As has been mentioned elsewhere, “Funky Winkerbean” is dealing with the hazards of selling comics in an increasingly reactionary world. Interested parties are invited to check out the beginning of the storyline here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/funky.asp?date=20050303
Idiots are invited to suggest the strip is due entirely to me being alarmist.
PAD
• 
“Those who live together before marriage have a much higher divorce rate than those who did not. Those who live together before marriage are generally less satisfied in their marriage than those who did not. You may disagree with me on why those statistics are true, but the data sure suggests that living together before marriage is not the best option.”
Not to sound snarky, but do you have source for these stats? Then run pretty counter to what Ive observed in people close to me, so Id be interested in seeing the studies.
“But it also comes from an enormous amount of surveys and observation. Those who live together before marriage have a much higher divorce rate than those who did not.”
But is it not a logical fallacy to simply assume that a correlation indicates causality?
How about this alternative explanation: traditional values discourage both divorce and cohabitation. Non-traditional values accept both. People who are OK with cohabitation are more likely to consider divorce an option if the marriage goes sour. People who aren’t OK with cohabitation (and therefore don’t move in together) are more likely to stick it through.
Thanks for the link PAD! I’ve bookmarked it and plan to follow the storyline.
At least one case pre-dates the Texas case and was in Georgia.
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/6510.html
I wonder how many people talking about the 1950s “witch hunts” know that Dr Wertham was actually a liberal psychologist trying to use violent comics as an excuse for vicious juvenile killers in order to get them a lighter sentence?
Nah, that would require actually reading Seduction of the Innocent, rather than railing about it.
Thanks, Bobb and Jim. 🙂
However, I would support a UN lead investigation into whether he should be tried as a war criminal for his actions against Iraq.
Sure. The U.N. can get right on that after they finish investigating their own Oil-For-Food scandal.
-Dave O’Connell
\\I wonder how many people talking about the 1950s “witch hunts” know that Dr Wertham was actually a liberal psychologist trying to use violent comics as an excuse for vicious juvenile killers in order to get them a lighter sentence?
Nah, that would require actually reading Seduction of the Innocent, rather than railing about it.\\
I read it in college. Also did a term paper on it for my sociology class. The book is all about how comic books are responsible for all the problems related to children. But most of his ‘studies’ & arguments were flawed. A couple of examples (Items in parenthesis are mine):
Batman & Robin were gay – because they:
* Often sat on the same piece of furniture.
* They frequently save each others lives.
* Wertham had a gay patient who fantasized about being either Batman or Robin.
Comic books take economical advantage of children because they (the children) often trade the books among each other.
Comic books (which then cost 10 cents) only cost a cent or two to produce. (No source given for this number, no mention of how much goes to distributor, retailer, or to pay for copies returned & pulped).
Comics will change titles but keep the numbering. (I’m told this has something to do with postal regulations)
Reading comic books leads to illiteracy.
Juvinile Deliquents read comic books, therefore comic books cause juvinile deliquency. (He also writes elsewhere) It’s true that many children read comic books and do nothing wrong. This means nothing.
While it is true he testified in several cases, His ‘studies’ don’t hold up. In the book he refers to some of these cases, but says nothing of the final verdict, if his testimony had any effect, or even citeswhat the cases were so a researcher can verify his claims.
I think Wertham was little more than an opportunist using comics as a scapegoat to make himself publishable (Which he gets paid for), a court witness (Which he gets paid for), and to make speech appearences (Which he gets paid for).
Correction to my previous post:
Comics will change titles but keep the numbering. (I’m told this has something to do with postal regulations)
Parenthesis in this item Wertham’s, not mine. This shows the extent of his ‘research’.
Wait, I’m single and have a cat. How is that wrong, Mitch Evans? I’m confused.
Can we make a rule that when someone makes a claim about ‘surveys say this’ and ‘surveys say that’, they have to identify the surveys? IowaJim, this means you.
Michael Brunner, I agree with every one of your comments in response to my post. The Batman and Robin are gay meme was particularly silly.
I think it all boils down to marriage changing the dynamics of the relationship.
The only thing that changed for my wife and I when we got married is her last name changed, and some minor changes to how we did our taxes.
I tend to think that anybody who thinks it severely changes the dynamic, when you’ve already been living together (particularly for an extended period of time, like several years), is rather deluded.
Thanks brainster.
