Theophil Jones, pater familias

The question isn't at what age I want to retire, it's at what income. ~~ George Foreman

2010-04-23T20:25:00.000-07:00

Good news and bad news, friends. The good news is that the Brilliant Mrs. Jones and I have emerged from Lent and the first half of the latest pregnancy relatively unharmed and with the joyous news that little In-Utero Jones is boy number five.

This, of course, makes ol' Papa Jones all kinds of happy and probably means there will be more Joneses in the future as Mama would seriously like another little girl to dress in bows and ribbons.

Also, yours truly was happily accepted to seminary in St. Louis and I am enrolling in all kinds of fun classes starting this summer.

Perhaps you should sit down to read this next part. Though, if you stand to browse the interwebs I suppose it is out of some necessity such as a lack of chairs in your house or tail-bone replacement surgery so do what you will. The bad news is that I have decided I don't really have the time to keep on keeping on, as the kids say. What I mean to say is that the Pater Blog will be on permanent hiatus for the foreseeable future. That is, until I read some really heinous story that I simply must share with you.

Until then, Jonesy out.

Resistance is futile. ~~ The Borg

2010-02-13T20:45:00.000-08:00

The following appeared in London’s Daily Mail on February 6^th:

New teachers lack the training to handle violence in the classroom, survey reveals

Nearly half of new teachers have not been given enough training to deal with violence in the classroom, a survey showed today. Figures also suggest two-thirds of newly qualified teachers have received no clear guidance on restraining violent students. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), which carried out the survey, has called for such training to be made compulsory.

Unruly: School children fighting in the classroom. (Posed by models)

Ok. Timeout. Did you read the caption on the above photo? I didn’t write that. I offer wonder if copywriters have a sense of humor. I may start adding “(Posed by models)” to all my family photographs.

According to the union, 49 per cent of newly-qualified teachers and probationers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland felt they had not had enough training to deal with challenging behaviour. One in five said they had been provided with clear guidance on restraining violent pupils, with nearly 30 per cent saying they had not yet covered this area of the job in their training. Guidance by the Department for Children, Schools and Families lists the types of force teachers can use on children.

Which is more terrifying, the Orwellian “Department for Children, Schools and Families” or the Brit’s spelling of behavior?

It can include passive physical contact such as blocking a pupil's path and active contact such as leading a pupil by the hand or arm.

Ooooooohhhh, not the hand or arm! I attended Kindergarten and half of first grade at a parochial school before Mama Jones gave me the yank but I distinctly remember a rumor that the principal, the sinister Mr. Cadwell, had a paddle in his office which he used on the naughtiest of the children. I have, to this day, no clue whether it was true or not. We used to ask kids who got sent to the principal’s office if they saw the paddle, and if they got spanked. Fact is, I doubt he ever did paddle anyone. But he might have…

In more extreme circumstances, 'appropriate restrictive holds, which may require specific expertise or training', may be used, it says.

VULCAN DEATH GRIP!

ATL says the problem with the official guidance is that teachers are not clear on how to interpret it. Sharon Liburd, from the ATL, told the BBC: 'These violent confrontations can erupt very very quickly, they [teachers] need to be clear about what sort of steps they can take to try to stop the situation from escalating, if they have to physically intervene and how, in fact, they do that.' But National Association of Head Teachers general secretary Mick Brookes said there was no need for compulsory training in schools because many never saw a violent incident. The ATL surveyed 1,001 of its members across the UK.

Administration v. Teacher’s Union, surely this didn’t have anything to do with the problem at hand, did it?

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said new teachers were given support to ensure they had the skills they needed and said the Government's 'behaviour tsar' Sir Alan Steer had noted progress in pupils' conduct across Britan.

He said: 'Good behaviour and an atmosphere of respect should be the norm in all schools. 'In his recent review, Sir Alan Steer said that behaviour standards have improved and are good in the majority of schools. 'We are determined to tackle poor behaviour and raise overall behaviour standards - that is why we have given schools clearer and stronger powers than ever before to ensure good school discipline.'

I would like to thank Sir Tsar Steer for wrapping this up in a neat bow, “that is why we have given schools clearer and stronger powers than ever before to ensure good school discipline.” So here’s my dilemma, I really think the schools, both over there and here, handicap themselves by being squishy, touchy feely, ultra PC. As many of the commenters noted, it was Educators and Child Development Professionals who eradicated corporal punishment. So reap the whirlwind and all that.

On the other hand, I’m pretty sure I wouldn't want Sir Tsar Steer spanking my kids, if you know what I mean. So where does that leave us? I’m going to go ahead and say parental responsibility.

AND VULCAN DEATH GRIP!!

In a totally unrelated, absolutely coincidental article via Drudge: Girl, 6, Handcuffed, Committed Because Of Classroom Behavior

We are the ones...we seek. ~~ Pres. Barak Obama, Feb. 28, 2008

2010-01-18T12:22:00.000-08:00

Aristophanes, 2, was just running around the house shouting, "Telemachus! Telemachus!"

Says I, "What are you boys doing?"

Telemachus, 4, somewhat muffled, "We playing hide and seek!"

Aristophanes, "Telemachus, where is you?"

Telemachus, still muffled, "I in the closet!"

This is what happens when Athena isn't around to boss...er...tell them what they're doing wrong.

I've got seven kids. The three words you hear most around my house are 'hello,' 'goodbye,' and 'I'm pregnant.' ~~ Dean Martin

2010-01-14T22:00:00.000-08:00

So I’ve been thinking about childbearing lately because of the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord. Here’s what I’ve been thinking. Gabriel tells the Blessed Virgin, “blessed art thou among women.” Of course this only makes sense. Mary is God’s chosen vessel to bring forth His firstborn son. She is the Theotokos, the one who bears God in her belly, the very Mother of God. The lot has fallen to her to bring into the world its Savior. Blessed indeed.

She was, however, still actually pregnant. And because she, and we, continue to suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, I imagine that means Mary suffered through her pregnancy and the blessed birth of her Savior in much the same way the brilliant Mrs. Jones suffers through her pregnancies.

So permit me to jump thoughts here for a moment. Picture for me a situation in which a person, let us call him Howard Taft, saves someone’s life. This rescued person, let us name him Woodrow Wilson, has managed to enrage a mother grizzly by kicking one of her cubs and does not know Howard Taft from Adam. As Woodrow Wilson runs down the hill at top speed (remember friends, always run downhill, a bear’s front legs are shorter than her back legs) he trips, falls, and is about to be disemboweled by a mama grizzly with a righteous anger. Howard Taft, seeing this, hurls his considerable bulk between man and bear even though he knows he will sustain a serious injury, perhaps even die. Woodrow Wilson does not die thanks to the fact that the bear is shot dead by a brave and handsome woodsman named Theophil Jones who happens to be nearby and witnessed the entire saga.

What is the point of the story? Most people, myself included, would treat Mr. Taft as a hero. I would treat his wounds, care for him, and nurse him back to health. I would very much admire his sacrifice.

So too with our pregnant wives. Every time they get pregnant they throw themselves in front of a train which will inevitably lead to pain and suffering. They will gain weight and have to diet. They will throw up every day for a month. They will lose sleep because of aching joints and have more sleepless nights caused by needy infants. They will suffer health problems, indignities from doctors, catheters, episiotomies, C-sections, and those wretched hospital gowns that the nurses always tease are from Victoria’s Secret. In some cases they will have to have hysterectomies and blood transfusions. In some cases they will die.

And they, and the brilliant Mrs. Jones in particular, will do all these things for someone I love dearly – one of my children. True, I don’t know that child yet, but I’m five for five when it comes to falling in love with the children Mrs. Jones produces, so it’s not too great a stretch to say that the brilliant Mrs. Jones suffers pregnancy and post-partum for someone I dearly love. And if anyone else, say my kid brother, Theophilus, suffered and faced certain pain and possible death for one of my children I would certainly move heaven and earth to nurse and care for him.

My point? In my weakness Ol’ Jonesy is sometimes guilty of being less than charitable when the brilliant Mrs. Jones is needy during pregnancy. It can be hard to take over scrubbing dishes when she's morning sick, when I’m already up to my ample eyebrows in work. But we must remember our wives suffer for someone we love. And, by my estimation, this is the essence of Christian duty: to do what is right in charity.

Oh, and you get babies. It’s a pretty good deal if you ask me. Put in a little extra work, get babies, then be happy.

P.S. And yes, this one makes number six for the Jones’s. And all of them will be under six years old. Thrice blessed am I (x2).

If women ran the world we wouldn't have wars, just intense negotiations every 28 days. ~~ Robin Williams

2010-01-11T11:39:00.000-08:00

Aegis-bearing Athena, 5 years old, to her brother: Hold my hand.

Man-like Telemachus, 4 years old, in reply: No.

Cunning Athena, to her insolent brother: Say yes.

The boy, Telemachus: Ok. Yes.

Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

2009-12-23T19:10:00.000-08:00

The greatest invasion of enemy territory in human history started not with any battle cry that you or I know. No “Allahu Akbar!” No “Remember the Alamo!” Unlike the Finnish, no one yelled"Hakkaa päälle!" (literally "Cut them down!" or "Hack on”). No, the greatest invasion in human history started with a whimper, or maybe a cry, but not from the invading king -- from His mother.

As the carol so poignantly points out, “little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes.” True, His mother Mary may have cried out in her labor pains, perhaps even Joseph, if he was privy to the beginning of the end of Satan’s reign on Earth, perhaps Joseph yelled out encouragement to his young wife, but not so for the King. The commander of the angel armies did not cry out. He did not herald His own coming. No gaudy “Geronimo!” for Him. Though He did intend to sacrifice Himself, He did not shout “Banzai!”

True, nine months before His messenger had heralded a virgin and announced the beginnings of His plan to take back what was rightfully His. Also true that He had been hinting for hundreds of years, since the beginning of time, truth be told. “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

John Donne wrote,

BATTER my heart, three person'd God; for, you

As yet but knocke, breathe, shine, and seeke to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow mee,'and bend

Your force, to breake, blowe, burn and make me new.

I, like an usurpt towne, to'another due,

Labour to'admit you, but Oh, to no end,

Reason your viceroy in mee, mee should defend,

But is captiv'd, and proves weake or untrue.

