« Collapse of Dubai and ethanol | Main | Obama administration says that Iran is seeking nukes »

February 12, 2009

Comments

On the other hand, in some parts of the blogosphere there's a constant whine about how intelligent, educated white Christian women aren't having enough children, which will lead to a dysgenic Idiocracy in which America is overrun by low-I.Q. peoples (and usually of a rather darker hue). You'd think that those bloggers would be happy for the Octomom, after all she's a lifelong Protestant, if perhaps not fundamentalist, and seems to be of above-average IQ.

I'll never for the life of me understand why stories like this don't send this country farther to the right. At a time when millions of middle class families are struggling to pay mortgages and for tuition bills(which is usually a losing situation for them because actual bachelors degrees aren't necessary for the bulk of the jobs out there) a story like this should really piss them off.

Posted by: Peter | February 12, 2009 at 03:13 PM

Did you miss the part of how she's on welfare already and that taxpayers are on the hook for that sow and her brood?

If being a twin lowers IQ by 5 points, then the Octobabies might have IQ values 15-20 lower than if they were born singly. Multiple births is not the best route to demography stability.

I remember reading a story about a Christian family that had 17 kids. They were upper middle class and lived in a big home and had no problem paying their bills. When the Left heard about this family they called the women a "dog in heat" and said horrible and violent things about her.

Since hearing about this story I've heard nothing from the left? The reason for this is an ingrained subconscious hate for white people. The women with the octuplets is not white so the left "welcomes" 8 more diversities into the world.

The left is not "anti-racist" its anti-white. "Anti-racism" is another word for anti-white.

Orphanages, just like Pat Buchannan said, would nip this problem in the bud.

You have kids you cant afford, fine. We take them and put them in an orphanage. Meanwhile you can be homeless for all we care. You dont get them back until you can afford them.


Obammy is rollling back Clinton-era welfare reform. We are going back, not forward, on this.

The octuplet mom is Nadya Suleman, an arab woman addicted to California welfare.

What is it about arabs? Is it the low IQ, average of 85? Is it the inbreeding? The general hatred of outsiders? Hard to say.

Even if she were rich, how do you "mother" all those kids? This is child abuse. The doctor should lose his license for his irresponsibility (remember, the medical profession, like law, is being dumbed down by affirmative action).

"The octuplet mom is Nadya Suleman, an arab woman addicted to California welfare.
What is it about arabs? Is it the low IQ, average of 85? Is it the inbreeding? The general hatred of outsiders? Hard to say."

She's half Arab (Iraqi) and half Lithuanian, and a lifelong Protestant, so it's doubtful that she has much if any connection to Arab culture. As for I.Q., she sounds reasonably intelligent on TV, and is working on a master's degree, albeit at a California State university and in a soft subject. She's probably got an I.Q. score no lower than 110.

"The women with the octuplets is not white so the left "welcomes" 8 more diversities into the world."

I would consider her white, and she almost certainly considers herself that way too. Don't know about the father of the babies.

How about child support solely for high-income couples?

Don't blame the doctor. It's common to implant lots of embryos in the expectation only one or two, if any, will "take." The sensible and expected course of action in her type of fluke is selective reduction. It's not the doctor's fault she was a nut.

So, Half, you're willing to allow welfare types one government-supported offspring?

That's why I like my idea better, wherein we pay certain people not to have kids. I think it's a better incentive.

"Because society no longer believes that its appropriate to let thse children die because of the gross irrespnsibility of the mother..."

Exactly when did society ever believe that it was appropriate to let children die because of the irresponsibility of the mother?

"Exactly when did society ever believe that it was appropriate to let children die because of the irresponsibility of the mother?"

Prior to the 1800s, it was not seen as the responsibility of government to use taxpayer money for this purpose.

Actually, there is a very simple and very ethical solution to these issues:

Anyone who receives welfare payment of any kind must get birth control shots (some of them work for a year?). This way, they can have children in the future if they want, but only if they are supporting themselves.

