife (or boyfriend and girlfriend, or dog and cat, or whatever) have a conversation that goes something like this: "Honey, I think it's time we finally started trying to have a baby." "Oh, gee, really? Now? Tell ya what, let's wait another year or two, just until I get my next raise and we buy a bigger house / condo / apartment / hovel, and we can talk about that. It's just not good timing right now, but we're getting closer, I promise, and I know how much you want this, and how patient you've been, and I really, really, really appreciate you and your sacrifice in this regard, and I really, really, really LOVE YOU." "Oh. Okay." The female then goes into the bathroom and removes her diaphragm, flushes her birth control pills, and/or digs her implant out of her arm with a nile file before slipping into her man's favorite teddy, slinking into the living room and purring, "You LOVE me, yeah? Prove it, big boy." Then, some forty weeks later, the guy realizes he's been had. This situation then repeats itself, at two- or three-year intervals, until either the male visits a urologist to get his willy whacked, or the woman's uterus falls out one day while bending over to pick up that heavy can of french-cut green beans on sale at the local Piggly Wiggly. No. I'm kidding. That only happens some of the time. Like, ninety percent.

>>>Continued...

<<<Continued from previous...

Here's my point: The Government can't even regulate the safety of peanut butter, can't even authorize new roads or safer bridges or bigger refineries or more productive nuclear power plants, and can't find a single whack job with the world's most recognizeable beard in the mountains between Bumfuck and Beijing. You want the same people who run the DMV, the post office and the passport process issuing permits for parenthood? Fuck, no, people, I don't think so. You think our society's fucked now, wait 'til people like Donna Shalala or Mitt Romney are in charge of who gets to be a mom or dad.

[Shaking head] No, I don't want to live in China, or Sparta, or even the Federation from Starship Troopers (much as it pains me to admit that), where service guarantees citizenship, the franchise, and the ability to spawn. I don't want to have to PROVE my ability to be a father, certainly not by way of my pay stubs, my credit record or the depositions of my friends, neighbors, or family, and not to some bureaucrat hack in an office with bad coffee and fluorescent overhead lighting and pressboard furniture and water-stained ceiling tiles and a sign that reads, "PLEASE SURRENDER ALL KNIVES, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVE DEVICES" in English, Spanish and Arbaic. Screw that.

Neither do I buy the currently popular argument that the siring of large broods is an affront to decency, a drain on the economy or a threat to the environment. Take a good look around the world, people. We're nearly at the peak of our civilization, population-wise. The Total Fertility Rate, also called the "replacement rate" of any civilization, the metric determining whether a society is growing, static, or shrinking, is somewhere between 2.1 and 2.2 live births per 2 persons, accomodating and accounting for the existence of factors like early-childhood illnesses, pre-age-of-maturity accidental deaths, and the odd epidemic, famine or war. No civilization has ever survived the sustained fall of its replacement rate below 2.1. Check out some of these recent statistics for nations that may not survive to see the 22nd Century: Iceland, 1.91. Sweden, 1.80. Australia, 1.79. Canada, 1.53. Portugal, 1.49. Spain, 1.41. Germany, 1.36.

What about the People's Republic of China? 1.73, which means its one-child policy is at the peak of its effectiveness to date, and that its population will begin to fall off by mid-century, dropping to an estimated 1.125 billion by 2050, falling below a billion by 2080, and ending up at around 870,000,000 by 2100, roughly half its current numbers, if its TFR remains constant.

Meanwhile, here are some places in the world where real estate will be pretty cheap by mid-century: Sub-Saharan Africa, decimated by triple plagues of AIDS, genocide and want, will see its population reduced by as much as 70% by 2050. The former Soviet Union, with the exception of its southern satellites, will witness a population RIF to the tune of 45% within two generations. Ditto most of Eastern Europe. The hills are about to get a whole lot less alive in places like Austria (1.38), Slovakia (1.34) and Ukraine (1.25).

The U.K. is at 1.82, but its birth rate is being propped up by its immigrants, especially those from Muslim-majority countries (more on that in a minute), meaning that by late this century, you'll be far more likely to find falafel and hummus than fish 'n chips at your local takeaway. Ditto France at 1.89. Japan's at an anemic 1.27, which means its population is essentially halving every generation.