By the way, according to Wertham’s second item of gay “proof”, Does that mean that most cops, firemen & front line soldiers are gay?
“The U.N. can get right on that after they finish investigating their own Oil-For-Food scandal.”
Yes, because everyone knows corrupt officials are far more evil than someone who starts a war that kills tens of thousands. And the Bush Administration has absolutely no tolerance for folks who make deals with ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein (*cough*ahem*Rumsfeld*cough*)…
–R.J.
Well, the so-called adult comic–and we haven’t seen the inside of it, so who knows yet–was shelved at the same eye level as and next to THE HULK, which ain’t good business practice for any smart comic book store. But it’s an interesting and compelling piece so far of the type of situation that we are all aware of but the general public doesn’t know about. Of course, this may just lead them to see the moral of the FUNKY story as “your local comic book store sells pornography…”
Here are some articles that deal with studies done on living together. The articles cites the original sources for the studies.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028316.cfm
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm
Someone asked the legitimate question, is there truly a cause and effect here? The studies would indicate yes. But read the articles for yourself.
I am sure some will complain these articles are hosted on a pro-traditional family website. So what? That doesn’t make them untrue. Let the facts contained in the article speak for themselves.
As for ancectodal evidence, I have some friends who lived together and are doing just fine. Then there is my brother and sister-in-law who lived together before getting married, lasted 14 years, and suddenly went through a quite vicious divorce. I don’t think living together is a “death sentence” for a marriage, but I do think it is not the healthiest way to get it off the ground.
Iowa Jim
Craig J. Ries said of my comment –
“I tend to think that anybody who thinks it severely changes the dynamic, when you’ve already been living together (particularly for an extended period of time, like several years), is rather deluded.”
To which I reply:
Deluded? I certainly think not. Mistaken due to predominantly negative experiences shared to me coloring my opinion, yes. That could certainly be the case. One friend jokingly calls me the Lord of Darkness, because my outlook edges towards the bleak. But I will stick to my philosophical guns, the change in the relationship can be difficult for some people – it depends entirely on their expectations for the relationship and that is strictly a person to person thing. I have some good friends who live together who may or may not get married some day. If they do I do not expect anything to change between them whatsoever, the relationship appears that solid and strong.
What this has to do with Funky Winkerbean, I do not know. 😉
Lots of anecdotal evidence going around.
I can prove Kerry people were more intolerant than Bush people!!!!
Let’s see:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2004_11.php#008512
On Tuesday we noted that thirty vans rented by the Republican Party in Milwaukee to drive voters to the polls had been disabled by having their tires slashed.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2004_09.php#007708
A shot apparently was fired at the Republican Party headquarters in downtown Huntington while President Bush’s speech accepting the GOP nomination for president was being televised.
http://instapundit.com/archives/020616.php
When the Bush supporters refused to leave, the anarchists tore the sign out of the Bush supporters’ hands and stomped on them. When ProtestWarrior leader Gil Kobrin objected, several male anarchists knocked him to the ground, kicking him in the back and punching him. Other anarchists punched and shoved Kobrin’s 12 colleagues.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/archives/013644.php
It seems that the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry Campaign are making a habit of trying to use lawyers’ threats to keep critical ads off the air.
http://instapundit.com/archives/017019.php
Kerry’s campaign is threatening to sue stations that air the Swiftboat Vets ad. They’re claiming that the people pictured aren’t who they say they are.
There’s enough crap going on on both sides. No need to be holier than thou, because when it came to the 2004, we were all sinners.
As for Funky W. – interesting idea. Seems too likely to descend into straw man caricatures, but then again, those who do crap like this (try and get comic stores shut down) generally are carticatures. Luckily, they represent a small minority (on both sides – there are liberals I know who want to censor comics because of sexism inherent in “good girl” art).
Let he who is without sin cast the first lawsuit……
Iowa Jim: “Here are some articles that deal with studies done on living together. The articles cites the original sources for the studies.
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028316.cfm
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm“
Sweet Christmas, is that a load of crap. Aside from the common fallacy of assuming that correlation equals causation (as anyone who’s taken an introductory statistics course will tell you, it doesn’t), Stanton really raised my hackles on that second article. For starters, by specifying “biological parents,” he’s spitting in the face of every adoptive couple out there. And since that includes my own parents, he gets a great big “fûçk you” from me for that one. (Asserting this effect was unintentional will earn no points with me. Any competent writer would have recognized and considered its potentiality; that he obviously didn’t makes him a schmuck.)