Its is obviously immoral to have children and force others to support them.

/Don't blame the doctor. It's common to implant lots of embryos in the expectation only one or two, if any, will "take."/

Not anymore. At least they're not supposed to. They tightened up the guidelines on that. Dr. Wife and her colleagues are genuinely quite stunned and very critical of the clinic. While you might throw in a lot of embryos for a Hail Mary on an older, childless patient, bending the guidelines on a 33-year old that already has six children is a different matter. In fact, doctors are supposed to screen patients to begin with so they shouldn't have given her any. My wife wants to see their licenses revoked.

Interestingly, sterilizing Nadya Suleman would be a pointless gesture because she always has been barren. She would never have been able to reproduce without modern technology.

"Because society no longer believes that it's appropriate to let these children die because of the gross irresponsibility of the mother"

Did society ever think that appropriate? Maybe it should be "Because society no longer believes that it's appropriate to put these children in foster care or an orphanage because of the gross irresponsibility of the mother".

"she sounds reasonably intelligent on TV, and is working on a master's degree"

Neither of these things suggests above average intelligence, particularly the TV appearances.

You have zero understanding of human emotions if you think government sterilization in exchange for welfare would ever, ever be allowed.

The point here is that it's not OK to expect the taxpayers to foot the bill, I don't care what race or ethnicity the mother is. From what I have seen of this woman she is either very neurotic or suffers from narcisistic personality disorder. In other words, she is mentally ill and should not be having children...at all.

Actually, this multiple birth might end up getting her off the dole, assuming the inevitable, "Octo-Mom" the series gets popular on one of the trash TV networks.

This woman should be in jail. The doctors that decided to make her their science poject should be in jail. Anybody who thinks that this was a good idea or that this freak should get more welfare money should be locked up too. Let's be honest about it. Liberals are in charge and they are A-OK with this kind of insanity. They should enjoy it while it lasts. And if you live in CA, I'd move.

"You have zero understanding of human emotions if you think government sterilization in exchange for welfare would ever, ever be allowed."

Yeah, let's just spend more money on slugs like this woman and encourage others to act in the same way! Why don't you donate some cash to her money while you're at it? Maybe save the CA taxpayer a few $. But no, liberals only see normal, working, productive people as something to extract money from for their fucked-up pet social projects that continually fail and actually make things worse.

"Actually, this multiple birth might end up getting her off the dole, assuming the inevitable, "Octo-Mom" the series gets popular on one of the trash TV networks."

The family of eight kids on the show "John & Kate Plus Eight" get paid $300,000 per episode, in addition the TLC network is buying them a new house.

Liberals are in charge and they are A-OK with this kind of insanity.

Speaking as a liberal, no, no we're not A-OK with this kind of insanity. What this woman and her doctor did was very unethical.

Note that she did this because she's a RIGHT-WING religious nut, confusing zygotes with people

This Arab skank in California pops out the babies but can't pay for their upraising? Sounds like a lot of NAMs dependent on welfare over multiple generations.

I agree that Arabs are on a fertility tear. Have you seen the population pyramids for Arab countries? Gaza! A whole young population of suicide bombs milling around waiting to be armed!

"You have zero understanding of human emotions if you think government sterilization in exchange for welfare would ever, ever be allowed." -- JA

Perhaps, but if you could give me a glimpse into the mind of a Leftist...

... is there something in you that at the visceral, instinctual level relishes -- not just tolerates or ignores, but relishes -- the spectre of European-descended people yielding numerically within their own countires to people who trace their ancestors to other continents?

This is not a taunt. I'm asking with genuine curiosity.

I agree with Jewish Atheist. Why are so many HBDers so emotionally cold?

Actually, this is a bad example. She could have had the sterilization, collected welfare and still have 14 kids since these are all IVF babies.

Speaking of muzzies:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/mideastemail/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,586423.story?track=newslettertext

I remember back when Bush was President, liberals and the usual crowd in the press said this kind of thing was nonsense. Better get started on that bunker...