Yet dearely'I love you,'and would be loved faine,

But am betroth'd unto your enemie:

Divorce mee,'untie, or breake that knot againe;

Take mee to you, imprison mee, for I

Except you'enthrall mee, never shall be free,

Nor ever chast, except you ravish mee.

This Feast of the Incarnation we celebrate our ransom. This is our first hope, our chief hope, our only hope, that on a night like tonight, some two thousand years ago there came into the world a Savior for mankind. We had long ago and every day since surrendered ourselves to one who wanted only to destroy, besmirch, and damn us. But God, in His infinite mercy and grace sent His Son into the world. Not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. And since that day to this, and until His return someday, the King has been about His business reclaiming what is His, freeing the hostages, through blood offering rebirth, preparing for the last day when He will cast our enemy and His into the lake of fire. On that day there will be great rejoicing among His people and a feast which is foreshadowed at our altars today.

And so, from the Jones family, with deepest regards and most heartfelt joy, merry Christmas.

High diddle diddle, the Cat and the Fiddle, the Cow jump'd over the Moon

2009-12-18T19:35:00.000-08:00

A little levity for the week before Christmas, from London’s Telegraph:

Neighbour William de Cothi, 17, photographed the animal after he spotted it on the roof about six feet off the ground. The Sixth Form student said: "I was looking out of my window when I saw the cow. "At first I thought that it was an illusion and that it was in the background and not really on the roof. "But after a closer look I could see it was actually on the roof." The teenager added: "I have heard cows can jump quite high, so I think that is how it got up there. "I got my family to come and look later and they laughed. It was absolutely amazing." The house owner in Blagdon, Somerset, called police after getting home to find her roof seriously damaged and smashed tiles as she feared a burglar had tried to break in. Local PC Ray Bradley said: "This was initially recorded on my figures as a burglary so I am glad I can take it off. "If it wasn't for the door-to-door enquires and this photo we wouldn't have found out it was a cow responsible."

Added to the Theophil Jones bucket list: see cow jump.

To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other. ~~ Jack Handy

2009-12-11T06:51:00.000-08:00

From the San Jose Mercury News via Drudge this headline: “Boxer compares denying women abortion coverage to denying men Viagra.” Unfortunately for us fans of professional fisticuffs the article is neither about the “Golden Boy” Oscar de la Hoya nor “Sugar” Ray Robinson (the brilliant Mrs. Jones’s two favorites of the ring, I personally prefer the alliterative Lennox Lewis if only for his Lex Luthor-like name).

Well, and his terrifying charm.

No, sadly, this article is about Senator Barbara Boxer, from the state of California. Let’s see what the Senator has to say, shall we? Regarding the debate over state-sponsored abortion in the pending healthcare reform bill being considered by the Senate, Boxer asks,“Why are women being singled out here? It's so unfair…We don't tell men that if they want to...buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can't do it."

Let us for the moment ignore the essential difference between giving a man Viagra (which could lead to him impregnating his wife) and killing an unborn child. Let’s put that aside and ask a more basic question: Why would I pay for either?

I feel bad for men with ED, I really do, but I don’t consider sexual dysfunctions to rise to the threshold of “healthcare rights.” If -and I am far from conceding this point- if all Americans truly do have a right to healthcare, surely we are talking about the minimum level of healthcare. You know, the amount of healthcare one might need to stay alive and in good health. Not coverage with all the bells and whistles.

ED falls into this category. I feel terrible for anyone with diabetes who has ED. Same for victims of accidents. But sexual dysfunction isn’t really life-threatening and I can’t help feeling like I’m being taken advantage of when I am forced to pay to treat it. Furthermore, I suspect most of the people who think healthcare for ED is an innate right also think that sex itself is an inalienable right (perhaps falling under “the pursuit of happiness”?). And this same crowd wouldn’t dream of withholding any means of achieving that "right."

I guess my point is that I wonder if Sen. Boxer has ever considered that some of us might appreciate it if the Feds didn’t mandate that we spend a whole lot of money on things that don’t, you know, save lives and all that. I know not many Americans are libertarians but I think that most can agree that if the government has to get involved it should be in as minimal a way as possible. What with the government having to take money away from somebody in order to pay out any benefits, you’d think we’d want play a minimal game here.

GIVE ME VIAGRA OR GIVE ME DEATH!

But then again, Sen. Boxer compared Viagra, a drug to help older men impregnate their younger, trophy wives, with abortion, which kills off future tax payers. So her math might not be so good anyhow.

Doing it right is no excuse for not meeting schedule. ~~ The Management

2009-12-07T19:41:00.000-08:00

The brilliant Mrs. Jones has prevailed upon me to enable comments. Just remember to play nicely, children. Old Papa Jones doesn't like too much noise.

[The New York Times] reads like it was edited by two elderly sociologists, one of whom has been dead for many years. ~~ Garrison Keillor

2009-12-07T19:00:00.000-08:00

The brilliant Mrs. Jones was reading the New York Times the other day when she ran across the article “Protecting Pregnant Women in Car Accidents.” The article itself is not really that interesting or within the purview of this blog (well, except for those of you sporting an ever growing fundus or who happen to be the CEO of a major auto manufacturer) but we noticed something curious.

I quote Tara Parker-Pope, wellness writer extraordinaire: “Most parents buckle children in car seats to protect them on the road. But how does a pregnant driver protect the child she is carrying? States are not required to track fetal deaths when reporting accident data, but it is estimated that 300 to 1,000 unborn children die in car accidents each year…”

Did you catch it? She called them “unborn children,” not fetuses. Slip of the tongue? I don’t think so. Ms. Parker-Pope refers them this way three times in the first two paragraphs. This so surprised these Joneses that I went back and checked to see whether the Times has a policy on what it calls the unborn. I mean, these things tend to out themselves with selective language: pro-choicers call them fetuses, which at least sounds scientific, while pro-lifers call them the unborn or, if we really want to mutilate the sentence, the pre-born. And the NY Times is not particularly well known for their pro-life bona fides.

So I looked up articles where the Times could have used the term “unborn child,” namely, in their coverage of Laci and Conner’s Law or The Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I read six articles and found that, yes, the Times does have a specified term – "fetus." Ok, no surprise there, I guess. But this did surprise me, from the Editors dated April 25, 2001:

“The goal is to enshrine in law the concept of ‘fetal rights,’ equal to but separate and distinct from the rights of pregnant women. In essence, the bill would elevate the status of a fetus, embryo or other so-called ‘unborn child’ to that of a ‘person’ by amending the Federal criminal code to add a separate offense for causing death or bodily injury to a ‘child’ who is ‘in utero.’''

Ah. I see." So-called 'unborn children'." Unborn children that should be called embryos and fetuses. Interesting.

Now it might be a bit much to ask the Times for consistency in their terminology because they have bigger things to worry about (like plummeting circulation) but I will have to keep an eye on Ms. Parker-Pope – she might be in jeopardy of losing her job for all those references to so-called unborn children.

O, she will sing the savageness out of a bear! ~~ Othello

2009-11-16T12:08:00.001-08:00

A song, from Aristophanes, 2, to Castor, 8 months, upon the occasion of a Monday morning:

O Castor, O Castor,

You are so 'pecial to meeeee!

Bum bum dum bahdeeee!

And when we was in the car,

You went peeeee!

(repeat)

The world has grown suspicious of anything that looks like a happily married life. ~~ Oscar Wilde

2009-11-13T10:00:00.000-08:00

This may turn out to be British newspaper week here on the Pater Blog. I’ve recently found several articles which require a little attention. We’ll start with the good news, the following appeared on October 27th, copied in its entirety because it is short, wonderful, and I just love the British press:

Yes, children DO make you happier... but only if you're married

By Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 8:34 AM on 27th October 2009

It may come as a surprise to those struggling to cope with sleepless nights and mountains of nappies.

But having children really does make you happier, researchers say.

The finding, based on the experiences of tens of thousands of British parents, contradicts a host of other studies which have concluded that having children can ruin even the most blissful of relationships.

Instead, it seems, the patter of tiny feet strengthens a relationship - but only if the parents are married.

Almost 90,000 mothers and fathers were questioned about their circumstances and how happy they were with their lot in life.

The answers revealed that marriages become happier with the arrival of a baby, with three children bringing the most joy, the Journal of Happiness Studies reports.

Women, perhaps not surprisingly, derive more satisfaction from parenthood than men.

However, children bring happiness only to couples who are married. If a pair are simply living together, the birth of a child tends to bring discontent, the Glasgow University study found.

Researcher Dr Luis Angeles said: 'The fact that people who live as a couple but are not married experience lower levels of life satisfaction with children is worthy of notice.

'It dispels the idea that the positive effect on married individuals is due uniquely to the fact that they can pool resources, such as money and time, to raise children.

'What separates married and unmarried couples is arguably not the possibility of pooling resources for the aim of raising children but the willingness to do so in the first place.

'As a rule, the arrival of a child tends to be seen as a blessing to a married couple and as a problem to an unmarried one or to a single mother.'

Dr Angeles concluded that while bringing up children can be hard work, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

'When considering their life as a whole, married individuals with children report themselves as better off than married individuals without children,' he said.

TADAAAA! Jonesy 1, Wide World 0. Everyone loves finding out their views are backed by cold, hard science, even if the researchers wear kilts while conducting their research.

But let’s take a look at a few things. First, the lede, “It may come as a surprise to those struggling to cope with sleepless nights and mountains of nappies.” Dear readers, consider where this sentence is coming from. While I agree that until the babies sleep through the night at three months life is tough, sometimes really, really, tough, it is only three months. You can do anything for three months. It’s not easy, but you take solace in the certain knowledge that whatever the trial is it will be over soon.

Another interesting bit from Dr Luis Angeles, “The fact that people who live as a couple but are not married experience lower levels of life satisfaction…dispels the idea that the positive effect on married individuals is due uniquely to the fact that they can pool resources, such as money and time, to raise children.” Quick, no one say teleology. Also, I think it’s interesting that this statement comes from a reflexively materialist, naturalist perspective – Dr. Angeles is startled that something is affecting these marriages that is not a “resource.” I assume it would be beneficial for a sociologist not to be a materialist but I’ve been wrong before (once).

In conclusion, dear ones, this article give rather pleasant advice for living. Namely, get married, have babies (at least three according to the research), be happy.