And then he just makes stuff up. Like this: “Historically, poverty has been a result of unemployment and low wages. Today, it is primarily a result of family structure.” Nooooooooo, it’s a result of unemployment and low wages. I live in the Bronx, so I know plenty of poor two-parent families. A marriage certificate doesn’t magically make someone not poor.
But in terms of erroneous conclusions, this rhetorical abortion takes the cake: “Research published in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect found that a girl is seven times more likely to be molested by a stepfather than a biological father. The study goes on to report that when biological fathers did molest their young daughters, a mother was not residing in the home who could protect the child. What is more, the nature of sexual abuse by stepfathers was more severe than by biological fathers. Every little boy in a male same-sex home will be living with at least one non-biological father as well as with a biological father without a protective mother present. The research says this child will be in much greater danger than a boy or girl living with a married mother and father.” Congratulations, Mr. Stanton, your flagrant abuse of logic and deliberate perpetuation of a hateful sterotype just earned you the coveted “Double Fûçk You” award. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: a douchebag.
For the love of God, Jim, I really hope you didn’t read either of those articles thoroughly before you used them to illustrate your point.
While discussing the impact of families, I wonder: When opponents of gay marriage talk about how families should only be a man and a woman, where are the single parents? Where are those fathers or mothers, the single parents, the single people who have adopted children, the widows and widowers, who are being told their families are less because they don’t have a partner (of a different gender, naturally)? Why aren’t these people pointing out the strength and quality of their families? What do they think and feel when they hear that a family must include both mother and father?
Well, as a single dad (widower) who was caught by the social security safety net (survivor benefits keep my ten year son fed, clothed, and in day care), I would be glad to take on all comers.
For starters, by specifying “biological parents,” he’s spitting in the face of every adoptive couple out there.
First, he was quoting a conclusion from a child advocacy group. And you are completely missing the point. If you look AS A GROUP at kids who live with someone other than their biological parents — and that would include such things as live in boyfiends/girlfriends, step parents, and other legal guardians, as well as parents who adopt — it would make sense that they do not do as well socially, emotionally, etc., because in many of those cases they have been torn from their families. A kid adopted by birth into a loving family would do well in most cases.
Obviously, there are cases where biolgical parents are criminally cruel to their kids. But statistically, it happens far more with step parents, live in boyfriends/girlfriends, etc. The article does make this point very clear.
And then he just makes stuff up. Like this: “Historically, poverty has been a result of unemployment and low wages. Today, it is primarily a result of family structure.” Nooooooooo, it’s a result of unemployment and low wages. I live in the Bronx, so I know plenty of poor two-parent families. A marriage certificate doesn’t magically make someone not poor.
Actually, I don’t have the source yet, but this was not made up. A study was just published that made this very point. The number one indicator for a family being poor WAS their family structure — namely, that the person was a single parent. Again, this does not fly in the face of common sense. A single parent would have a lot more to deal with than a couple, even if only one of them works (paying for childcare comes to mind).
But in terms of erroneous conclusions, this rhetorical abortion takes the cake: “Research published in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect found that a girl is seven times more likely to be molested by a stepfather than a biological father. The study goes on to report that when biological fathers did molest their young daughters, a mother was not residing in the home who could protect the child. What is more, the nature of sexual abuse by stepfathers was more severe than by biological fathers. Every little boy in a male same-sex home will be living with at least one non-biological father as well as with a biological father without a protective mother present. The research says this child will be in much greater danger than a boy or girl living with a married mother and father.” Congratulations, Mr. Stanton, your flagrant abuse of logic and deliberate perpetuation of a hateful sterotype just earned you the coveted “Double Fûçk You” award. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: a douchebag.
On this part of the article, I give you a partial point. He is extrapolating something beyond the actual data when he applies it to same gender parent homes. However, I do think there is a greater risk of abuse (verbal, physical) in general, just not of molestation. But that is just my opinion.
For the love of God, Jim, I really hope you didn’t read either of those articles thoroughly before you used them to illustrate your point.
I did read them. I was also clear in saying to consider the evidence. In one case I think you way overreacted and are warping what was actually said. In the second case, you have a legitimate point. My main point in posting them was concerning whether a couple who lived together was more likely to divorce. I posted the wrong link when I did so. I meant to post this one rather than the one about children:
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/cohabitation/a0025248.cfm
I think the ones about the adults is stronger than the one on children, though I do agree with some of what the one about children contained.