Posted by: JewishAtheist | February 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM

I could care less if this freak barks at the moon. Her religious beliefs are irrelevant and you know it. And if liberals are against such madness, why is part of the stimulus bill, engineered by liberals no less, a rollback of the 1996 welfare reform? Were people working too hard? If liberals are against this kind of insanity, they sure as hell don't act like it.

"I agree with Jewish Atheist. Why are so many HBDers so emotionally cold?"

"Emotionally cold?" WTF? Are you that unobservant/stupid?

... is there something in you that at the visceral, instinctual level relishes -- not just tolerates or ignores, but relishes -- the spectre of European-descended people yielding numerically within their own countires to people who trace their ancestors to other continents?

Not particularly. I just don't viscerally fear it the way the white supremacists do. I don't see race as particularly important. If a thousand years ago nobody thinks of themselves as Jewish or white, it wouldn't particularly bother me and more than it would bother me if redheads are no more or if more people in Asia had blue eyes than brown.

"You have zero understanding of human emotions if you think government sterilization in exchange for welfare would ever, ever be allowed."

We should have a special tax on all registered Democrat voters and liberals that will finance welfare payments to the poor underclass people you all seem to love so much.

I believe the bill for little Nadia's brood starts at a couple million dollars. You should have no problem paying for this out of your own pocket, right JA...

"Not particularly. I just don't viscerally fear it the way the white supremacists do. I don't see race as particularly important. If a thousand years ago nobody thinks of themselves as Jewish or white, it wouldn't particularly bother me and more than it would bother me if redheads are no more or if more people in Asia had blue eyes than brown."

I'm sure you live in a "nice" area, probably not Detroit. We'll just leave it at that...

JewishAtheist, have you ever actually lived any where that Christian mores are dominant and taken seriously. Is there some sort of "Protocols of the Evangelicals of Christ" that you've been reading, becuase your seriously ignorant about normal Christian behaviour.

JewishAtheist @ 01:34 PM: "If a thousand years [from now] nobody thinks of themselves as Jewish or white, it wouldn't particularly bother me [any] more than it would bother me if redheads are no more or if more people in Asia had blue eyes than brown."


Wow, talk about "zero understanding of human emotions..." [10:27 AM]

No, you're right, TUJ. We should just let them starve to death because their mother is an irresponsible religious lunatic.

"Don't blame the doctor. It's common to implant lots of embryos in the expectation only one or two, if any, will "take." The sensible and expected course of action in her type of fluke is selective reduction. It's not the doctor's fault she was a nut."

Yes, only crazy people respect an unborn person's fundamental right to life as enshrined in our Constitution.

Jewish Atheist:

Human zygotes are people in the earliest stage of their development, just as human fetuses are people at a later stage in their development, and human infants are people at a slightly later stage in their development, and so forth. Your personal inability to relate to human beings who have been recently conceived does not exile them from the ranks of humanity.

"If a thousand years ago nobody thinks of themselves as Jewish or white, it wouldn't particularly bother me..."

Odd words coming from a man with the screen name "Jewish Atheist..." If being Jewish isn't important to you, why include the fact in your freely chosen online identity? (I'm not being snide, I'm asking honestly.)

"18 kids now:

http://www.duggarfamily.com/"

I do not care if the Duggar's have a lot of kids. Good for them. They are not on welfare or getting any type of government assistance, so who cares?

Human zygotes are people in the earliest stage of their development, just as human fetuses are people at a later stage in their development, and human infants are people at a slightly later stage in their development, and so forth. Your personal inability to relate to human beings who have been recently conceived does not exile them from the ranks of humanity.

See, I have this crazy idea that people with brains and consciousness and personalities are somehow morally different than tiny clumps of cells. It must be my atheism.

Odd words coming from a man with the screen name "Jewish Atheist..." If being Jewish isn't important to you, why include the fact in your freely chosen online identity? (I'm not being snide, I'm asking honestly.)