The best contraceptive is the word no - repeated frequently. ~~ Margaret Smith

2009-11-11T10:00:00.000-08:00

David Derbyshire wrote a piece for the Daily Mail back in October with the following headline, “Taking the pill for past 40 years 'has put women off masculine men.'” The article is worth reading for the pictures accompanying it, if nothing else. The piece reviews an article in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution which, as the title so helpfully explains, ponders the affect of the Pill on women’s choices of men.

A few select quotes:

“[The Pill] ushered in the 1960s sexual revolution and gave women control over their own fertility. But the Pill may also have changed women's taste in men, according to a study. Scientists say the hormones in the oral contraceptive suppress a woman's interest in masculine men and make boyish men more attractive. Although the change occurs for just a few days each month, it may have been highly influential since use of the Pill began more than 40 years ago.”

First, the obligatory kowtowing to the Pill, savior of society, unabated good (Mr. Derbyshire would not want to get labeled a chauvinist pig, would he?). I just want to ask this question: why on earth would it be a surprise that the Pill is affecting women on the deepest levels? I really feel like this is a “no, really?” question. What do you expect when you mess with women’s most basic hormones? Any man who lived with a woman, and the vast majority of men who have not, know just what a big deal these hormones are.

“If the theory is right, it could partly explain the shifting in tastes from macho 1950s and 1960s stars such as Kirk Douglas and Sean Connery to the more wimpy, androgynous stars of today, such as Johnny Depp and Russell Brand.”

Heh. Take that, Johnny Depp. When I first saw Pirates of the Caribbean my immediate thought was, is Johnny Depp wearing eye-liner? What do you suppose they had to pay him to wear such effeminate make-up?

“'There are many obvious benefits of the Pill for women, but there is also the possibility that the Pill has psychological side-effects that we are only just discovering,' she said. 'We need further studies to find out what these are.'”

First, another prostration to the “many obvious benefits” of the Pill. This raises a question, at what point did opinion and journal writing get so apologetic? Second, does anyone else see an eerie resemblance between all this and soma in Huxley’s Brave New World? I mean, the Pill might have psychological side-effects? Wouldn’t you expect it to? Hysterectomies are often accompanied by depression and other mental issues, why wouldn’t the Pill also affect your psyche?

“Scientists have long known that a woman's taste in men changes over her menstrual cycle. During the few days each month when women are fertile - around the time of ovulation - they tend to prefer masculine features and men who are more assertive.”

Yours truly, wondering how many more acres he can clear before supper.

You could cut granite on this jaw.

“Although the effect is subtle, Dr Alvergne said it could alter women's view of male attractiveness.”

Subtle like a sledgehammer.

“She also found evidence from three studies that the Pill can affect the way women are looked at by men. Past studies have shown that men find women more attractive around the time of ovulation, possibly because women have evolved instinctive ways, by their natural scent or their behavior, of alerting men that they are fertile. One study showed that lap dancers get bigger tips at the time of the month when they are most fertile.”

The brilliant Mrs. Jones and I watched a PBS special on this a while back. Scientists claim that a woman’s scent can actually inhibit a man’s ability to determine if she is attractive or not. As in, you've heard of beer goggles where people of the opposite sex get more attractive in proportion to alcohol imbibed? Beer goggles are nothing compared to women’s natural powers. Also, beware lap dancers in heat – I feel like this should be self-evident.

“The changing fashions for film stars appear to show a shift from masculine men in the 1950s - before the advent of the Pill - to more baby-faced stars today. Many of the biggest box office draws are boyish in appearance, rather than classically rugged. The top Hollywood earners of last year include Will Smith, Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio and Hugh Jackman. Other boyish film stars include Jude Law” (links theirs, click at your own risk).

The take away here? Get married, have babies, be happy, then you won’t even have to mess with the Pill, or let the Pill mess with you, or the both of you get messed up by some third party.

Oh, one more thing, did you know there is such a thing as a male oral contraceptive? Never heard of it? That’s because no one will buy it. Why? Most of them are testosterone inhibitors, and men don’t like having their testosterone messed with. Check out this article about a new way to keep testosterone levels the same, this article about why the Man Pill can’t find funding, and this article about a man who is “wary of taking any type of hormones.” Let’s see, men who don’t want to mess with their hormones are perfectly happy to strip women of their fertility (even if only temporarily) with a hormonal contraceptive. In the same way that Huxley’s soma is indifference embodied, the Pill is misogyny in action.

UPDATE: A science blog on the same article:

http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2009/10/does_taking_birth_control_alte.php

The money quote comes from the comments:

"Lix, I read your post and that sounds exactly like what I've experienced on the pill! I too have heard similar stories from several women and I do think lots of women experience the numb depressed feeling thanks to the pill, although, as doctors ignore it and never suggest it might be the pill, a lot of women would never know what to blame. After an unsuccessful 7-year relationship with a man I 'selected' while on the pill, I met my current husband while off the pill. I started taking the progesterone-only pill after we'd been together for a little while, and I went off him in a matter of days. Luckily we caught on that what had changed was that I was on the pill! I went off it, and tried an IUD that releases small amounts of progesterone instead. That had the same effect, though less severe and it took a few months to happen. As long as I'm in my natural cycle, we're totally in love. I'm never ever going near hormonal contraceptives again!"

I was married, but I wasn't dead. ~~ Jimmy Stewart on kissing Grace Kelly

2009-11-10T09:07:00.000-08:00

While I admit I am not caught up on my British celebrity gossip, I saw this headline, "'I said no way': Leona Lewis on why she turned down a kiss with heartthrob Chace Crawford" and had to make a comment.

At what point did kissing (snogging, smooching, lip service, etc.) become not a big deal? Here is the pertinent quote from this story:

“And Leona even turned down the chance to kiss handsome Gossip Girl star Chace Crawford for fear of making her boyfriend jealous. Asked if partner Lou Al-Chamaa ever gets jealous of the boys in her videos the X Factor star told Sugar magazine: 'I think he would if I was kissing them, but I’d never do that. They wanted me and Chace [Crawford] to kiss in the I Will Be video. But I said no way.’”

Oh Rexy, you're so sexy.

Ok, first, good for Miss Lewis. Second, yes, I recognize that stage kisses are a little different than real kisses. But, third, although this article is ostensibly about a stage kiss, that’s not how the interviewer is treating the incident in question.

The underlying question is, who in their right mind wouldn’t kiss a celebrity? I, for one. The brilliant Mrs. Jones would quickly evolve into the Raging-Volcano-O’Death Jones should I kiss even the dear Baroness Thatcher,* much less some lady who might compete with the brilliant Mrs. Jones’s endless beauty.

Which is a long winded way of saying, why should one’s celebrity status, political status, economic status, or physical status change morality? Since when is faithfulness dependent on greener pastures? I recall that the brilliant Mrs. Jones said to me once, before we were dating, Jonesy, it’s unmanly to leave your options open. And it’s true, much of adulthood means narrowing your options.

A pox on situational morality.

P.S. The quote goes on and leads us to our next post: “They wanted me and Chace [Crawford] to kiss in the I Will Be video [sic]. But I said no way…I’d just have been too embarrassed, he’s my friend! He’s so beautiful, I mean, look at him - he could be a girl. He’d be a really pretty girl.”

*When did the Iron Lady become a baroness?

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. ~~ Luke 1:41

2009-11-08T17:06:00.000-08:00

We were talking about heaven the other day on the way to church. Highlight of the conversation? After I told the children we get to go to heaven because Jesus died for us, Aristophanes, 2, chimes in, "Then we can all sit on God's lap!"

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Against diseases here the strongest fence/Is the defensive vertue, Abstinence. ~ Robert Herrick, "Abstinence"

2009-11-01T18:59:00.000-08:00

I find William Saletan of Slate entertaining. He tends not to have a cohesive philosophy or worldview, instead picking and choosing as he goes along without much care for whether he contradicts himself. I find this habit slightly endearing in him (rather than infuriating, maybe because I don’t have to argue with him?).

Either way, Saletan wrote this piece the other day about those Northwest Airline pilots that fell asleep at the wheel and overflew St. Paul, MN, by 150 miles. In the article he is making the case that the airline industry should let their pilots sleep more, or at least make realistic guidelines so they can catch a few winks in the cockpit without endangering the lives of their passengers and overflying major U.S. cities by 150 miles. Ok, so far I’m on board, Mr. Saletan, but why should they do this?

"[This] brings me to sex.

I know: Not everything is about sex. But bear with me.

When I was in college, I loved studying philosophy. If I were put in charge of a philosophy class for a day, I'd break the students into groups of three and give them the following problem to work out: Which is more important—food, sleep, or sex?

The exercise is really about what "important" means. But my instinct is to go with sleep, on the grounds that if you try to avoid all three, sleep is the one that will overtake you first. By that standard, it's the one you need most.

If that's true—and if we know that it's unreasonable and dangerous to insist that people abstain from sex—then isn't it stupid to expect them to abstain from sleep?

When it comes to sex, most of us understand that we can't defeat nature. Today's teenagers may be emotionally unprepared for sex, but they'll do it anyway, just as we did. If we deny them any outlet, they'll just do it in secret and without protection.

Most of us have come to a similar understanding about food. If you try too hard to deny your body's urges, you'll end up cheating, bingeing, and eating junk.

Why not extend this practicality to sleep?" (his hyperlinks, click at your own risk)

Hang on, wait a minute, hold up one second. What? “We know that it's unreasonable and dangerous to insist that people abstain from sex…” Dangerous? Like how? Like sixteen year old boys might spontaneously combust out of sexual frustration? Because people die without food and they go insane without sleep. And without sex...oh, yeah, nothing happens. It’s considered torture to withhold food and sleep from prisoners, is it torture to withhold sex from them?

“When it comes to sex, most of us understand that we can't defeat nature.” Ah, yes, nature. Putting aside for a moment the Christian understanding of nature as bent, and specifically our nature as really, really bent and indomitable without Christ, I doubt Saletan truly believes “we can’t defeat nature.” I mean, he doesn’t kill or wound his rivals over a mate or resources. He doesn't urinate on whatever bush/fire hydrant/car tire he happens to be near whenever nature calls. But I suppose that’s the beauty of not needing to be consistent.