Iowa Jim
What do they think and feel when they hear that a family must include both mother and father?
Actually, I (and others like me) are not saying that. What we are saying is that it is much better for a child to be raised by his/her biological father and mother than any other arrangement, all things being equal. Yes, a single parent, adoptive parents, step parents, etc., can do a good job. But it will take more work and there are more obstacles to overcome, again, all things being equal.
A single parent CAN be a great parent. Having two loving parents, one of each gender, provides a better social and emotional environment for a kid to be raised.
Iowa Jim
Here are some articles that deal with studies done on living together. The articles cites the original sources for the studies.
Okay, then. Leaving aside my opinion of the author’s tendencies to leap to suspect conclusions, let’s simply look at these articles you posted to support your claim that “people who lived together before they were married are more likely to divorce than those who did not.”
1) The first one DOES NOT IN THE LEAST make the case you claim. It mentions living together precisely once, and only to say that it does not provide the same health benefits as marriage. Nothing is said about those who live together and then get married. Zip. Nada. Zilcho. Go ahead — show me what I missed.
2) The second one DOES NOT MENTION LIVING TOGETHER AT ALL.
In other words, you’re not just wrong in this particular case, but you’re coming dangerously close to simply lying about your sources.
How exactly is this supposed to bolster your point in any way, shape, or form?
TWL
Okay, the third article you posted does in fact make the case you claimed the others did. That’s a start.
All the article does is patch together various one-sentence quotes from papers all over the map. This article in and of itself is not making a convincing case.
I would, however, be intrigued to see the articles Stanton is using as sources. I wouldn’t be surprised to see if their conclusions are nowhere near as blunt and “obvious” as he makes them out to be, but that’s not a call I’d make in advance. If anyone can provide access to some of the original studies, I’d love to know about it.
Anecdotally — neither my mother nor my uncle lived together before their respective marriages. Both divorced. My wife and I did (perhaps not “officially” as in sharing rent, but in pretty much every other way). In fact, virtually every couple I knew in college did in some form.
Those who went ahead and got married are, with a 100% success rate, still married after 10-15 years.
Perhaps Cornell is atypical in creating remarkably stable couples. Perhaps my experiences bear no relationship to most of reality.
On the other hand … y’know, I’m an empiricist. I’ll take the examples I know as representative well before I assume that every single one of them is an anomaly.
TWL
“I wonder how many people talking about the 1950s “witch hunts” know that Dr Wertham was actually a liberal psychologist trying to use violent comics as an excuse for vicious juvenile killers in order to get them a lighter sentence?
Nah, that would require actually reading Seduction of the Innocent, rather than railing about it.”
I did read it, and was appalled by the flawed methodology. It boiled down to this: He interviewed juvenile delinquents. The juvenile delinquents read crime comics. Wertham therefore drew the conclusion that the comics were the cause for the delinquent behavior, and that is the lynchpin of his entire book. He offers not a shread of convincing causational evidence. He doesn’t even begin to prove the notion that these kids would have been just fine if not exposed to comics.
Hëll, nowadays if researchers found JDs reading crime comics, they’d be thrilled they were reading at all.
PAD
“Torn from their families?” You really don’t think things through before you post them, do you? I can only conclude from this that you, Stanton, and his sources are wholly and willfully ignorant about the realities of adoption.
Looking at that article again, I’m hard-pressed to see if anyone involved in it or the studies it cites spent even a microsecond of thought on adoptive parents. And I reserrve my right to be pìššëd øff about that, because adoptive parents deserve recognition and respect, and they don’t get dámņ near enough of it from people who claim to care so much about the “family.” Considering how many biological “families” are unplanned, couples who not only make the conscious choice to create a family, but go to heroic efforts to do so, merit more than casual dismissal by the so-called “authorities.”
The best environment for any child is one where they are loved and cared for. Married, heterosexual biological parents are not, repeat NOT, inherently more likely to love and care for their kids than single, adoptive, or homosexual parents. And that’s what this comes down to: Accusation of deficiency in parenting because of failure to meet an aribtrary standard.
and that is the lynchpin of his entire book
Leave me OUTTA this. 🙂 (Especially since it’s normally spelled “linchpin”, though your version’s an accepted variant.)
