David Horsey by David Horsey
- October 09, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Walt Handelsman by Walt Handelsman
Clay Jones by Clay Jones
About David Horsey
David Horsey has won two Pulitzer Prizes (in 2003 and 1999) for his editorial cartoons, along with numerous other accolades and awards. His work is syndicated to more than 250 newspapers across America.
© 2009 Universal Press Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (36) Jump to Comments Form
oldlegodad
said,
about 1 month ago
Blame multi-generational welfare female house holds and ganstas who count status by how many kids they have with multiple hos
believecommonsense
said,
about 1 month ago
uhhh. i think scott hijacked oldlego.
fritzoid said, about 1 month ago
Multigenerational female households have been shown to be conducive to LOWERED risk of criminal activity. If a child is raised by a single mother who lives with her own mother as well, the probablility of a criminal record later on is about the same as if there were a live-in father.
toasteroven said, about 1 month ago
Hey.
Hey scott.
You really, really, really, really, really don’t like women, do you?
leipsicbob said, about 1 month ago
Toasteroven, I don’t think he likes anybody - including himself.
cjr53 said, about 1 month ago
How about everyone hit the “Ignore” button on Scott?
nomad2112 said, about 1 month ago
Settle down Scott, you’re loosing the message in your anger.
cdward said, about 1 month ago
On a historical note, murderous gangs have been around for a very long time. In fact, a lot of the gang signs they use today were around for the same purposes before any of us were born – and I mean any of us. I only throw that out there because oldlego blames it on multiple generations of welfare, but these were around long before welfare. Might be something else in there, too.
oldlegodad
said,
about 1 month ago
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?id=506213
rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago
Yeah, yeah Oldle… we saw the cartoon. You can calm down now. Scott could use some xanax, too. I can imagine this guy sitting in his room, staring into the mirror like Travis Bickle… saying, “You talkin’ to me? Huh… you talkin’ to me??”
rikoshayrabbit said, about 1 month ago
Truly it’s at the point now that there probably should be mandatory abortion. And vast sterilization. The human population growth is THE root to every problem there is. I had mine snipped, never had kids, and at my house at least, all is peace and quiet.
Corosive Frog said, about 1 month ago
Oldie; the reason why women have menopause is that having no small kids of their own, they can take care of their grandkids.
Document yourself on how lion prides work.
dtroutma said, about 1 month ago
Scott reminds me a lot of rev Haggard’s condemnations, prior to his “repentance”.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
We must follow Bush’s example and declare a war on youth violence!
(good grief)
olfart said, about 1 month ago
I am pleased to see that I am not the only one who sees that over population is the problem. At the least, anyone who wants government assistance in supporting their offspring (whether you call it welfare or a tax deduction) should be required to be sterilised. I’m talking to YOU, married-filing-jointly! You are no different from single moms on welfare when it comes to suckling at the government teat.
deadheadzan
said,
about 1 month ago
Has anybody seen the movie”The Gangs of New York” with Daniel Day-Lewis? Gangs have been around forever but the fire power is so much higher now. I know the kid in Chicago was clubbed to death, but look at all the drive by shootings.
fritzoid said, about 1 month ago
Single motherhood is negligible, as a factor in breeding criminals. Poverty breeds criminals. Lack of opportunities breeds criminals. Single motherhood can severly limit a womans’ earning potential, but single fatherhood can as well. And as I posted in another thread, do you, scottfreitas, think these Single Slut women you’re so upset about get THEMSELVES pregnant?
Q. What’s the word meaning “boy slut”?
A. “Boy.”
All other things being equal, I agree that it’s better for a child (male or female) to have a strong male role model growing up, as it is important for a child (male or female) to have a strong female role model. But all other things are NOT equal.
It is better to have an absent parent than an abusive (physically, emotionally, sexually) parent.
It is better to have a Mommy and Daddy who live apart than a Mommy and Daddy who stay together “for the sake of the children” when the children know their parents hate each other. It’s even worse when the parents tell their children the reason they don’t divorce.
It is better to have two Mommies (or two Daddies) who love each other than a Mommy and Daddy who are constantly at each other’s throats.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
Actually, having two mommies and one daddy is better still. Or two mommies and three daddies. The more the merrier. “It takes a village” is best. The tribe is the basic unit of human reproduction; the nuclear family is a recent aberation.
fritzoid said, about 1 month ago
I’d kinda dispute that, in that while cooperative childrearing is often the norm, I don’t know of many systems (human or primate) where the mother-child bond isn’t given special prominence. Mommy’s baby, Daddy’s maybe.