Where's the U.S.? Exactly at 2.10, right on the border between robust growth and eventual extinction. We're holding steady, in other words, perhaps even increasing slightly, owing to advances in medicine and greater interest in healthy living that is continuing to push our nation's median age higher, decade by decade. But it's not like we're having litters, you know. We may hit our peak somewhere in the late 21st Century and level off at right about 400 million, but, unless immigration expands exponentially or we become an Islamist state, we're looking at a long, slow slide into oblivion that will become irrevocable long before we celebrate our quatrocentennial.

>>>Continued...

<<<Continued from previous...

What am I saying? Simply that, if we WANT to survive as a society (a real question these days, I have come to understand), much less pay for ever-swelling entitlement, health care and retirement programs that cannot survive without a burgeoning working-age population to pay into them, then, to quote President Laura Roslin from Battlestar Galactica: "They better start making babies." Except, it's not "they", it's "we". On three continents -- Europe, Africa, and North America -- and half of another (Asia), the human race is reaching its zenith, and will soon decline. The increasing prospect of global war, deliberate infliction of mass casualties, emerging diseases, drug-resistant bugs, and planet-devouring artificial singularities makes it necessary to ENCOURAGE population growth, not campaign AGAINST it, as we slip into the long twilight of our procreative process. Three generations of anti-family liberal propaganda, the ceaseless hysterical premonitions of "population bombs" and ecological disasters and planetwide famines and the selfishness of parents with large broods, has led us to a tipping point in our affairs, that will only be remedied by a wholesale reversal of our attitudes, lest children stop to be our future and become part of our past. Children of Men wasn't fantasy, it's reality, it just hasn't happened yet.

Meanwhile, where are populations INCREASING? Christians, particularly Roman Catholics, get a lot of shit for encouraging the continuation of large families, but look around the world and you'll see that a sort of post-Christian procreational apathy has taken root: Italy, home to the Vatican, 1.30. Poland, homeland of the late Pope, 1.23. Even Ireland is failing to keep the world stocked with a fair supply of redheads and ginger kids: 1.85. What cultures are doing their fair share? Muslim-dominated societies have a virtual lock on the top 35 nations. Here are some: Nigeria (50% Muslim), 5.01 [#32]. Gaza (99.3%), 5.19 [#27]. Chad (54%), 5.43 [#21]. Oman (99%), 5.62 [#18]. Mauritania (99.84), 5.69 [#15]. Yemen (99%), 6.41 [#6]. Mali (90% Muslim), 7.34 [#1].

Now, don't anyone assume I'm bagging on the fact that Muslims are reproducing at up to five times the rate of the rest of us... I'm not. It's nice to see a culture that values having children, one with an optimistic, forward-looking notion of their place in the world, and not a tired, guilty, apologetic chip on its shoulder for having flourished and transcended boundaries and for having led the world for at least half a millennium. I wish Western civilization had that sort of vitality, is all I'm saying. As it is, it seems to me our own Manifest Destiny piffled into self-congratulatory semi-retirement at the shores of the Pacific, while Islam eyes an increasingly depopulated world gradually opening up to a new generation of pioneers.

The War on Terror (which, really, is a War on Islam) is, to quote Heath Ledger, a bad joke. Politics is transient. Demographics is destiny. As Edward Longshanks said in Braveheart, "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out." Everything old is new again, folks. So, if you want to argue that we're too numerous anyway, and ought to put the clapper on families ar three or two or one kids for the sake of the planet, all I can tell you is this: You have no need to worry. The world at the time of your death will likely be somewhat less crowded than the one you were born into, no matter what Thomas L. Friedman may say. And for those who argue that Christianity is passe, and that Western civilization is so last-millennium, you're absolutely correct. The future belongs to the East, and the Near East at that. We are Indians awaiting the white man.

However, again, it's JUST possible -- maybe, conceivably, perchance it could be construed -- that I digress.

Meanwhile, as far as the economic arguments against excessive child-producing go, all I can say is, take a look at Japan. There's a liberal socialist nanny-state country (like we're about to be) with massive Government outlays for all sorts of generous utopian economy-cratering social programs, that's so top-heavy that a whopping one-quarter of its population is over the age of 64 (retirement age, btw). Further, less than 13% are under 14, which means that Japan has twice as many service-program-gobbling geezers whose only contrbution to the national economy is in their production of debt and weird smells, as they have up-and-coming adolescents ready to man assembly lines, drive cabs, deliver sushi on bicycles or do calisthenics in their cubicle farm at the crack of dawn. It's a good thing the Nips pioneered efficiency in all things, especially in terms of electronics miniaturization; unfortunately, it's Japan itself that's about to get miniaturized. Their national demographic profile looks ominously similar to AIDS-ravaged Africa: Lots of people too old to work, no one under the age of forty. The only difference between Japan and Somalia is how quickly they will implode into a failed state unable to sustain itself at any cost.