TWL
Name-Sensitive Grammar Cop
Having two loving parents, one of each gender, provides a better social and emotional environment for a kid to be raised.
Sure, right. Keep telling yourself that.
Granted, I don’t consider myself an emotionally unstable person as an adult, but I was as a kid.
Sure, I had two loving parents… who didn’t get along very well, who stayed together as long as possible for “the sake of the kids”, etc, etc.
You just keep spitting out the bs, and I’m sure somebody out there is willing to suck it up.
Me? I’ll live by the experiences I had growing up and say that just because, according to some statistic, you’re a happy perfect little family, you’re not.
I still am not sure how it ever came to this, as we were “discussing” (only in quotes because all this is written, not spoken – Semantics, I know but I guess I’m a stickler) Funky Winkerbean(sp?) and all his not so hilarious antics; but for the good of the children I have a few cents I’d like to throw in the communal pot.
I do think that, in general, two parents (of opposite sex or same sex) are better than a single parent. I think that the situation is a child raised by two biological parents (or in the situation of gay couples, at least one biological parent) who raise the child in a loving and caring enviroment. it’s just the easiest all around.
That being said, I have the utmost respect for people who adopt kids and think that an adopted enviroment can be just as strong, loving and nuturing as a biological one (boy that was phrased poorly but you get what I mean). the fact remains that adopted kids are more likely to act out against their adopted parents and have a more difficult childhood. This has nothing to do with poor parenting.
It has to do with the post traumatic stress of being taken from their birth parents (even if it was before they can remember it’s a subconsious thing). Also there is the desire during ones adolescence to create an independant identity. I’m spekaing in general terms now, but ones idenity is partially derived from one’s parents. It’s harder to do so if you know your parents aren’t blood relations, because there is someone else out there who is. A common retort (true with step parents too I think): “You’re not my real father/mother/parents.”
Adopted kids will still grow up to be well adjusted perfectly normal adults. (I have no nubmers or statistics unfortunately, all information given has been gleaned from growing up with a social worker mother) But if we want to “protect the children” we don’t look at them when they are adults, we only look at them when they are children so this fact is often over-looked.
I want to iterate for any reactionaries out there, this is only broad strokes, not true for all adoptions. One of my ex-girlfriends was adopted as was her older brother and neither of them ever had any problems I mentioned above. All their problems came from school not from home, and that is a different issue altogether.
Whoops, in the second paragraph it should read “the best situation” not just “the situation.”
Man it’s late, why am I not asleep?
Ðámņ, I go to work and all hëll breaks loose here!
I haven’t read the Funky strip yet, but I will. I usually catch up on most of the serial strips about once a month so I can get the full story.
Now, so much to comment on…
Bladestar, just when I think you can’t say anything stupider…you manage to outdo yourself. If anyone on the right wing said something like “if only the WTC was full of the leftist Hollywood types like Martin Sheen, Barbara Striesand and their ilk, instead of hard working people…” the outrage would have been unprecidented. Wishing someone dead because you don’t agree with them sure sounds like the terrorists won. You’ve taken their message and methods to heart.
——————————-
“See the recent news stories of employees getting fired for saying things about their work on their own private blogs.”
One more time for clairity. The story about the employee getting fired is bûllšhìŧ. The employee was a columnist for the local paper. She was reprinting her columns on her blog, but the newspaper held the rights to them. The newspaper was sold to new owners that came in and fired most of the staff, and this person was fired in the second wave.
http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=05/01/17/5263550
————————————————-
On protesters…Let’s see. The CAMPAIGN is paying for the event. They have all rights to let in who they want. If you were running for office, wouldn’t you want a rally with people that support you instead of a rally with group of people trying to outshout you when you were speaking. That would lead to more unrest and possibly a riot from the supporters. That is not the image any candidate is trying to put out there.
Craig J. Ries:
“Sure, right. Keep telling yourself that.”
Don’t have to. The Associated Press had a nice article about the subject on February 9th of this year, entitled “Nuclear Family Children Do Better,” citing the results of a study by economists Donna Ginther of the University of Kansas and Robert Pollak of Washington University in St. Louis. Oh, but I guess they’re just “bigots,” right?
On Funky Winkerbean… sure, WE are interested in the topic, but the exectuion is pretty lame. There had to be a way to handle the subject matter with more humor, as befitting the three-panel format. I can’t imagine any casual comics page reader would even care about this strip, since it isn’t funny, and thus won’t bring any outside attention to the legal issues.