I didn't say being Jewish isn't important to me, I said I don't care if there are no Jews a thousand years from now. It's in my blog name because my blog is in large part a response to having been raised an Orthodox Jew.

I'm sure you live in a "nice" area, probably not Detroit. We'll just leave it at that...

I do live in a "nice" area... and there are a ton of minorities here, black, latino, etc. How about not judging entire races by the worst examples you can find of them?

"We should just let them starve to death because their mother is an irresponsible religious lunatic.

Posted by: JewishAtheist | February 13, 2009 at 02:53 PM"

If, as liberals such as yourself insist, society has a moral obligation to provide a financial safety net to the poor, then the poor have a moral obligation not to stretch the safety net's longterm fiscal viability by having as many poor children as they want while on welfare.

If we restricted the poor to have fewer children - such as requiring periodic Depro Provera shots for women on welfare - we would have more financial resources to devote to those who are still poor.

By failing to restrain their breeding, the poor are pushing a shrinking proportion of taxpayers to support an endlessly increasing number of taxtakers.

This situation is not mathematically sustainable.

As members of society, the poor have an obligation to act responsibly when they receive taxpayer assistance such as by not causing crime, etc. Another obligation should be that the poor ought not reproduce their poverty and then dump their children on the taxpayer to support.

The welfare state - which the left built - gives the taxpayer a stake in the poor's bad reproductive habits.

If you don't like welfare for sterilization, then you ought to support ending welfare benefits based on how many children a person can have.

And where the Hell did you hear that Nadia is religious?

"See, I have this crazy idea that people with brains and consciousness and personalities are somehow morally different than tiny clumps of cells. It must be my atheism."

So, do you support extending human rights to those fetuses who have brains, or do you support revoking the human rights of infants without consciousness or personalities?

Tiny clumps of cells are NOT people anymore than my bone marrow cells are people.

"I do live in a "nice" area... and there are a ton of minorities here, black, latino, etc. How about not judging entire races by the worst examples you can find of them?"

You are right. How about judging them by their mean behavior which is significantly worse than whites in most respects? Still, I admit that I would be surprised if there are more blacks and Hispanics living in "nice" neighborhoods like your own than there are living in the "not so nice" sections of town. Just a hunch.

"I agree with Jewish Atheist. Why are so many HBDers so emotionally cold?"

I don't know. Why are so many liberals more concerned about the welfare of people halfway around the world than about their own families, friends, neighborhoods, and nations?

Everything comes down to freedom of association. If the Constitution was reimplemented and allowed people to live and interact with who they wanted, all would be well in this country. I would even be willing to pay higher taxes at the federal level just to have freedom of association.

This way, liberals could live in harmony with NAMs and not have us racist-bigot-hater-Nazis around to ruin their utopia. Liberals could open their homes to NAMs having 45 kids and create a very non-"mean-spirited" society.

What do you say Liberals? Why not support a movement for freedom of association?

Posted by: JewishAtheist | February 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM

You have zero understanding of human emotions if you think government sterilization in exchange for welfare would ever, ever be allowed

=================================

I wouldn’t bet on this, if I were you. It certainly won’t happen under a system of constitutional democracy like we have today, but I can’t see this particular political formation lasting more than a couple of more decades. You are suffering from a case of the oogedy-boogedies, as evidenced by your statement of “would ever, ever be allowed.” Allowed by … whom? Is there some disembodied entity out there, that would prevent this from being “allowed”??

You are “allowed” to do what you have the power to do, and, currently, people, like myself, who want the state actively regulating who breeds, don’t have the power to prevent Nadya Suleman from breeding. But this can change, and as one recently famous man likes to say “Yes, We Can”. The state is the gun, pure and simple, and justice is whatever you can ram down someone else’s throat.