>>>Concluded... (!)

<<<Concluded from previous...

[Sigh] Even if that WEREN'T the case, how sane is it for a society to determine all of a sudden that children, instead of being considered the one resource that can be CONSTANTLY replenished, that is in NO DANGER of EVER "running out" (unless, of course, they WANT it to), are more a liability than an asset? How screwed-up is THAT? Psychologically, the entire latter half of the last century, in Western culture at least, has been broadly defined by increasing amounts of misdirected guilt, entrenched apathy and liberally (literally) applied self-loathing. At what point did it become trendy to not only predict, but to ROOT FOR the decline of a civilization that invented self-determination, inspired some of the most staggering works of art and architecture and philosophy in the history of the world, that single-handedly ended the tyrannies of feudalism, monarchism, autocraticism, fascism and communism (well, we'll see about that one)? When did WE become the bad guys, unworthy not only of praise, respect or appreciation, but of SURVIVAL?!?!?

Anywho. Point is, Nadya Suleman may be a nutjob and a dirtbag, will almost certainly screw up those kids she doesn't neglect to death, and may well represent a sort of new-Millennium utero-terrorism. And I don't honestly know WHAT the elusive, probably illusory "answer" is to prevent her particular brand of destructiveness from visiting itself on future families and their generations. A free society tolerates, in fact encourages, the freedom to do dumb and irrational and even dangerous things, as well as all the beneficial stuff like the right to assemble and confront one's accuser and speak freely and travel without encumbrance and to demand redress from the Government for its offenses, be they real or imagined. It ain't perfect; a free society CAN'T be "perfect", since everyone has the right, in fact the responsibility, to test the limits of what's permissible, and then to, yes, suffer the consequences. (Weirdly, the ACLU claims to uphold the former, but completely ignores the latter.) I'm not advertising Ms. Suleman as a model for society to elevate. But neither am I arguing against her right to exist. And I DON'T want to give ANYONE, be it the Government, the insurance industry, or even her own well-intentioned health care providers, the AUTHORITY to approve or deny her parental aspirations. Tyranny always begins with the blessing of the PEOPLE. It ends with said people's regulation, followed swiftly by their enslavement and, finally, ruin. Give Uncle Sam the keys to our wombs, and how long before only the wealthy, the well-gened, the well-connected and the well-thought-of become the ONLY people allowed the "privilege" of reproduction? Who will advocate the procreation of the alcoholic, the coal miner, the overweight, the habitually unemployed, the unpopular?

Anywho. Just something to think about. I wish I knew the answer, but, I'm certain this ain't it. Anyone got a better idea, I'll listen.

To all (any?) of you who actually read all this, my thanks.


Stop her before she delivers again!

Whoa, dude!

...On to topics of less dubious relevancy, presenting today's NEWS OF THE WEIRD, from MSNBC.com: MS Pandemic 2009!

God, I love the thought of Bill Gates as ecumenical elitist scourge and ad hoc terrorist of the digerati. Hey, folks, it's iPlague!


Our Latest Upgrade!

Do Ya Like Boobs A Lot?

http://news.aol.com/article/woman-aims-for-worlds-largest-implants/331011

In reference to the horrible litter-spewing cunt with 14 kids check this article out.

We get money for food, not welfare.

Definition of welfare according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary is:

2 a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

Well sure sounds like giving money to a bitch with 14 kids is pretty much the accepted definition of "welfare" doesn't it?

Also check out the last paragraph of the story and then re-read the number there. 1.5 to 3 million doesn't seem like written that way. Let's see that in numerical form. 1,300,000 to 3,000,000. That is a lot of zeroes isn't it? By using the median income for a woman the US in 2007 they would make roughly 35,000 a year. It would take an average single mother 37 to 85 years to pay off that debt. She as un unemployed single mother who receives SSI and 480 bucks in food stamps a month would take a few more years to pay it off. I haven't been in math class for a while but 3 million divided by zero is umm errr Does Not Compute.
How exactly does a single, unemployed mother pay for a hospital bill that large and also buy food for 14 children? Oh I know, by being on SSI, food stamps, and pretty much begging for money from her church and then going on TV and saying

I'm not trying to expect anything from anybody. I just wanted to do it on my own. Any resources that someone would really, really want to help us, I will accept, I would embrace.