But here I am, arguing on his terms. What I should say is, Mr. Saletan, I reject the premise that sex is on the same level of biological necessity as food and sleep. Millions of people have abstained from sex for some part of their lives and survived it. In fact, I, Theophil Q. Jones, abstained from sex for twenty years. Am I in danger?!?!?

You’re being silly, Mr. Saletan. Stop being silly.

Brevity is the soul of lingerie. ~~ Dorothy Parker

2009-10-16T09:29:00.000-07:00

I recently found myself writing the phrase, “For the sake of Brevity…” When I realized I actually think of Brevity as a proper noun. Brevity is a wonderful idea and is a virtue in a lot of circumstances, but is it a proper noun? I say yes and the whole thing got me wondering, when did we decide virtues (and vices) were no longer proper nouns?

Here is the Jones's Version of this question, with absolutely no corroborating evidence or proof. I think the capitalization of nouns is a tacitly Platonic practice and acknowledges Plato’s Theory of Forms.* That is, this or that particular noun refers to an abstract Noun. For instance, we do not confuse specific acts of courage with cowardice, why? Because we have the idea of Courage in our mind and that idea informs the specifics of any given situation. Plato took this too far (give the man a break, he was a pagan after all), saying that this world was a shadow of a true world that existed in a different metaphysical place, but many Christians have found a kernel of truth in Plato’s Forms.

The Christianization of this philosophy runs like this: somewhere in the mind of God exists his idea of what a throne is (thinking of a specific throne here in Revelation 4:2, “At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.”). All other thrones are more or less throne-like in accordance to how much they resemble the Throne as it resides in God’s mind. I can look at something that sits on a dais, that is incrusted in rubies and emeralds, and can judge whether it is really a throne or simply a chair dressed up in its Sunday best. Similarly, I can tell the difference between a rampart and a wall, even though they share some characteristics.

Chairs.

But I digress. I suspect that the rise of Empiricism (starting at specifics in order to discover generalities rather than thinking the universal informs the specific) has something to do with why virtues are no longer proper nouns. As for me and mine, Courage, Duty, Gentleness, Strength, Joy, Peace, Goodness, Faith, Meekness, Temperance and, of course, Love, reside in their perfection within the mind of God. And forcefully do we stride toward them through the Grace of Jesus Christ our Lord.

* I am aware of the danger of Gnosticism on one side of this but I feel Materialism lurks equally near on the other side. Like all extra-Biblical ideas this only goes as far as it goes.

“I kinda see everyone as competition. I'm a very competitive person. ~~ Janet Jackson

2009-10-14T17:00:00.000-07:00

Ever wise Athena, 4, while bringing in the haul from a Walmart trip, looks into the bag, sees new church clothes for the twins, and says, "Oh! Mama, these clothes are so cuuuute!"

Aristophanes, 2, peering into the bag he's carrying, says, "Oh! Mama! These foods are so cuuuute!"

Matt [discussing rival gangs]: "It's like the Yankees and the Red Sox." Pete: "More like the Israelis and the Palestinians." ~ Green Street Hooligans

2009-10-09T12:09:00.001-07:00

I drive my good friend Lucias nuts, bats in the bellfry, because I have a very rigid rubric by which I judge movies. Basically, I think movies ought to teach and delight, emphasis on the delight. Lucias, on the other hand, believes that the only worthwhile movies are the ones that win things at film festivals, have a $10.00 special-effects budget, and end in tragedy. Not to get all Ars Poetica on you, but sue me if I think I ought to enjoy most movies I shell out good money to go see. Long and short of it is, I make it a point to eschew Great Films in favor of Good Flicks.

With that out there, I am probably not the best person to review any given movie because all I'm going to say is, “Heh, it was fun” or “Meh, not worth the ten bucks.” But I sometimes can’t help noticing interesting aspects of movies that fall under the purview of this here blog. For instance, I just watched Green Street Hooligans on the recommendation of my brother, Theodosius. The movie was a lot of fun, sort of like a Fight Club plus soccer. When the brilliant Mrs. Jones asked me how it was, I replied, “Well worth the money but a bit gruesome for you,” which is normally the extent of my movie reviews.

But then I got to thinking about the worldview of the movie. Green Street Hooligans is an Indie movie that came out in 2005 which explores the world of soccer, er, football hooligans. You know, the lovely chaps you see charging the field after Manchester United matches? Those guys. If this movie is to be believed, in England each soccer team has an affiliated gang of ruffians (called a "firm") who fights the gang of the opposing soccer team on match day. Reputations, pride, and cracked skulls are all on the line when the Green Street Elite, the heroes of this movie, take to the streets against Millwall's firm.

I realized that the men Green Street Hooligans represents have not followed the advice of this blog. They ought to stop the fighting, find a nice girl (or, failing that, any girl can be made nice if treated right), get married, have babies, and be happy. The writer(s) of the movie explicitly say that if the members of the Green Street Elite were to settle down they’d quit mêlée-ing about, though they seem to think the whole leave-your-wild-days-behind-you-to-marry-some-broad-and-procreate thing emasculates a man rather than, you know, makes him a man.*

And that’s what caught my attention. I realized that none of the characters in the movie were boys; they were, in fact, all adult men. So I said to myself, Jonesy, surely this is just the writer, being an adult, not knowing how to write believable teenagers. Elijah Wood could still have played the lead** if all the characters were teenagers and it would have explained why these guys have so much time to roam around looking for fights.

So I did a little digging and came up with this, courtesy of The Scottish Sun. The article, describing a gang fight, says the men involved were ages 20, 38, and 24. These were adults by anyone’s standards, even by the somewhat curious standards of the Palestinian Authority, which is forever complaining that Israel shoots their "children" (who are themselves carrying around AK-47s). So apparently Dougie Brimson, the writer of Green Street Hooligans, actually knew what he was doing by making all the characters grown men.

Us? We were just on our way to shoot some hoops.

Does anyone think these men would be rearing for a fight if they had wives and kids? It is my belief that a stable nuclear family at home is one of society’s greatest deterrents of whimsical, meaning-seeking violence. Because that is what this is about. Both the men from the Sun article and the football gang fellows are looking for a meaning, a purpose, a cause. But England is a post-Christian nation, so meaning, purpose, and causes are in short supply.

Marriage, that other great civilizing force, is addressed in an interesting way. The best of the football gang brawlers, the mythic leader called The Major, has retired, got himself married, and had a baby. His wife tells him if he ever goes back to the gang she will take the baby and leave him forever. When he is “forced” to help his old mates in a fight, The Major gets stabbed and loses his wife and child. The way the movie feels about this is complex. Sure, it is unquestionably a tragedy (we see shots of The Major crying in his hospital bed) but the message of the movie seems to be at odds with this. The taglines are “Stand Your Ground And Fight,” “When the whistles blow, blood will flow,” “Just think of someone you hate,” not “Priorities, Priorities” or “Grow Up, You Twit Pikers.”*** This in addition to the actual plot of the movie which has Elijah Wood’s character learning the valuable lesson that you can punch people you despise to get want you think you deserve.

It was a good flick except for the whole perpetuation of a false manhood myth. Look, men are made in battle, true, but battle to save those who rely on you – your wife, your kids, widows, and orphans. Fights for fun, for pride, for respect, for prestige are childish.

Grow up, you twit pikers.

*I feel like there ought to be an antonym for emasculate, the best I can come up with is empower which, frankly, just doesn't cut it. Ha ha, I punned.

**Not Frodo, he's not Frodo, quit picturing Frodo.

***Not naughty words. twit = stupid, short form of nitwit, piker = insignificant, a small time gambler.

A great wind is blowing, and that gives you either imagination or a headache. ~~ Catherine the Great

2009-10-01T13:39:00.000-07:00

It is windy here today. The clime I presently find myself in is one of heat, unrelenting heat, and sun, and dust, so the wind makes Old Jonesy a happy man. I am sorry for those whose allergies are adversely affected by said wind and dust (namely, the brilliant Mrs. Jones) but to me it is a magical wind.

I steal unapologetically from Calvin and Hobbes* when I tell my kids the wind comes from the trees sneezing. And why not? This world is only better for having a little wonderment thrown in.

Me? I can’t help but think of Zephyrus, Greek god of the springtime winds. True, it’d be Notus I’m feeling now, but I love the thought of that the wind isn’t random and senseless. Which, of course, it isn’t.

I neither learned wisdom

Nor have knowledge of the Holy One.

Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?

Who has gathered the wind in His fists?

Who has bound the waters in a garment?

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,

If you know?

Every word of God is pure;

He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

Proverbs 30:3-5

Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. So the men marveled, saying, “Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?” Matthew 8:27

*Which is, by the way, much better reading than the actual Calvin and the real Hobbes.

If you've heard this story before, don't stop me, because I'd like to hear it again. ~~ Groucho Marx

2009-09-29T13:00:00.000-07:00

Owl-eyed Athena: “Tell me a story, Telemachus.”

Telemachus: “Once upon a time –“

Grey-eyed Athena: “Without big, bad Telemachus in it.”

Telemachus: “But I only know ones with big, bad Telemachus!”

Wisdom-giving Athena: “But I don’t like big, bad Telemachus.”

Telemachus: “He’ll only be a little bad, he’ll mostly be good…”

The Telemachanator.

I had a terrible education. I attended a school for emotionally disturbed teachers. ~~ Woody Allen

2009-09-27T21:58:00.000-07:00

A few words on this article about adding school hours to American schools, from the AP via Yahoo News:

My first thought was, as a matter of principle it is a bad idea to separate kids from their parents for even more days of the year. Look, I’m a home-schooled, libertarian-leaning, Sephardic Jewish-Mexican, and I think children should be brought up by their parents, or, to be fair, should not be brought up by professionals. So that’s how I come into this thing.

Then I read President Obama saying, “But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom." Put aside for a moment whether or not the President of the United States has the constitutional authority to institute such a policy, it’s pretty much widely accepted that our school system has worsened in its rankings compared to the rest of the world. So I might be forgiven for wondering how more of the same is the solution…

And I think I’ll let this quote stand on its own,

“[President] Obama and [Education Secretary Arne] Duncan say kids in the United States need more school because kids in other nations have more school.

‘Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here,’ Duncan told the AP. ‘I want to just level the playing field.’

While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it's not true they all spend more time in school.

Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).

Regardless, there is a strong case for adding time to the school day.”