So many things to talk about here:
Iowa Jim wrote:
“A single parent CAN be a great parent. Having two loving parents, one of each gender, provides a better social and emotional environment for a kid to be raised.”
That’s not necessarily true. Take the case of James Roszko, a fellow who apparently had “two loving parents”, and became something less than Jim would have envisioned. In fact, three days ago he committed the worst massacre of RCMP officers since the Riel Rebellion. The link for a current story about this tragedy invoking forgiveness for the perpatrator is:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2005/03/07/952594-sun.html
The interesting thing about this situation is that I listened to a live interview with Mr. Roszko’s father on Sunday morning. To nearly every question posed to him, the father would invoke some sort of bible passage to help explain either his own feelings or how his son may have gone from good to evil.
So here we have a classic example of religious conservatism, and I will bet you money (big money) that this particular child was more than likely stifled by that type of upbringing to the point where he became a sociopath. I suspect that in many arch-conservative families the children are taught to blindly follow very constrictive views. They react to this upbringing in many different ways, just as many in other types of upbringing situations react differently, as we all know that this is “what makes the world go ’round”. But that’s where you get a lot of the pro-censorship zealots who try to remold free society into their particular concept. (You also get all kinds of other more severely afflicted individuals through parental repression.)
I would wager you that a larger proportion of children brought up in religiously restrictive homes (in ANY faith whatsoever) have a better chance of having severe problems later in life. Heck, we often read about them from day to day. Let’s take RTK as another example. Now there was what everyone thought to be a fine upstanding, church-going citizen!
The point I am trying to make is that you cannot draw definite conclusions about how any parental situation may turn out without having intimate knowledge of every aspect of the parent or parents. I know of children from single-parent families who are just fine and some who are not so great. I know of children being brought up in common-law situations who are the same. And then there is the issue of same-sex partnerships. I personally do not choose that lifestyle. Yet who am I to restrict that lifestyle to others who love and cherish each other as much as I love and cherish my wife?
And to that topic, I like to kid Barb about how long we’ve been “married”. Officially it’ll be 25 years on June 15th. However we met at a social on March 12, 1977 and I espouse that we were “married” from that day forward. So we’re gonna go and do something special for our 28th “anniversary” this weekend.
Is there a secret to this? Well, this is gonna sound strange, but I think the whole thing comes down to a combination of just sensing what the other person is feeling and being respectful of those feelings, combined with communication. That’s the big thing: COMMUNICATION. Never go to bed mad at each other is a good rule of thumb taught to me by both my parents and my in-laws.
Now to an unrelated topic: Earlier this year I wrote that Will Eisner’s death really left me feeling like huge Black Hole had just sucked a significant piece out of the comics universe. I said I would expand on this, so please indulge me for a second.
For those of you over ….. well, I’ll say 35…..anyway, for those of you who can remember the 1970s, you can probably relate to that fact that in media and entertainment the longevity of many performers/creators/artists, call them what you will in the industries has gotten shorter and shorter. With that phenomenon we have lost our relationships with mainstays, because there aren’t that many left and they are not being replaced by today’s current crop. Think about it: where are the Crosbys, Hopes, Burns, Berles, Bennys, Schwartzes, Barks-es, and indeed Eisners of today? (And if you want to go back further, the Cantors, Bogarts, Woods, Coles, etc?)
Who is there today that commands the same level of awe as a lot of these guys that we grew up with? Worse, who are today’s fans going to look up to as innovators who took the medium to a new level? I think that’s the worst thing about Will’s passing: It really brought home to me the sense that the cornerstones of the business, the guys who invented it and evolved it aren’t there anymore and there aren’t a lot of people out there who could take their places. Do you get what I’m trying to say in my not-so-eloquent way?
Hmmmm, it looked pretty stupid to me. The dizzy bìŧçh didn’t even pretend to buy them for her kid and was out to get someone period. The comics were up high on a shelf and she had to take them out of what looked like a shelf with covers. I’d get a good Jewish lawyer that eats human flesh (quoting Harlan Ellison here) and get her in court for false arrest and defamation…
PAD –
your read of Wertham is a good one, but you miss the main fact –
Wertham was a liberal (he also complained comics were racist and sexist as well).