And Swedgie that was a very well thought out, albeit longer than fuck, rebuttal, but her having 8 kids at a time and given the illnesses and health problems associated with giving birth to litters kind of kills your math. Raising the birth rate by 14 kids in which 8 of them are going to be defective is just going to hasten the extinction process. Not that I mind that but it is the principle of the thing.

Gotta say, I am pretty much wholeheartedly in agreement with Donte on this one. The woman should not have been permitted to bring another child into the world, much less 8. While I am not for permits based on things like IQ (less than smart parents can bring about a brilliant child, so its not really a good argument) I do think it would be reasonable to have essentially the same requirements for parenting that we have on Adoption - prove you can provide long term stability, both financially and emotionally, before you can have a kid.

becs wrote:Gotta say, I am pretty much wholeheartedly in agreement with Donte on this one. The woman should not have been permitted to bring another child into the world, much less 8. While I am not for permits based on things like IQ (less than smart parents can bring about a brilliant child, so its not really a good argument) I do think it would be reasonable to have essentially the same requirements for parenting that we have on Adoption - prove you can provide long term stability, both financially and emotionally, before you can have a kid.

i assume you're not serious.... because that would be an excellent way to set women's rights back a few hundred years--not to mention promote fascism in general.. think about it: how could you possibly enforce such a system? what would be the penalty for breaking the law? a hefty fine that discriminates against the poor? mandatory prison time? okay, who would be considered the offender--the man or the woman? both? what happens when the man is nowhere to be found when the woman starts showing? what do you do with "illegal" babies once they're born--or once they've been conceived?

Interesting viewpoint, Swedge, and I agree with all of it



[quote="Swedgin!" The hills are about to get a whole lot less alive
[/quote]

^^This line was hilarious

NSpan wrote:

becs wrote:Gotta say, I am pretty much wholeheartedly in agreement with Donte on this one. The woman should not have been permitted to bring another child into the world, much less 8. While I am not for permits based on things like IQ (less than smart parents can bring about a brilliant child, so its not really a good argument) I do think it would be reasonable to have essentially the same requirements for parenting that we have on Adoption - prove you can provide long term stability, both financially and emotionally, before you can have a kid.

i assume you're not serious.... because that would be an excellent way to set women's rights back a few hundred years--not to mention promote fascism in general.. think about it: how could you possibly enforce such a system? what would be the penalty for breaking the law? a hefty fine that discriminates against the poor? mandatory prison time? okay, who would be considered the offender--the man or the woman? both? what happens when the man is nowhere to be found when the woman starts showing? what do you do with "illegal" babies once they're born--or once they've been conceived?

Screw women's rights, human rights, and whatever else (but since when has procreation been a right??). At this point drastic measures are warranted, there are too many ignorant people taking advantage of the system. Put something in the water, at this point I don't care - as someone strongly anti-abortion, I would say institute mandatory abortion or jail time in cases like that. Alternately, a somwhat less drastic solution would be welfare penalties for those who have more kids while on welfare, take that shit away from the dumbasses give it to the people who actually deserve it, if they remain on welfare for an extended period even after penalties, send in DCFS to take the kids away as they are clearly not fit.
If "illegal" babies are born, assess the parent(s) the same way you would in order to issue a permit, if they fail short term jailtime and the kid is taken/put up for adoption.

Someone's been reading The Handmaid's Tale.

Swedgin! wrote:God, I love the thought of Bill Gates as ecumenical elitist scourge and ad hoc terrorist of the digerati. Hey, folks, it's iPlague!

was anyone else bothered by the iJoke in the context of a microsoft article? that's just wacky

NSpan wrote:

becs wrote:Gotta say, I am pretty much wholeheartedly in agreement with Donte on this one. The woman should not have been permitted to bring another child into the world, much less 8. While I am not for permits based on things like IQ (less than smart parents can bring about a brilliant child, so its not really a good argument) I do think it would be reasonable to have essentially the same requirements for parenting that we have on Adoption - prove you can provide long term stability, both financially and emotionally, before you can have a kid.

i assume you're not serious.... because that would be an excellent way to set women's rights back a few hundred years--not to mention promote fascism in general.. think about it: how could you possibly enforce such a system? what would be the penalty for breaking the law? a hefty fine that discriminates against the poor? mandatory prison time? okay, who would be considered the offender--the man or the woman? both? what happens when the man is nowhere to be found when the woman starts showing? what do you do with "illegal" babies once they're born--or once they've been conceived?

also, for posterity (pun intended), i'd like to mention that i wrote this response BEFORE i read the article about the octuplets or the novel Nico wrote in response (which, by the way, makes some great points--from what i can gather after skimming it......... where are the nico cliffsnotes??).. so, while i stand by everything i said, i would also like to add that this particular lady (the one "addicted" to having children) should be locked up in a mental institution..