Again, having merely a grandmother present can accomplish a lot, although of course individual circumstances may vary. Good parenting, like bad parenting, is largely passed on from generation to generation. But if Woman X had a bad mother herself, yet her MOTHER-IN-LAW was supportive raising X’s husband, Woman X has a good chance of breaking the bad-mothering chain. (If you’re wondering how this scenario might occur, imagine Woman X is a widow with young children who moves in with her HUSBAND’S parents, rather than her own.)
What Kurt Vonnegut saw as the root of American sadness was the loss of the extended family. Not necessarily having everybody under one roof (although there’s nothing WRONG with that), but having aunts and uncles (and enormous numbers of cousins, second cousins, and so on) living in close proximity and wandering in and out of each others’ houses. If a child needed to run away because his parents were fighting, he could just go a couple blocks to Aunt Jane and Uncle Fred’s, and stay a week or so without anybody getting too worried. The “it takes a village” model works best in tribes where there are close blood-ties connecting the villagers. I grew up in Central Illinois, with first cousins in Michigan, Idaho, New York, and Colorado. I’d see some more than others, but none were close friends. I’m now in California, and have no children of my own, but if I did, THEIR cousins would be in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Australia. That’s the way many Americans live, and HAVE lived, at least since Westward Expansion. It’s a tough habit to break, the urge to strike off for new territories, and it is without neither problems nor compensations.
Vonnegut was fond of telling of a tradition in one African nation (I don’t remember which) where, when a baby is born and is old enough to travel, it’s taken on a tour to meet ALL its relatives. This can take weeks, and cover long distances. The child grows up knowing the names and faces of perhaps hundreds of people who are literally family. A number of KV’s books and stories have experiments in creating artificial “families” to replace the ones we’ve lost, such as the government randomly assigning people new middle names such as “Daffodil-13”; anybody else you met with “Daffodil-13” would be your legal sibling, and any other “Daffodil” would be your cousin. (The book is Slapstick.)
charlie555 said, about 1 month ago
fritzoid
It doesn’t have to be that complicated. Every neighborhood has instant extended families for those who need or want them. They’re called CHURCHES. These people will adopt you, nurture you, and help you out financially, mentally, and spiritually. All for the asking.
fritzoid said, about 1 month ago
Again, “Christian Charity” is something that plays well in the literature, but is problematic in practice. Churches/churchgoers can be exclusionary. They can be judgmental. They can have their resources stretched too thin, like anyone else. They can be impatient to see a “return” on their “investment.” They’re often insufferably sure of their own correctness on matters of dogma, and CAN BE actively hostile to others’ viewpoints.
“Home” is where, when you go there, they have to let you in. I’ve got some pretty fundamental differences with my family on some major questions of How the World Works (politically, theologically, you name it), and if I WANT their perspective I can ask for it, but I’m welcome in their company any time. The old derelict’s line about missionary soup kitchens is “If you want the food, you’ve got to sit through the floor show.” I’ve been Witnessed At enough.
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
fritzoid: We’re not in disagreement. Extended families are great; I am paterfamilias to a tribe and I love it. Had Canadian Thanksgiving yesterday and grandbabies got passed from arm to arm amongst aunts, uncles, and neighbours dropping by. But Mom and Dad are still mom and dad and they get final say of where the grandkids sleep-over tonight.
I do differ with you on the religion thing. As anti-religion and anti-church as I am, the one thing I’ll grant that they do provide is a sense of community to those who need it. (Of course, any time you provide a sense of “Us,” there has to be a corresponding “Them” added to it, which is where the problems start.)
cdward said, about 1 month ago
fritzoid, I’m glad to meet another Vonnegut fan. I read Slapstick years ago and found the extended family concept compelling.
As to church, well that’s complicated. Current American religious practice runs the gambit, but if you look at the BIG and SUCCESSFUL mega churches, they do not take the familial route. They take the corporate route, the BRAND route. Too many of them see parishioners as customers, and Jesus as a brand to sell. I remember having a parishioner once tell me we needed to operate more like IBM.
The other side of that is that churches too often hate each other. I’m excluded from receiving communion in the RC church, for example. And I’ve had Baptists attend church and refuse to come to communion because “it’s all voodoo.”
Still and all, we are a community - for some their only community, but that is increasingly rare these days. We try to instill a sense of utter acceptance within our community while at the same time acknowledging the reality, and attractiveness of other communities. Problem is, it gets screwed up every time you get people involved…..
fritzoid said, about 1 month ago
I’m not against all churches any more than I’m against all Christians; a church is as good as the members in it, who vary not only from religion to religion but from sect to sect and from congregation to congregation and from parishioner to parishioner WITHIN a congregation, sect, or religion.