So why is everyone claiming only conservatives ban comics?
There’s enough blame on all sides.
Iowa jim: Since moving to Iowa, my local paper does not get Funky
This is instantly one of the funniest phrases I’ve seen in days!
JAC
Iowa jim: Since moving to Iowa, my local paper does not get Funky
This is instantly one of the funniest phrases I’ve seen in days!
JAC
The story about the employee getting fired is bûllšhìŧ.
Wasn’t there one the other day about a flight attendant or something getting canned for having a blog?
Ahh, yes, here it is:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/tech/main678554.shtml
Oh, but I guess they’re just “bigots,” right?
No, you are for making a pathetic assumption that being gay must mean you’re a friggin crack whørë or something. “Cleaner lives”? What a joke.
Wertham was a liberal (he also complained comics were racist and sexist as well).
So, are you saying that racism and sexism are conservative values? 🙂
So why is everyone claiming only conservatives ban comics?
I’ll be the first to admit that both sides have had their share of áššhølëš, but Wertham’s crusade was 50 years ago. Today, the overwhelming number cases of censorship against comics (Jesus Castillo, the Atlanta case) have been initiated by conservatives.
Jim, I read the articles that you posted. They were . . . interesting. They don’t really contain any of factual information, just some broad statements and quotes without any real statistical analysis to back them up. I’d have to see the source material that those articles cite to really judge the validity of their claims.
I have to call bûllšhìŧ on the one claim that a child is more likely to be molested living with two gay men “without a protective mother” around. Especially since two sentences earlier, they assert that children are more likely to be molested by their mother’s boyfriend or their stepfather. The completely baseless stereotype that gay men molest children aside, how can they claim a “protective mother” can’t protect her children from her own boyfriend/husband, but could against a gay man?
That said, it’s easy to assert that, in theory, two loving and committed parents sharing the burden of raising children equally is the ideal situation. Of course, you could count the number families that reach this ideal on one hand and still have enough fingers left over to play Rockmonanoff Number 8. Most families have to make due with the hands they’ve been dealt and casting aspirations at all single parents does nothing to improve the situation.
Jim, I agree with everything you say about Freedom of Speech not including a right to be listened to. But, aside from the party conventions, how can the President’s exercise of the Secret Service to regulate where opposition can gather in public be compatible with free speech? If the President doesn’t want to hear what the public has to say about him, he should stay out of the public. Controlling people’s access, in public places during public events, is in no way compatible with free speech. Bush’s use of FSZ was hidden under the guise of security. I say guise, because only people carrying anti-Bush placards or shouting anti-Bush statements were relegated to the FSZ. If they had limited the number of people allowed to gather at the campaign appearances, and then closed them off, with a spill-over area set aside for extras, that would have been a legitimate security measure.
This doesn’t apply to the party conventions, which are private matters, and not open to the public.
Craig J Ries:
“”Cleaner lives”? What a joke.”
Taking one comment out of context and spinning it as “bigotry?” Yes, I agree. What a joke.
“you are for making a pathetic assumption that being gay must mean you’re a friggin crack whørë or something.”
No, I’m just “living by the experiences I had growing up.” The examples I’ve witnessed firsthand were often decisions made because of dysfuntional or abusive homes (or no home), learning disabilities, or involvement with drugs and crime. The prevalence of these circumstances don’t just follow around unfortunate individuals who were already gay; the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances.
It is a well known fact in the community of those professionals that assist in picking up the pieces that most predators are heterosexual men victimizing children. A huge proportion of these perpetrators were, themselves, victims. Females are victimized as children moreso than males. There is some research that indicates the sex of the child is a non-issue to child molesters.
For anyone interested, here is a brief write-up with some solid stats on the topic of gay men and pedophilia:
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm (Note the credable citations)
Also:
http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Pedophile.html (Links to a score of American Psycholigiucal Association findings)
Further, the DSM-IV does not recognize homosexuality as being a factor in identifying pedophiles. These factors and hard stats are certainly not infallible, but speak volumes more to me of identifiable patterns than throwaway spouting of people with an already identified agenda against homosexuals.
Fred
Powell said:
No, I’m just “living by the experiences I had growing up.” The examples I’ve witnessed firsthand were often decisions made because of dysfuntional or abusive homes (or no home), learning disabilities, or involvement with drugs and crime. The prevalence of these circumstances don’t just follow around unfortunate individuals who were already gay; the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances.