The article says, “Summer is a crucial time for kids, especially poorer kids, because poverty is linked to problems that interfere with learning, such as hunger and less involvement by their parents. That makes poor children almost totally dependent on their learning experience at school, said Karl Alexander, a sociology professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, home of the National Center for Summer Learning.”

I would think an equally plausible solution would be policies which encourage parents to feed their children better and spend more time with their kids. But rather than do the hard work of figuring out how to go about doing that, Prof. Alexander will just take these poor benighted children in hand and do the parenting himself. Alternatively, and here the libertarian in me cries out, the reason the government wants these children in school more is because there is no practical method for forcing adults to do what the government wants them to. Sure, you could lock them up or stick a camera in their houses like the British do, but short of imprisonment it is hard to force American adults to do any one thing in particular. But it is easy to control the children... when they are in school. Longer school year equals even more time to inculcate the values of dependence on the state and starry-eyed optimism in such things as "social justice," "tolerance," and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Last quote, “Aside from improving academic performance, Education Secretary Duncan has a vision of schools as the heart of the community. Duncan, who was Chicago's schools chief, grew up studying alongside poor kids on the city's South Side as part of the tutoring program his mother still runs.”

Ah, the money shot: “Duncan has a vision of schools as the heart of the community.” The heart of the community is not churches. It is not nuclear families. It’s not even bowling leagues. It’s schools. But not just any schools, schools run by a South Side Chicago politician and his Education Secretary. Schools where you send your kids for six to eight hours a day, five to six days a week, 180-248 days a year, so they can learn whatever it is Arne Duncan thinks they should learn (like that Heather Has Two Mommies).

Finally, if you read the article, there are two glaring absences from this discussion, homeschoolers and private schools. Now why do you think Secretary Duncan would fail to mention them? Could it be they make due with less money and less time but put up better results?

I know not everyone can afford to home-school or send the children to the local parochial school, but why aren’t parents demanding of their public school (which generally spends more per student than said private schools) greater efficiency, better results, and more control? Otherwise Arne Duncan might take that extra hour a day to teach your kids this fun new song:

Where can I get me one of those HOPE t-shirts?

“I'm not interested in being Wonder Woman in the delivery room. Give me drugs.” ~~ Madonna

2009-09-19T14:34:00.000-07:00

“Are Some Women Superbreeders?” appeared on a msnbc.com blog called “Body Odd” (hat tip to Rebekah at CSPP). In short, the article says that some women are simply genetically capable of having loads and loads of tots but that almost all women are capable of having more than 2.1 without endangering their health.

I have to say that I loved this article. The brilliant Mrs. Jones read it to me whilst I folded clothes last night and it just makes me smile. This even made me giggle:

“The uterus is a remarkably flexible organ,” says Dr. Florence P. Haseltine, ob/gyn and founder of the Society for Women’s Health Research in Alexandria, Va. “It can grow rather rapidly and it can recede rather rapidly. It’s able to reconstruct itself and reconfigure itself quickly.

My dear mother-in-law, who happens to be an M.D. of some distinction, once said, without a hint of irony, “But you see, Theophil, the colon is an amazing organ.” Apparently they teach them to say that at doctor school. Well, you see, the gallbladder is an astoundingly colored organ, that’s why I’m removing yours. I will say, however, that anyone who has been around a woman nursing while having those cramps that cause the uterus to “recede rather rapidly” might not call it “remarkable,” as opposed to “excruciating.”

Says Dr. Haseltine, “I don’t believe a uterus gets tired.”

Because Ol’ Theophil is a 10 year-old at heart, I imagine Mama Jones’s uterus bent over double and panting with big, cartoon sweat drops streaming off of it.

National averages aside, though, there have always been “supermoms,” from Queen Victoria and Rose Kennedy who both had nine children to Mrs. Feodor Vassilyev, a Russian peasant who made the Guinness Book of World Records by giving birth to a total of 69 children, including 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets and four sets of quadruplets.

*T. Jones spits his wine all over a rather unhappy Mrs. Jones.*

Today, the average woman has about 2.12 children, although if desired, any woman could try for supermom status. The trick is to avoid contraception, be exceptionally fertile and be up for the challenge, says [Dr. Peter] Wall.

69 KIDS!?!? (Also, I’d like to nominate the brilliant Mrs. Jones for “supermom status.”)

And to keep in mind that some women are simply more adept at baby-making than others.“This woman [Michelle Duggar, mother of 18] has some remarkable capabilities,” [Dr. Peter Wall] says. “I think this is her special talent.”

T. Jones: "Do you think you are 'simply more adept at baby making?'"

Mrs. Jones: "I am a bit of a hyper-ovulator."

T. Jones: "Yes, but 'adept' and 'talent' imply skill. You just have good genes."

Mrs. Jones: "Look, if being 7"7' qualifies you for so-called 'talent' at basketball, then being born with a stretchy uterus is a talent, too."

T. Jones: "Fine. But you are an amateur compared to Mrs. Vassilyev. 16 pairs of twins, 7 sets of triplets and 4 sets of quadruplets!?!?!"

Get married, have babies, be happy. That’s what us Sephardic Jewish-Mexican types say. Also, good results to Michelle Duggar, Rebekah, and all others aspiring to achieve Supermom status (here’s looking at you: Sue, Aubs, Marie, Ashleigh, Annette, Tiffany, Catherine, Ali, Corrie, Rachael, Sarah, Erica, MB, Kristen, Kristen, Kristen, and Kristin.)

“I grew up with six brothers. That's how I learned to dance - waiting for the bathroom.” ~~ Bob Hope

2009-09-15T14:50:00.000-07:00

Telemachus, 3, just sprinted by yelling, "I has to go to the baffroom weal, weal, bad!"

Godspeed, my son, godspeed.

Thoughts on the Death of Dr. George Tiller OR What George Tiller and the Vietnam War Have in Common.

2009-09-13T18:10:00.000-07:00

Goegre Tiller claimed to have commited more than 60,000 abortions before he was murdered. Compare this to some other, select mass casualty occurrences.

Abortionists

60,000- George Tiller, abortionist, August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009

Bombing Campaigns and Air Raids

43,000 - The Blitz (London, 1940 - 1941)

39,000–108,000 - Atomic bombing of Nagasaki by the USAAF, (Japan, 1945)

24,000–40,000 - Bombing of Dresden in World War II, (in Germany by Allied forces, 1945)

Earthquakes

69,197 - 2008 Sichuan earthquake – China - 2008

9,500 - 1985 Mexico City earthquake – Mexico - 1985

3,000 - 1906 San Francisco earthquake - United States - 1906

Volcanic Eruptions

25,000 - Mount Vesuvius – Italy - August 24th 79 A.D.

United States Casualties of War

58,151 - Vietnam War - 1964–1973

36,516 - Korean War - 1950–1953

25,000 - American Revolutionary War - 1775-1783

Nuclear Accidents

56 - Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, 1986. It is estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the most highly exposed people.

I don't think the teachings of the Bible or the Church condone the murder of Dr. Tiller.

But unlike all the pro-life commentators, writers, and spokespeople, I really had to grapple with the question. I understand that the pro-life community was embarrassed by the murder because it makes them all look like people on the lunatic fringe when they want so desperately to seem mainstream. I understand, too, that people in the pro-life community were worried that the murder would be a hinderance to the cause by souring the public on the pro-life message.

Still, the question of whether it is a wrong to kill a man who has murdered more people than died in the bombing of Nagasaki deserves more than a glib, "Of course we condemn the murder of George Tiller!"

Consider, too, that if he ripped apart 60,000 babies in his 39 years as an abortion doctor, then he had a kill rate of roughly 1,538 babies a year. That means if he had continued to practice abortion for another five years, 7,692 babies might have been killed. In ten years, he might have killed another 15,380 children. Something to think about.

*All numbers taken from Wikipedia.

Holidays are the best. I couldn't imagine being from a small family. ~~ Kim Kardashian

2009-09-11T09:14:00.000-07:00

This article, describing Kourtney Kardashian's decision to keep her (unexpected) baby instead of aborting it, appeared in People last month. No surprise, the article caught Papa Jones’s eye. Not being a regular reader of People, I readily admit I had to Google Miss Kardashian to see who this newly expectant mother is. For those of you who don’t read People, Miss Kardashian is, apparently, a television starlet, the daughter of one of O.J. Simpson’s defense attorneys, and a regular fixture on the Hollywood scene. Given all that, some of the following quotes struck me dumb.

Miss Kardashian on her decision to keep her baby: "I definitely thought about it long and hard, about if I wanted to keep the baby or not, and I wasn't thinking about adoption…I do think every woman should have the right to do what they want, but I don't think it's talked through enough. I can't even tell you how many people just say, 'Oh, get an abortion.' Like it's not a big deal."

Ok, this is interesting if only because it is brutally honest. I think most pro-choicers see abortion as an equally good option among two (adoption never seems to be seriously considered, does it?). Also, please note the obligatory “every woman should have the right to do what they want.” Because moral absolutes are absolutely wrong.

Scott Disick, the baby's 26-year-old father…"He said, 'I really want you to keep it, but I will support you whatever you decide to do.'"

Hmmmm. While I think he should marry Miss Kardashian, I have to give high marks to Mr. Disick for at least seeing the baby as his son. (I have discussed that issue here.) Surely this is a normal and proper response to finding our your boys can swim, to quote George Costanza. Again, though, the choice that has become immutable and sacrosanct is acknowledged: “I will support you whatever you decide to do.” It would be curious to know how people would have reacted had his response been, “If you decide to kill my son I’ll do everything the law permits to stop you.”

"I looked online, and I was sitting on the bed hysterically crying, reading these stories of people who felt so guilty from having an abortion," she recalls. "I was reading these things of how many people are traumatized by it afterwards."

Wow. According to studies cited by Wikipedia, Post-Abortion Syndrome effects people who have cognitive dissonance about the procedure (abortion is wrong – except in my case) more than others. I have to say I am happy to see the news that abortion is traumatizing getting out there, but I am torn about it. Why are these women (and the baby daddies) upset? Could it be that they know they just murdered an infant?

(Pssst! Psssst! Theophil! Shhhhhh. You’re not supposed to say that! It alienates people from the pro-life movement! Abortion is a tragedy, nothing more, nothing less. Don’t say the parents are murderers, that makes people angry. Plus, you don’t want to be called “fringe” do you?)