My position is simply that “Christian charity” is no better or worse than simply “charity”. Help people who need help. You don’t need religion to understand the good of that (although it helps to avoid Ayn Rand). I read an essay once saying that the Three Little Words which will heal the world are not “I Love You” but “Let Me Help.” The reason Jesus used a Samaritan in the Good Samaritan parable was not because Samaritans were any more or less charitable than the Jews but because the Jews HATED Samaritans.
motivemagus said, about 1 month ago
cdward, interesting. As someone who grew up within spittin’ distance of the PTL Club, and who was part of the .02% of Catholics in NC, I agree on all your points. And Jack Chick comics are still quite popular down there…now on the web. And I’m not providing a link to that hateful group.
By the way, I think you mean American religious practice runs the “gamut.”
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
Around here, it runs the gauntlet.
striper77 said, about 1 month ago
Prime example of government housing projects.
This is the results due to large amounts of people living their entire life off the government, do not work, no morals or values.
The gangs and violence is running rapid in the hood, jails and prisons.
Most of it started in the career welfare participants.
fritzoid said, about 1 month ago
Criminal gangs exist wherever you have large concentrations of urban poverty. They always have, going back to at least Rome.
Criminal gangs were as widespread before government housing programs as they are now. Do some reading about life in the tenements of New York in the 1800’s and early 1900’s.
What’s made the problem particularly acute in modern times is the availability of crack cocaine, and the availability of combat weaponry. The possibilities of profit are high, but so are the risks, and so is the competition. Yet the perception, whether true or false, is that membership in a gang is your BEST chance of making any sort of success out of your life, of rising out of desperation (and of being safe from OTHER gangs).
We need better schools in the inner cities. We need PREFERENTIAL HIRING of those from poor and desperate backgrounds. We need to promote, and yes SUBSIDIZE local ownership of small businesses in problem areas.
Yes, we ALSO need to increase Police visibility, including neighborhood beat cops who know the residents and whom the residents can trust.
If you want to keep kids safe from gangs, you have to let them know that there ARE alternatives that CAN be reached.
If you want to get people off Welfare, offer them jobs which PAY MORE THAN THE WELFARE THEY’D BE LOSING.
oldlegodad
said,
about 1 month ago
^ they have to be smart enough to fill out the application first.
Caint read Caint write,Thats actin whitey s¥¡T .
DrCanuck said, about 1 month ago
striper77 said: “The gangs and violence is running rapid in the hood.”
DrCanuck applauds: that’s even funnier than MY play on words.
Ronshua
said,
about 1 month ago
PREFERENTIAL HIRING
Where and when did this start ? March 6 ,1961 !
Executive Order 10925 makes the first reference to “affirmative action”
President John F. Kennedy issues Executive Order 10925, which creates the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandates that projects financed with federal funds “take affirmative action” to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.
fritzoid said, about 1 month ago
Did I mention race at all? I was talking about poverty.
Poverty is a cycle. The poor live in bad neighborhoods, where crime is everywhere. The criminals are seen as the “successes”, because they have the nice cars, the nice clothes. On the one hand you’ve got a guy flashing a bankroll saying “Carry this bag to this address, and I’ll see you’re taken care of. And say Hi to that mother of yours,” and on the other you have a teacher saying “If study hard and you graduate high school, you can get a minimum wage job, earning less than you would on welfare!” It’s the way it works now, it’s the way it worked 100 years ago. The poor don’t just need EXAMPLES of hard work paying off, they need to honestly believe that they can do it too. They need, dare I say it, HOPE. The one-in-ten-thousand rags-to-riches stories that the “They’re LAZY, that’s all!” crowd pull out when they want to blame the poor for their poverty are just eyewash.
charliekane said, about 1 month ago
rik:
ScotTF as Travis Bickle?
I suspect his comment was scotched before I got here.
I kinda think of Tripe as TB.
motivemagus said, about 1 month ago
Ronshua, what people seem to overlook is that affirmative action is making up for preferential hiring of whites, which continues today, I might add.
fritzoid said, about 1 month ago
I see Scottie-as-a-boy more like General Jack D. Ripper from Dr. Strangelove. Pretty soon he’s going to bring Purity of Essence into the conversation.
Women sense his power, you see. He doesn’t avoid them, but he denies them his essence.
motivemagus said, about 1 month ago
scott seems to have disappeared. Did he implode? Or was he removed? Or did he remove his own comment?