To which I reply:
Well, well, well. When did you make the decision to be straight? Really, you speak of personal experience. Tell us how you wrestled with the urge to have a passionate affair with some one of the same gender, but made the choice not to. I think we can all get great insight into this issue if you share your personal struggle with us.
As far as the that broken home, learning disability (which is so odiously offensive and wrong headed I find it hard to believe someone would hold that view) and drugs and crime nonsense – I do believe there are just as many, if not more, straight people who suffer and struggle with those issues than homosexual.
Personally this board is far too anger inducing. I think I’ll let you take on hate mongering dickwads like this loser by yourself. I have a son to raise and steer clear of sick minded individuals such as PP.
Fare thee well all.
Den –
well, in the 50s the conservatives weren’t exactly at the forefront of the civil rights movement.
As for nowadays – as I’ve said, I’ve known feminists who advocate the censorship of comics based on their “objectification” of the female body.
But, I’m a moderate, so I am cynical about all sides of nay issue.
Powell:
>The examples I’ve witnessed firsthand were often decisions made because of dysfuntional or abusive homes (or no home), learning disabilities, or involvement with drugs and crime. The prevalence of these circumstances don’t just follow around unfortunate individuals who were already gay; the choice to be gay is more often born of these unfortunate circumstances.
Short of these individuals that you speak of telling you that they are gay due to the issues you’ve stated, I have a difficult time believing that you know this as fact and are not drawing your conclusions based on your religious and moral beliefs.
Fred
Sure, I had two loving parents… who didn’t get along very well, who stayed together as long as possible for “the sake of the kids”, etc, etc.
Me? I’ll live by the experiences I had growing up and say that just because, according to some statistic, you’re a happy perfect little family, you’re not.
If your parents could not get along and stayed together just for the sake of the kids, then I would not define that as healthy. They may have been loving towards you, but if they are not loving towards each other, that is a very tense environment in which to be raised.
No parent is perfect. And being rasied by even the best parents guarantees nothing. But what I have seen over and over is that there are some families that look good on the surface, but when you get beneath the outward appearance, it is not healthy. A parent can be religious and never hit his kid, but if he is emotionally cold and distant, the kid is going to struggle because he will not have a loving father figure to turn to. How that kid acts on that struggle will differ. Some will act out in violence or anger, others will withdraw, and others will find a surrogate father figure.
All of that being true, the research I have read still comes down to two things. First, even in a difficult home, a child *on average* still does better with both biological parents than with a single parent. Second, a child tends to better develop emotionally when he or she has both a male and a female parent at home raising the child. Again, the lack of a parent of either gender can be overcome through finding a substitute, but studies are clear that when one is not found, the child will almost always have issues.
Iowa Jim
Jim, just out of curiosity, how much of this research has been sponsored by conversative, religious organizations? The reason that I ask is that most of the literature that I’ve read suggests that children prosper when they have supportive adult figures in their lives that allow them to feel safe and secure in their world. Unbiased research tends to begin with a focus on disproving a hypothesis, not confirming one. The research that you are speaking of sounds like the stuff that is inevitably traced back to people with an agenda. Do you have any links or article references?
Thanks,
Fred
Jim, the question your point on the average indication of a stable, good upbringing for children begs the question of why we should strive for the average? We’ve had discussions before, and I’ve seen you acknowledge, here and before, that individual homes that fit the “normal” mold can result in a harmful environment for a child, and that homes that don’t fit the standard can result in productive, safe, positive environments for a child. My question is, are you in favor of trying to force everyone else to fit the average home model of 1 set of male-female parents, or just putting that forth as the historical average? Or, are you advocating that all families be forced to adhere to the average model?
It seems like you’re in a way arguing against yourself. You’re attempting to put forward the idea that the model home of hetero parents is the ideal we should all strive for, yet admitting that fitting the appearance of that model is not really the key to a productive, save environment fit for raising children. The keys are the attitudes and emotions of whoever, be it father-mother, mother-mother, father-father, or a single parent, maybe even a grandparent or older sibling, that is the key to a favorable child rearing environment.
It kind of reminds me of the ideals behind the No Child Left Behind approach to public schools. That there’s a One Size Fits All solution to every problem. There isn’t. Individuals should be given a range of choices, and the freedom to make those choices, to best address the needs of their family. That includes what form the child-rearing household should take.