“Have you figured out what’s causin’ them babies yet?” 1


By Tom Quiner

My friend, John, is the proud daddy of eleven children.  He is also a proud Catholic. As his bounty grew, he heard the question above with increasing frequency.  Here is what he told me about how he handled the question:

The best comeback line I ever found to defend the fact that we had 11 children came from the movie “Roxanne.”  Steve Martin plays a bright, intelligent man who is cursed with an abnormally long, Pinnochio-like nose.  Naturally, this has always made him the butt of jokes and bullying his entire life.  However, he has developed a great sense of humor and sarcasm as a “defense mechanism.”  In the pertinent scene, Martin walks into a bar to get a drink.  After a few minutes of awkward silence in the room, finally one local wisenheimer blurts out the predictable rude remark about his nose.  Steve Martin gets up from his seat at the bar and launches into a series of self-deprecating one-liners.  The “crown jewel” of the monologue for me was his rationale for why he had such a long nose:  “The Lord gave…and He just kept on giving!” So, whenever we had a new baby and someone would say the classic line, “Have you figured out what’s causing them yet?” I had my perfect answer in Martin’s line.

Take five minutes and watch the great Steve Martin in action above.  Life is better when we laugh.  It’s even better when we laugh out loud!

Shame on Dick Morris 4


By Tom Quiner

Dick Morris

Dick Morris is an interesting guy.

He was a political consultant for Bill Clinton who is credited with salvaging the Clinton Presidency through a political strategy characterized as “triangulation.”

Essentially, he convinced Mr. Clinton to move toward the center politically, embracing the best of Democratic and Republican ideas, after HillaryCare had damaged the President politically by pulling him too far to the Left. As a result, President Clinton eventually signed into law the NAFTA trade agreement and welfare reform legislation that his own party didn’t fully embrace.

From a conservative viewpoint, Dick Morris deserves behind-the-scenes credit for these legislative successes.

Mr. Morris was eventually disgraced and forced to resign after he let a prostitute, whose services he had engaged, listen in on his telephone conversation with the President.

Following his fall from grace, Morris emerged from the ashes as a conservative, becoming a fixture on the Fox network.  He can be seen on Sean Hannity’s show as well as The O’Reilly Factor on a regular basis.  He has been a vocal critic of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in recent years.

I know conservatives who love him … and loathe him. Some call him brilliant.  Others call him “sleazy.”

Dick Morris has a keen political mind.  He articulates his positions in a highly entertaining way.  Love him or hate him, it’s hard not to listen.

That brings me to an e-mail I received today from Human Events.  The subject line was: “Dick Morris:  Do you hate Harry Reid as much as I do?”

It was an appeal to raise money for Sharron Angle who is running against Harry Reid for the Senate.  The letter, from Dick Morris, began:  “Dear Friend who Hates Harry Reid as Much as I do.”

Please.

I don’t hate Harry Reid.  I don’t hate Barack Obama.  I don’t hate Nancy Pelosi.  I disagree with them politically.  I will do all I can to see them defeated.  Their ideas on what is best for America are not mine.  Even more, I think their policies hurt this country I love.

But hate them?  No.

Morris sounds like a typical angry Liberal using rhetoric like that.  Have we come to the point where we have to hate someone if they don’t agree with us politically?

Shame on you, Dick Morris.  Republicans are better that.

Should morality be the basis for legislation? 1


By Tom Quiner

Judge Walker imposes his private morality on America

Judge Vaughn Walker says no.  He’s the judge in California who struck down Proposition 8 which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The openly gay jurist said; “A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation.”

It’s not?  Since when?

Why have we passed capital punishment laws?  On the basis of morality.

Why do many, including me, oppose capital punishment?  On the basis of morality.

Why did many fight for the passage of ObamaCare?  Because they believe healthcare is a fundamental moral right.

Why did so many oppose ObamaCare?  Because the inclusion of abortion is so repugnant to the moral sensibilities of the majority of Americans.

Why did 45 states make abortion illegal prior to Roe v Wade?  On the basis of morality.

Why do liberals demand unfettered access to abortion?  On the basis of women’s “reproductive health”, a moral issue in their eyes.

Why have we passed minimum wage laws?  On the basis of morality.