Remind me to talk to you about Dr. George Tiller, the abortionist who was murdered this summer... I have thought. But I digress.

Kardashian says she did some intense soul-searching. "For me, all the reasons why I wouldn't keep the baby were so selfish: It wasn't like I was raped, it's not like I'm 16. I'm 30 years old, I make my own money, I support myself, I can afford to have a baby. And I am with someone who I love, and have been with for a long time."

Selfish? Huzzah! I’d like to nominate Miss Kardashian for Most Improved Adult of the Year category. This, my darlings, is how an adult makes decisions. I applaud you, Miss Kardashian. Sacrifice for those who are less able than you is both noble and mature.

"My doctor told me there is nothing you will ever regret about having the baby, but he was like, 'You may regret not having the baby.' And I was like: That is so true. And it just hit me. I got so excited, and when I told Scott he was so excited. But I think if I had said I'm not going to keep it, I really think he would have pushed me into keeping it."

Good on the doctor, good on Mr. Disick, and good on Miss Kardashian. Death is kinda irreversible like that, huh?

I know there are some who might say Miss Kardashian should not be congratulated for just doing her duty. These people might say, “She got the proper and normal result from playing an adult game – she got a baby and now she should deal.” The other side might say, “She CHOSE, that’s what PRO-CHOICE means! She couldn’t choose if abortion were illegal!” Then I imagine VHEMT self-immolating and yelling, “Grrr, margle, grunt grunt, flibbbbbbgggr!” (I think they probably gave up on human language when they gave up on the human species).

But here’s why I think pro-lifers ought to extol Miss Kardashian: she’s in the public eye and she decided that abortion hurts and is a big deal. Then she made a real, adult, responsible decision. The kind of decision you would expect anyone over the age of fifteen to make. Bravo. May this be the first of many happy pregnancies for you, Miss Kardashian.

On a personal note...

2009-08-30T17:00:00.000-07:00

I'd also like to say thank you and happy anniversary to my beloved. These have been the happiest years of my life. I am thrice blessed to have you as my best friend, my wife and the mother of my children.

Keep up the good work, Mrs. Jones, your reward awaits you in heaven (lots of shiny things!).

I never wear buttons but I got a cool hat and my homies agree I really look good in black, fool. ~~ Amish Paradise, Weird Al Yankovic

2009-08-30T15:07:00.000-07:00

The brilliant Mrs. Jones recently got herself an Amish cookbook full of all kinds of homey deliciousness. For this, dearest Mrs. Jones, I am deeply grateful. Coffee soup? Brilliant! Fried corn meal pudding? Yes! Deep fried cucumbers? I’ll try it!

But a more beautiful jewel was hidden in that cookbook. Among the quaint and cozy anecdotes about starting work on the farm at 4 A.M. was a brief recollection from the author. She remembered the passing of an Amish matron who, at the time of her passing, had 7 children, 80 grandchildren, and 302 great-grandchildren. Can you imagine? Is there anything in this world better than this? Surely the richest man is poorer than this woman was. Imagine Thanksgiving! How wonderful it would be to grow up with 79 cousins.

Lord, that I and my children might be so blessed.

Reader's Digest plans prearranged bankruptcy ~~ Reuters, Aug. 17, 2009

2009-08-26T21:53:00.000-07:00

Where do you suppose Reader’s Digest Condensed Books come from? The family and I were out yard-saling* this weekend, a favorite pastime of the missus, and I noticed that roughly one out of every three books for sale at yard sales is a Condensed Book.

I have no problem with Reader’s Digest Condensed Books. In fact, I have a certain nostalgia for them because my Grandmama had dozens of them on her living room shelves. But where do they all come from? I have never once seen a title I recognize. Never. This coming from the man who picks up “display” books when visiting homes for sale to see what the seller/agent is reading. All Reader’s Digest Condensed Books, apparently.

Is it possible that someone, somewhere in this great nation is sitting down at a typewriter, preparing to bang out an all-new Reader’s Digest Condensed Book? This person just got the advance on her work, she has a basic boy-meets-girl, boy-gets-shipped-off-to-WWII, girl-thinks boy-dies, boy-comes-home-and-they-get-married-and-have-a-large-family (70% of which eventually become hippies) plotline worked out and she’s ready to go. This must be the way these things are produced, right?

Or maybe, like condensed soup, Reader's Digest Condensed Books are starters for bigger things. "Just add irony" and you've got a completely digestible piece of faux literature. No, it's not Beef Stroganoff/Pride and Prejudice, but it is some pretty good hamburger casserole/book to put on a shelf next to your Mary Englebreit knickknack.

*"Yard-saling" is, apparently, not an actual word. It is, however, an awesome activity.

"The Case Against Having Kids" -- An Annotated Adventure Part 3 of 3

2009-08-23T21:17:00.000-07:00

"She admits there are times she regretted having her own children, now aged 14 and 11, a declaration that has predictably branded her a 'bad mother' whose children are destined for a lifetime of therapy. (Yet she’s only saying what many mothers silently think but aren’t allowed to say. In 1975, Ann Landers famously asked readers: 'If you had it to do over again, would you have children?' Seventy per cent of respondents said 'no.')"

n While I agree that this statement does, indeed, make her a “bad mother,” what is more interesting here is that in 1975 70% of women supposedly agreed but didn’t ever say it. That, my friends, is the height of civility.

"He also reports researchers have found that people derive more satisfaction from eating, exercising, shopping, napping, or watching television than taking care of their kids."

n Yes, because the derivation of satisfaction is the primary goal of life. I wonder how working, driving, dieting, saving money, and studying stack up to childcare? Apples to oranges.

"Yet a 2007 Pew Research Center survey found people insisted that their relationships with their children are of the greatest importance to their happiness. Gilbert believes the reason people say this is because they’re expected to."

n Or alternatively, people say this for two other reasons: they either hope that by repeating this mantra it will become true for them or they actually do believe this. Either way, I say, bravo!

n See civility, definition of.

"Parents, not non-parents, are the selfish ones, she avers: 'Every baby born in a developed country is an ecological disaster for the whole planet.'"

n *T. Jones chokes. Every baby? Oh, whew, it’s just hyperbole. It is just hyperbole, right? Please say it’s just hyperbole.

"Shriver is less righteous about the non-parenting choice, admitting 'there is something nihilistic about refusing to reproduce, selfish in the worst way.' She explains: 'Take individual fulfillment at the expense of parenthood to the limit, and one generation has a cracking good time, after which the entire human race, poof, vanishes from the planet.' (This, in fact, is precisely the goal of the most extreme childlessness advocates out there: the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which says, 'the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species:

n Waahoo! I knew the VHEMT would show up at this party!

n To quote from The Big Lebowski, “Nihilists! F--- me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.”

n And again, “Are these the Nazis, Walter?” “No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.”

"As part of his doctoral dissertation, Vincent Ciaccio is investigating why men choose to remain childless—new terrain. As with women, the reasons are all over the map, and include 'betterment of relationships,' 'career motivations,' 'fear of failure as a father,' 'not liking kids,' and 'the desire to remain in their current lifestyle.'"

n “Desire to remain in their current lifestyle.” Woop! There it is again.

Look, all kidding aside, it's a little terrifying that anybody could believe what Corinne Maier wrote in No Kids: 40 Good Reasons Not to Have Children,but it is even scarier that the author of this article could bend such a horrendous piece of misanthropic mindlessness into what might pass as pop journalism. Sure, review the book to sell magazines, that Ol' Jonesy gets, but to be sympathetic? Honestly, it makes me want to go make more babies. Why? Because making babies makes T. Jones happy but also because those babies might just grow up to have more babies of their own, thereby both invalidating and repudiating this soulless garbage in one fell swoop.

My friends: get married, have babies, be happy.

"The Case Against Having Kids" -- An Annotated Adventure Part 2

2009-08-21T18:00:00.000-07:00

Deeper and deeper into the beast we venture...

"In a recent interview in U.K. Cosmopolitan, the 36-year-old actress Cameron Diaz, who is childless, expressed a disinclination to have children, citing environmental reasons: 'We don’t need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet.'"

n This is the argument against children that I hate the most. I will address some of these reasons later but we must start with acknowledging the sheer weight of Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb. This is a silly book which has distilled a silly idea into a bunch of silly people’s silly heads. The Earth has doubled its population since he made his predictions and yet more people have food than ever before.

"Among Maier’s hard-won advice: 'If you really want to be host to a parasite, get a gigolo.'"

n In what sense is this “hard-won advice”? This is a shock statement from the author of a book which sells because of its shock statements.

"The societal shift in attitudes toward childlessness is most evident in language, with the buoyant 'child-free' replacing 'childless,' a word stigmatized for conveying a void or handicap."

n Let’s play Mad Libs. "The societal shift in attitudes toward ~~childlessness~~ having lots of children is most evident in language, with the ~~buoyant “child-free”~~ leaden “child-enslaved” replacing ~~“childless”~~ “family,” a word stigmatized for conveying a ~~void~~ fullness or ~~handicap~~ wholeness."

n Please, someone tell me, has anyone actually ever heard the “buoyant” phrase “child-free” used? Or is this article is actually trying to perpetuate the “societal shift” rather than reporting on it? Sneaky.

"The arrival of the pill in the 1960s, which allowed women to delay childbearing, also permitted them to forgo it altogether."

n Ah ha! Evangelicals and other pro-life, birth-control-using types are always denying this link but here you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth.

"Why this is happening is the subject of much theorizing: educated women delay childbearing until it’s no longer an option; they refuse to pay what economists call the 'motherhood premium' in which the salaries of university-educated women plateau after childbirth and then drop, while fathers’ incomes are unaffected; they recognize that raising children is a sacrifice of time, money and freedom they’re not willing to make; or they simply don’t want to have children and are able to say no."

n Refuse to pay the 'motherhood premium' … hold it in … hold it in, Jonesy … see below.