And becs, did you just say that despite the fact that you hate children, that you are anti-abortion?

Buscemi wrote:And becs, did you just say that despite the fact that you hate children, that you are anti-abortion?

i'm still scratching my head over the whole thing--but, yeah, that part was weird too

becs wrote:Screw women's rights, human rights, and whatever else (but since when has procreation been a right??). At this point drastic measures are warranted, there are too many ignorant people taking advantage of the system. Put something in the water, at this point I don't care - as someone strongly anti-abortion, I would say institute mandatory abortion or jail time in cases like that. Alternately, a somwhat less drastic solution would be welfare penalties for those who have more kids while on welfare, take that shit away from the dumbasses give it to the people who actually deserve it, if they remain on welfare for an extended period even after penalties, send in DCFS to take the kids away as they are clearly not fit.
If "illegal" babies are born, assess the parent(s) the same way you would in order to issue a permit, if they fail short term jailtime and the kid is taken/put up for adoption.

NSpan wrote:

Buscemi wrote:And becs, did you just say that despite the fact that you hate children, that you are anti-abortion?

i'm still scratching my head over the whole thing--but, yeah, that part was weird too

becs wrote:Screw women's rights, human rights, and whatever else (but since when has procreation been a right??). At this point drastic measures are warranted, there are too many ignorant people taking advantage of the system. Put something in the water, at this point I don't care - as someone strongly anti-abortion, I would say institute mandatory abortion or jail time in cases like that. Alternately, a somwhat less drastic solution would be welfare penalties for those who have more kids while on welfare, take that shit away from the dumbasses give it to the people who actually deserve it, if they remain on welfare for an extended period even after penalties, send in DCFS to take the kids away as they are clearly not fit.
If "illegal" babies are born, assess the parent(s) the same way you would in order to issue a permit, if they fail short term jailtime and the kid is taken/put up for adoption.

Yes, I realize its a bit confusing on the surface but you have to understand the thought process behind it, which is not that crazy. Ultimately I am anti-abortion, but I realize there are legitimate reasons to offer the option in the instance that it would devalue both the life of the mother and the child for it to be born, i.e. in cases of rape as is usually argued. I think it should be a limited thing where people can't just repeatedly have abortions - if they've reached the max they should just be sterilized. Though I agree that those in poverty are better to be given the option of having repeated abortions over bringing more children into the world, but I think that is completely wrong, and there should be serious consequences.
In the same token, though it should be taken more seriously and not given anytime an idiot gets knocked up, like the detriment to mother and child there is also a detriment to the whole of society, when you reach the heights of stupidity that we see with welfare moms who have a dozen kids, or even half a dozen. Its a pretty uniquely American problem, but we are screwing over ourselves as well as the rest of the world, this is why there is a need for restrictions upon reproduction in our country.
The two ideas though seemingly opposing actually go hand in hand, its all about the value and quality of life for everyone - its selfish to leave it solely in the woman's hands when she may be deciding (whether to get pregnant in the first place, or to abort an unwanted child) without the best interests of society or the child and only her own, which is why someone has to regulate. If people weren't such fucking sheep, if they had even the remotest iota of personal responsibility and maturity, it wouldn't be a problem.

becs wrote:Its a pretty uniquely American problem

that's news to me

Nadya Suleman may be one crazy lady, but that other lady with the eighteen kids (or is it nineteen) takes the fruitcake.

You know if these people keep having kids the way that they are, they are going to be dead. One's body can't that kind of punishment.

Maybe you should adopt the Chinese policy of 1 child only. And I believe any other gets you a nasty fine.

I really hope that's not an urban myth.

Yes, it's true. And it's asked that it be a boy.

So yes, China is a sausage factory.

The Highs and Lows Of The Milkman Industry:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29068145/?GT1=43001

Now that is a great milkman.

"I would like 2 quarts of milk, some yogurt, and an oz of weed. Thanks Milkman Joe."

The feat is a lie!

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/The-great-Atlantic-Ocean-swimming-hoax?urn=oly,140525

An Idea For Juno 2?

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/02/16/13-year-old-dad-may-not-be-father-after-all/