Why is pedophilia illegal?  Morality.

Why is torture illegal?  Morality.

And the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is certainly not private.  It has been the basis of public policy of every nation, of every civilization, of every religion, of every culture in recorded human history.

Are homosexual couples inferior to heterosexual ones?  That’s not even the point of proposition 8.  The point is all about definition.  Society defined marriage accordingly to protect women and their children from commitment-wary men.  It was in the best interests of society.  Marriage was not defined on the basis of the “relationship” between the partners.

At the foundation of American government is morality.  Judge Walker says that is no longer acceptable, unless it is his private morality, that is.

A Modest Proposal to Save Iowa 4


Copyright 2010 by Tom Quiner


Iowa is dying.

The numbers are damning.  We’re not replacing ourselves.  Our population growth is stagnant.  The magic number needed to replace ourselves is 2.1 live births per woman.  That’s known as the Total Fertility Rate (TFR).

Iowa’s TFR is only 1.98 according to National Vital Statistics.  We’re one of 36 states not replacing ourselves.  Our population growth is slower than any other state except West Virginia and North Dakota’s, according to the Iowa Fiscal Partnership.

The only thing saving us from demographic death are immigrants.

In other words, our fair state is experiencing a devastating shortage of the Iowa Fetus.  I humbly present a Modest Proposal to save the state you and I love:  I propose we add the Iowa Fetus to the Endangered Species List.

You may think this sounds strange.  And yet isn’t that what the law is for, to protect species whose numbers are dwindling?

I am proposing that we elevate the Iowa Fetus to the status of the Iowa Pleistocene Land Snail, the Piping Plover, the Indian Bat, or some other currently protected endangered species.

We need more Iowa Fetuses for practical reasons.  Iowa needs more taxpayers.

According to estimates from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 188,000 Iowa Fetuses have been destroyed since 1974.  We are squandering our state’s resources!

Granted, some of these Iowa Fetuses would have left Iowa had they been allowed to live.  On the other hand, the female strain of the Iowa Fetus conceived in the 70’s and 80’s would now be in the Fetus-bearing years themselves, generating a whole new crop of taxpayers.  So who knows how many Iowans we would have had today if only we had begun employing Fetus conservation measures back in the 70s.

We need Iowa Fetuses because our state’s budget is a mess.  I talked to State Auditor, David Vaudt, about this situation.  Back in 1980, our state spent about $600 per Iowan. Today the number is $2122.  These numbers are adjusted for inflation in 1980 dollars based on “total true expenditures” by the state.

We’ve been spending like we have a much bigger population.  We don’t, because we’ve been squandering our posterity, the Iowa Fetus, for a generation.

We need them to take care of Baby Boomers and pay for the expanding social welfare system we’ve created.  How is our aging population supposed to manage with a shortage of younger Iowans?

I have to admit I’m not totally objective on this issue.  I think the Iowa Fetus is beautiful.  On the other hand, I have liberal friends who are more partial to the Indian Bat.  Another is absolutely gaga over the Iowa Pleistocene Land Snail and has a poster of one over his pool table.

I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Some say the solution is simply more immigration.

Don’t hold your breath.  Iowa isn’t exactly a job magnet these days.

What is Congress doing to help alleviate our Fetus crisis?  They passed health care legislation that will ultimately provide free Fetus terminations at taxpayer expense.  Memo to Senator Harkin and Congressman Boswell:  we need more Iowa Fetuses, not less.

Democrats are in love with Europe’s health care model.  Guess what?  Europe is dying faster than Iowa.  The continent with taxpayer-funded Fetus termination has a TFR much lower than Iowa’s.

Instead, why don’t we pay married Iowa women to create more than 2.1 Iowa Fetuses?  Now there’s a welfare program that makes sense!

My Modest Proposal presents Iowa with a bipartisan, long term solution to its demographic exigency.

Conservatives will quickly embrace the idea.  Most of them believe each Iowa Fetus harbors an eternal soul.  Although liberals aren’t swayed by such sentimental notions, they do love endangered species and enthusiastically support laws which protect them.  And they understand the need for more future taxpayers.

It is time to add the Iowa Fetus to the Endangered Species List to save Iowa.

tomquiner@gmail.com