"And the issue has been politicized in books such as Elinor Burkett’s The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless, which contends the 'child-free' subsidize 'breeders.'"

n Ok. Enough. The problem with the argument that the buoyant “child-free” are being unfairly taken advantage of by the leaden “child-enslaved” is that the situation is actually reversed. While it is true that I get a tax break for each of my kids, this is not a subsidy. It is an incentive. Now why do you suppose the government would want to incentivize having children? Taxes. Clean and simple. No children, no taxes. No taxes, no government. It’s simple self-preservation. Furthermore, the mere pittance of a tax break I get on each child for their entire 18 years as a dependent will be made up for in taxes within the first five years of that child's career. And who will pay for the buoyant child-free’s social welfare and social insurance plans when she retires? Not her sons. Not her daughters. My sons and daughters. And, Heaven forbid, if we should be attacked or a war break out, who will fight and die for us? My sons.

"The American author Lionel Shriver, who never wanted children, writes in 'Separation From Birth' that her greatest fear 'was of the ambivalence itself': 'Imagine bearing a child and then realizing, with this helpless, irrevocable little person squalling in its crib, that you’d made a mistake. Who really, in that instance, would pay the price?'"

n The baby, because he would die.

“The state should be helping those who decide not to have children: less unemployment, less congestion, fewer wars.”

n This statement assumes a lot. Like that it would be better not to have been born than to be alive but unemployed and/or stuck in traffic.

Ok. One more post on this article ought to do it. To be continued…

Jerry, founder of No Kidding! and tie-dye shirt enthusiast.

"The Case Against Having Kids" -- An Annotated Adventure Part 1

2009-08-18T22:12:00.000-07:00

A curious article appeared in Maclean’s, a Canadian magazine. The article extolled the choice never to have kids. That, of course, flies in the face of the advice perpetuated by this Jones. So, dear readers, I have taken it upon my ample self to, if not dismantle, at least disrobe this article.

Without further ado, I present to you the annotated version of Anne Kingston’s July 24^th, 2009, article “The Case Against Having Kids” (hat tip to L & P). The article starts with anecdotes of childless couples. Ms. Lui is trotted out as exemplary. She babysat once and decided kids were just too much work. But poor Ms. Lui is apparently beset by concerned friends who ply her with reasons why she should procreate: “Don’t you want to know what your children would look like?" and "It [your child] would be so gorgeous!” To these objections to her voluntary sterility Ms. Lui only "laughs" and says, “And I’m like, ‘Wow, that’s really going to make me want to change my whole life."

n Seems reasonable to me. One of the very reasons Papa Jones ever wanted to have kids was to have more of the brilliant Mrs. Jones's genes in the world. And I would think this would be true of all lovers. I adore Mama Jones’s freckles. To see those same freckles attached to little boy who has half her genetic makeup multiplies my love. If that isn't reason enough to "change [your] life," what, pray tell, would be? Is there anything?

Another quote:

"Laura and Vincent Ciaccio are spokespeople for No Kidding!, a social club for non-parents founded in Vancouver in 1984 that now boasts more than 40 chapters in five countries. Laura, a 31-year-old attorney in New York City, refers to children as a 'calling,' one that she and Vincent, a Ph.D. candidate in social psychology at Rutgers University, have decided isn’t for them. 'I didn’t want to make such a major lifestyle change just because it was something society expected of me,' she says. 'Children should be something people have because they really want them.'"

n Two points here: 1) I actually agree with the Ciaccios that having children is a calling. And since she is willing to use a religious term (called by Whom?), I would say that that calling is usually referred to as "marriage." The opposite of the calling to marry/reproduce is ... (drum roll) ... celibacy. I mean, if you are going to claim a religious calling in order to have children you do have to look at what God says marriage is for, right? Simple answer: chastity, unity, procreation. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6) does not just apply to divorce, it also addresses the joining of bodies and genes and teleological purposes (i.e., babies).

n 2) “I didn’t want to make such a major lifestyle change.” I think I'm beginning to hear a refrain...

"Speaking up on the subject can elicit a smackdown. Last February, the 37-year-old British journalist Polly Vernon wrote a defiant column in the Guardian enumerating the reasons she didn’t want children: 'I’m appalled by the idea,' she wrote. 'Both instinctually (‘Euuuw! You think I should do what to my body?’) and intellectually (‘And also to my career, my finances, my lifestyle and my independence?’).' The response was terrifying, she reports: 'Emails and letters arrived, condemning me, expressing disgust. I was denounced as bitter, selﬁsh, un-sisterly, unnatural, evil. I’m now routinely referred to as ‘baby-hating journalist Polly Vernon.’"

n Poor, poor martyred Ms. Vernon. She elicited a “smackdown” and all she has to show for it is notoriety! Poor, sad, baby-hating journalist.

n What’s that, Batman? “And also to my career, my finances, my lifestyle and my independence?” It IS a refrain!

n This quote actually raises a curious question, then summarily dismisses it without examination. Vernon received letters “expressing disgust” and “was denounced as…unnatural, evil.” When these criticisms are laid alongside Vernon’s use of the ick factor to describe the physical aspect of childbearing one must ask, is there something unnatural about childbirth... or is there something unnatural about voluntary childlessness? I wonder if this is the result of an inability to look at time in an adult way? Vernon ought to be able to decide that a few months or few hours of whatever it is that bothers her is worth the life of a child and all the joys of having children.

To be continued...

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot. ~~ George Orwell

2009-08-18T21:53:00.000-07:00

Grey-eyed Athena, 4, sundered the dinner peace tonight, saying, “I dropped some of my food on Telemachus’s plate and then he ate it! It was my food but he ate it!”

Dear readers, we must pause here to truly appreciate the awesomeness of this statement. She drops food on his plate. He eats the food -- the food she dropped on his plate. Owl-eyed Athena believes this isn’t fair.

I ignore the situation because I’ve found that sarcasm is fairly ineffectual on four year olds.

Cunning Athena muttered under her breath, “Telemachus, you’re a sneaky eater.”

Telemachus, 3, at the top of his lungs, “No, I a fire-eater!”

If I spit, they will take my spit and frame it as great art. ~~ Picasso

2009-08-13T19:16:00.000-07:00

Brilliant Mrs. Jones mopped the floor while Aristophanes, 2, was napping. When he woke up he found lots of those little bubble streaks that half-dry floors have. The following conversation ensued:

Aristophanes, “Somebody spit on the floor!”

Mama Jones, “No, I cleaned the floor.”

Aristophanes, “Mama, why did you spit on the floor?”

Mama Jones, “I didn’t spit on the floor, I cleaned it.”

Aristophanes, “Look! Spit!”

Mama Jones, “No. Soap.”

Aristophanes, “Maybe did you spit on the floor when you were a little baby?”

PURE PWNAGE.

One, two! One, two! And through and through the vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head he went galumphing back.

2009-08-11T20:35:00.000-07:00

The aforementioned Auntie Theophiletta is a darling, a dear, my only sister. As such, she is a favorite around this house and spends a good amount of time over here when she is in town. And there is one other defining thing about my dear sister – she’s a teacher. But not just any kind of teacher, she went to school to get an education degree, to learn how to teach.

Now I will make my disclaimer: teachers are Great, Big-Hearted People and All Kinds of Generous and Self-Sacrificing. If it weren’t for Teachers we’d all have to learn things the Hard Way or we might Never Know What We Could Become in Life. I love teachers. I hope my children have good teachers for whatever part of their education they are not homeschooled. But a theory has crept into education and has been sold to teachers that annoys me when I’m being charitable and downright peeves me when I’m not: for some reason teachers think children cannot handle violence and gore or, more to the point, they think that violence and gore should at all times be excised from children’s stories.

Now, I believe censorship has its place in the home. Visual images are powerful and some of the stuff you see on the television these days is downright disturbing (is there an inter-network challenge going on to see who can produce the most gruesome images in the category of Procedural Police Drama?) but that’s not what I am talking about here. When you read a story to a child there are a few limiting factors.

First, they have to understand the words being read. For example, we tried reading sweet little Demeter, 4, one of the Pippi Longstocking books. Disaster. Turns out she has no idea what a cannibal is, so when Pippi imagines that her father is a cannibal king and that someday Pippi will join him and become a cannibal princess, Demeter wanted to know what kind of dress Pippi would wear to the ball. Total non sequitur.

Second, it has to be age appropriate. Pre-pubescent children have no business learning about sex.

Third, the story has to be interesting. The time when they will have to sit and read Kant or Heidegger or (say it ain’t so) Toni Morrison will come soon enough. For now the story ought to rivet the child, stick to their hearts, and engage their imagination.

And this is where we come back to Aunty Theophiletta. The sweet dear gave little Ajax, 3, some sort of picture Bible storybook. He immediately loved it simply because it was his. As we’ve read through it, though, I noticed some odd aspects of sanitization. Sure, I don’t expect to see the story of Jezebel’s death or Ehud’s assassination of Eglon, King of Moab, but the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah really shouldn’t be smiling like that. And Goliath was not a happier, taller version of David.

So one day as Aunty was finishing up reading the story of David and Goliath I mentioned in passing that David cut Goliath’s head off with his own sword. The story became an instant favorite. Why? Because a three-year-old boy needs to know that there are times when you kill your enemies and cut their heads off.

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Let us not teach our children to shy away from what is right but gory.

I'm not saying my golf game went bad, but if I grew tomatoes, they'd come up sliced. ~~ Lee Trevino

2009-08-08T21:39:00.001-07:00

Have I mentioned little Theseus before? I’m sure I have. He’s two, his mama’s favorite (she denies this, of course), bright eyed and big eared. And he’s brilliant. Not brilliant like all kids are brilliant in their adoring parents’ minds. I mean actually brilliant. Like, smarter than any other two year old I’ve known. But he has a mind of his own. Oh, oh, yes.

He is, as my mother would say, "willful." He has an *ahem* "strong personality." When Theseus plants his feet, whether literally or metaphorically, tears ensue. Your old friend Jonesy has even had to ask the ever brilliant, yet occasionally too soft-hearted Mrs. Jones to stop sidestepping disagreements with little Theseus just because he has already made up his little two-year old mind.

One other important fact: Thesues and his Daddy hate tomatoes.

So today, the children, as a reward for being good on a back-to-school clothes buying expedition for Mama, got burgers for lunch. Being good acolytes of Jack Derrida, they promptly deconstructed their burgs into the component pieces and ate the meat, buns, onions, mayonnaise, etc., separately. Theseus, with the aforementioned loathing for the dreaded Solanum lycopersicum, left his on his plate. His older sister, never one to miss an opportunity, asked if she could have the tomato.