P.S. I like Jews and Hitler spewed vicious lies about the Jews, in order to instigate the Holocaust. But if what Hitler had said about the Jews had been true the Holocaust would have been justifed.

P.P.S. The Nazis were entirely correct about the gypsies. Just look at all the massive social unrest going on in Italy today because of their large gypsy population. In purely empirical terms, the world would be better off today if the Nazis had managed to get all the gypsies.

P.P.P.S. 20 percent of the people create 80 percent of the problems - Wilfredo Pareto

P.P.P.S No person, no problem - Joseph Stalin

P.P.P.P.S. Forget welfare for sterilization, just sterilize everyone at or below the 20th percentile of IQ

P.P.P.P.P.S. Si se puede!

=============================

… particularly. I just don't viscerally fear it the way the white supremacists do. I don't see race as particularly important … a thousand years [from now] nobody thinks of themselves as Jewish or white,

You echo John Derbyshire when he talks about how the idea of an openly European-Gentile dominated society is not objectionable, but is pure fantasy. However, denying the reality of group differences does not make those differences go away.

=================================

I agree with Jewish Atheist. Why are so many HBDers so emotionally cold?
Posted by: Stopped Clock | February 13, 2009 at 12:46 PM

=================================

They aren’t. In person I am an extremely outgoing and gregarious sort, who’s the life of the party. I’m also quite chaitable, on an individual basis. The problem is misplacing emotions onto the abstract level of ideas, where they have no business. Often,, as Paul Johnson pointed out, the people who have the greatest “love for humanity”, have, in their personal life, the nastiest of dispositions. Emotion is very appropriate for individual interaction, but it is wholly inappropriate for large-scale analysis.

On more thing: freely obtainable abortion opened this door, and there's no closing it. Sure, the rationale that the SCOTUS used may have been women's choice and privacy, but the right of society to defend itself against the undesirable will eventually assert itself.

Keep abortion safe, legal ... and as often as possible for the young, poor, single and stupid.

Even one more thing: hate is just as natural and normal a human emotion as are love or empathy.

U.K.: Europe court says prisoners have right to use artificial insemination

“Six prisoners in British jails are applying to give sperm to their wives and partners after a landmark European court ruling concluded that their human rights were breached if they were stopped from having children."

(Name link points to article):

Murder and rape are natural human behaviors too. That doesn't make them okay though!

Murder and rape are natural human behaviors too. That doesn't make them okay though!

Posted by: abe | February 14, 2009 at 11:36 AM

===================================

Murder is whatever society says it is, for example, our society says that terminating a pregnancy is not murder. Killing that society sanctions is not murder. As for rape prohibitions, they are a product of civilization, evolving to foster social order and cohesion. If there are no prohibitions against forced sex in a certain situation then it is not rape.

The incoherent raving that this woman's actions are the responsibility of liberals is asinine.

I consider myself liberal and I believe the state should remove these children from this mother, for both fiscal and social reasons. The side that would argue against this most vehemently is that of the right-wing Christian moralists who glorify parenthood as divine. Its the same mentality which Ms. Suleman subscribed to when seeking out to have a bajillion kids.

"U.K.: Europe court says prisoners have right to use artificial insemination"


The UK is screwed.

For the person squalling about how "the left hasn't said anything about this". How does one know the political affiliation of anyone who is talking about this?

I would classify myself as someone left leaning, and I think this woman is a sick, twisted individual who is happily leeching on our tax dollars. I'd sign up in a heartbeat to campaign for a law that would demand sterilization for someone who is on welfare that gets pregnant more than once. It is unbelievely irresponsible, and downright rude for this woman to think it's okay to keep popping out kids while she's already on welfare.

"The incoherent raving that this woman's actions are the responsibility of liberals is asinine."

Then why do liberals keep making people pay for it? Cut her off. Those kids are her problem, not mine. Better yet, off her and those kids. Liberals are in love with late trimester abortions/partial birth abortions(like our new President) What's a few more months? Just clumps of cells...

The comments to this entry are closed.