It's never too early...

[dawgball]

 

[dawgball]

:bump:

I can't let this die without a single comment.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

Cute baby. Is it a liberal family? Just wondering, because like a liberal family, they've chosen to dress the kid in a color other than pink or blue? Why impose gender roles so early, right?

 

[dawgball]

I thought the liberal family clue was the fat roll on the woman holding the baby. You know... because all liberals are lazy and looking for a free ride.

 

[kosar]

Cool shirt. I wonder what size would fit a zygote. :shrug:

 

[smurphy]

I thought the liberal family clue was the fat roll on the woman holding the baby. You know... because all liberals are lazy and looking for a free ride.

Pound for pund, the conservatives I've met are much fatter than the liberals. ....Not even close. If you take a look at the fattest states, they are overwhelmingly RED states. Top 5 all in the south, in fact. Come to think of it....I think Georgia is #1.

Isn't that shirt sarcastic? That would make that whale holding the baby a pretty staunch pro-life conservative. Right?

 

[JCDunkDogs]

Pound for pund, the conservatives I've met are much fatter than the liberals...Isn't that shirt sarcastic?

Right on both points.

 

[dawgball]

As I assume JC's first comment was meant tongue in cheek.... nevermind.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

I thought the liberal family clue was the fat roll on the woman holding the baby. You know... because all liberals are lazy and looking for a free ride.

LOL...sorry for the delayed reaction, but I liked this post too...another welfare queen!? Didn't they change that law? (I know you meant yours sarcastically, too, Dawg).

A very witty photograph. Boy, conservatives are getting more and more clever.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

Cool shirt. I wonder what size would fit a zygote. :shrug:

Good one, Kosar. I think "zygote" is as small as the sizes run. And that's not fair...its discrimination against the blastocysts if you ask me.

 

[dawgball]

Being Conservatives, here are some of the rather inappropriate jokes that my wife and I used to keep our sanity during our child's very collicky first six months.

"We need to move to Massachusettes because I think they feel that it is the parent's right to have fourth trimester abortions"

"What could we do where Child Services would come and get him for like a week? Nothing to lose him for good, but, damn, we need a break!"

 

[smurphy]

"We need to move to Massachusettes because I think they feel that it is the parent's right to have fourth trimester abortions"

:142smilie Ooof, that's a good one. :mj07:

Seriously though, the future of Liberals is in trouble:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060314/cm_usatoday/theliberalbabybust

The liberal baby bust

By Phillip Longman Tue Mar 14, 6:56 AM ET

What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
ADVERTISEMENT

This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.

It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future - one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont - the first to embrace gay unions - has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.

Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.

This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.

Single-child factor

Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.

This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for
President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen.
John Kerry.

It might also help to explain the popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the
European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.

Rewriting history?

Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.

Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.

 

[dawgball]

In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children.

This is accurate for my wife and I. Now if we can just get the Supreme Court to give us our Constitutional right of getting rid of the ones that we don't want whenever we want, then we will be well on our way to Utopia!!!! Hot damn! If they don't agree with me as they approach their 18th birthday, it's off to the showers for them. Thanks for playing, kid, but you gotta go.

All kidding aside, I do think that the absolute best gift you can give your child (aside from your love) is a sibling.

 

[djv]

Give the kid a chance call him Independent.