I’m a democratic sort of person, so I asked Theseus, “Can Amphitrite have your tomato?”

Theseus looked at the slimy thing, looked at Amphitrite, and said, “No, I’m eating it.”

I replied, “I don’t see you eating it. You hate tomatoes.”

Theseus looked me in the eye, picked up the tomato and took a good-sized bite out of it. I glanced in surprise at the ever brilliant Mrs. Jones. Amphitrite sadly settled for her other brother's half-eaten bun.

A minute later I chanced to glance at Theseus, only to catch him pulling that huge bite of unchewed tomato out of his mouth, and sliding it delicately back onto his plate.

Well played, my son, well played.

Mmmmm, hambuuuurger.

Save the Planet so the Turtles Can Appreciate it.

2009-08-06T22:38:00.000-07:00

So this article was on Yahoo News the other day. As anyone who reads this blog knows, “Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids” flies right smack, dab in the face of Papa Jones’s recipe for happiness: get married, have kids, be happy. But who am I to judge? If the scientists say it’s true…

For people who are looking for ways to reduce their "carbon footprint," here's one radical idea that could have a big long-term impact, some scientists say: Have fewer kids.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

Yes, because turning the light off when you leave the room is comparable to not creating a life/soul/person/wiggly, smiley little imp. All I’m saying is, if all the people are gone, what does it matter if the planet is saved? Saved for what? Saved for whom? There is only one species that appreciates things being saved: daddies. Daddies appreciate it when the last piece of rhubarb and strawberry pie is saved. Daddies appreciate it when Sunday afternoons are saved for football. Daddies appreciate it when a stiff Old Fashioned is saved for the end of the day. As far as I know, turtles do not appreciate anything being saved. Turtles like to stay alive. Turtles like to perpetuate their species. But turtles do not appreciate football. (Interesting aside: turtles may actually appreciate rye with sugar and bitters but this is not a known fact. Testing to follow.)

Are these same scientists Darwinists? Because I’m pretty sure Darwinism calls for procreation. I mean, I could be wrong here but I thought the whole point was mutations in offspring leading to the creation of the X-men. Whatever.

P.S. What is "an extra child"? Merriam-Webster defines extra as "more than is due, usual, or necessary." But again I ask, necessary to whom? Usual for whom?

One more of Jonesy's kids will literally destroy me.

SAVE ME.

Belle of the Ball

2009-08-03T22:15:00.000-07:00

Ol’ Papa Jones is not a machismo sort of fellow. I do, however, draw the line at dolls. Boys may have stuffed animals and all manner of fuzzy friends, but dresses, flowing locks, and anything termed "accessories" should be the exclusive realm of Sweet Aphrodite, 4.

So when my eldest son, Achilles, 3, wanted to take a Belle doll from Beauty and the Beast to bed I laid down the law. “No,” I said. “No dolls in bed. Boys do not take girls to bed with them unless they are their wives.”

Achilles looked me in the eye and said, “She’s my wife. I married her yesterday. When you weren’t looking.”

Er…right…carry on, then.

Gaston: Here, picture this: A rustic hunting lodge, my latest kill roasting on the fire, and my little wife massaging my feet, while the little ones play on the floor with the dogs. We'll have six or seven.
Belle: Dogs?
Gaston: No, Belle! Strapping boys, like me!

Belle: Imagine that.

Ships in the Night

2009-08-03T21:48:00.000-07:00

I find myself slightly disappointed that the twins totally ignore each other.

Not sure what I was expecting. Maybe that they’d have a series of winks and grunts worked out to a private language? Or maybe that they’d be inexplicably drawn toward each other whenever they were within a foot of each other? Instead they resolutely ignore each other. As Mama Jones says, “They’re like ships in the night…” Which is particularly apt when they do happen to find each other and whack into each other. Ah, well.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. ~ Yeats ~ A Comment on Schwartzberg’s "Slouching Toward Fatherhood"

2009-07-30T00:00:00.000-07:00

I’ve been trying to figure out how to handle this little gem and I’ve decided on derision. Poor, poor Mr. Schwartzberg. It seems he’s been afflicted with the same disease that gave us man purses (“It's not a purse. It's European!”), man bras, and the mid-life crisis (*ahem* manopause). Male Post-Partum Depression (MPPD), as Schwartzberg labels it, is what some people would call a mental meltdown. While others, less charitable others, would call the phenomenon good old-fashioned cowardice, perhaps laced with selfishness, unquestionably born out of a society-wide myopia about manhood. “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child.” It seems to me Mr. Schwartzberg is stuck thinking like a child.

Children, as a rule, don’t have a great grasp on time. I can tell Cassandra, 4, that we will not be seeing Auntie Theophiletta until Christmas, but I might as well be saying we won’t see Aunty until Slithy Toves. Brutus, 3, might ask when the next Church day is but when I answer Sunday, I might as well be saying, Frabjous Day! Callooh! Callay! Because to him, one week is as a year, and four months might as well be an interminable number of days. Not so for us adults. I have a very good grasp on the exact length of a work week. The ever-brilliant Mrs. Jones tends to comprehend the length of human gestation with alacrity. Why? Because to us time is not a mystery. It moves forward, some might say, inexorably. I will not be changing diapers for the rest of my life regardless of how the last four years might make me feel (well, that is unless I choose to spend the rest of my days in a nursery). Dear, long-suffering Mrs. Jones will not be pregnant or post-partum for the rest of her life even if she sometimes imagines it might be true. No, we are both Big People, as Cato the Younger, 2, is wont to call us. We can step outside our current situation to see what is really, honestly, actually true. It seems Mr. Schwartzberg, like little Brutus, is incapable of this. So he did what Cassandra does when a project exceeds her attention span: he deserted.

Now, Papa Jones is practically a doctor, maybe even a Soul Doctor, and I know depression really does exist in males of the human species (and maybe in dogs, if you believe everything your vet tells you), and perhaps Mr. Schwartzberg should have been on some sort of medication, but what blows my mind is that anyone, anyone would not only admit to being this selfish but defend his decision with a made up medical excuse. He went and got himself a doctor’s note excusing him from daddyhood. This is a little like those guys that call the constables when their wife wings them with a frying pan – yes, you might be a victim of spousal abuse but who wants to admit that? Not me. I got this black eye fighting off a mugger.

Post script: Mrs. Jones would like me to add that if Mr. Schwartzberg wants to claim MPPD he should be made to deliver a baby first. Here, here.

Fee fi fo fum! I smell the blood of an Englishman. Be he live or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread. ~~ The Giant Thunderdell

2009-07-27T11:00:00.000-07:00

Count me most blessed, my friends. I sit here, my home filled with the smell of baking bread. You know the smell, the one that reminds you of a bakery in New York City on a chill November afternoon. A bakery run by a guy named Frankie and his wife.

Three of my children are standing on various chairs and stools at the kitchen counter watching the loaves rise. Archimedes just informed me that the bread will grow in to “giant bread.” And so it is, slowly but surely.

C.S. Lewis once said that a boy “does not despise real woods because he has read of enchanted woods: the reading makes all real woods a little enchanted.” And so it is with the rising bread – the giant bread. There may not be anything truly magical about bread rising, but when the ever-brilliant Mrs. Jones said out loud that one of the loaves was little but would grow into a giant, certain thoughts materialized; fee-fi-fo-fum thoughts and Goliath thoughts. And suddenly, this was no mere bread, not just the stuff you smear peanut butter and jelly on, anyhow. To them, it was GIANT BREAD.

So here I sit, smelling bread baking, imagining it warm with butter, honey and tea, and listening to my offspring as they debate the finer logical points over whether or not giant bread will bring giants to our house.

Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

I'm always making a comeback but nobody ever tells me where I've been. ~~ Billie Holiday

2009-07-22T23:00:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the long absence -- something came up.

Introducing...drumroll. please...Castor and Pollux!

whatever i need when ever i want i go to walgreens. -- humtum (online review of Walgreens).

2009-06-14T22:00:00.000-07:00

I would like to dedicate this post to the memory of Charles R Walgreen, Sr., friend to men everywhere.

It has been a few weeks since ol’ Jonesy has been out of the house, what with the twins getting themselves born and my doctor saying I wasn’t allowed to drive on that amount of sleep. But the other day I woke up in the local Walgreen’s, standing in front of a shelf chock full of baby products, sightlessly searching for a humidifier and a nasal aspirator. The ever-brilliant Mrs. Jones had given me very specific directions regarding her desires for said humidifier and as I gazed about me in a sleepless stupor I found a humidifier. One. On the shelf. And not to specifications. So I drug me to the nose equipment aisle where they had the exact same humidifier.

That’s when it hit me like a thunderbolt…thunderclap…lightning bolt…right. In wonder I stared to my left, then my right. All over the store I shuffled, looking, looking, looking. But there was only one available option in Walgreen's.

It’s like some saint foresaw me getting home to my sleep deprived wife, having (obviously) chosen the wrong humidifier. She might say something like, “I thought I asked for a humidifier with at least a 7 liter capacity?” To which I might reply, with all honesty and sincerity, “It was the only one they had.”

It was the only one they had. Ingenious.

And it’s true with virtually all their items (excluding products of the feminine nature, but what woman really expects her hubby to come home with “wingless medium” or “mocha water resistant” or whatever?). Need a coffee maker on the quick? They’ve only got one. Need a serving spoon fast? They only have the one.

The wife of my youth: “I thought I asked for a hot water pot that was black. This one is white.”

Jonesy: “It was the only one they had.”

Thank you, Charles R. Walgreen, thank you.

First made popular in the 1920s, yo-yoing is still very much enjoyed by both children and adults. -- Wikipedia

2009-06-14T15:00:00.000-07:00

Seneca, 2, throwing a yo-yo on the ground and picking it up over and over again: "Yo-yo bounce. Bounce. Bounce. Bounce."

It pays to be honest, but it's slow pay. ~~ American Proverb

2009-05-29T19:08:00.000-07:00

I was remembering my daughter Thisbe's first visit to the pediatrician. The doctor walked into the room and said, "What a beautiful baby."

I, ever the cynic, said, "I bet you say that to every new parent."

She replied, "Oh no. If they aren't pretty I say, 'She looks just like you!'"

Hmmm, yes, I see. Well, I wouldn't say your

child is hideous, just incredibly ugly.

Mozel tov.