Last week I posted on the musings of Village Voice contributor Izzy Grinspan, who thinks that being a stay-at-home mother can turn you into a serial killer, as can quitting your job totake care of a sick family member (see “Our Newest Social Menace: Full-Time Moms and Homemakers,” Nov. 10):

Regular reader L.M. e-mails a comment:

“I think there is a big difference between someone who takes care of a person out of love or even duty, and someone who has a baby to effect a lifestyle change….

“Some of the women I’ve known who had, or considered having, babies are another matter. One got pregnant to leave her abusive parents. (She later divorced, then left her kids to move to another state with a boyfriend.) A roommate got pregnant to get out of the military….A friend considered having a baby to shore up her failing marriage. (Good thing she didn’t–she’s now divorced.)

“Starting a family or caring for someone out of love is admirable. But thinking, “Should I (a),stick it out in this lousy job, marriage or household a while longer; (b) leave the lousy situation; or (c) have a baby?” is selfish. And based on the cases I know of, having a baby for the wrong reasons seems tocreate more problems than it solves.”

True enough–although I don’t think this is the kind of situation that Grinspan was talking about., unfortunately.

And fellow blogger Stephen M. St. Onge loves our ravings about the craven French, who think that if they hand their rioters enough freebies, they’ll stop torching Peugeots (see “The French Disconnection,” Nov. 9, and the Mailbag for Nov. 10). Steve writes:

“I boldly (insanely?) predict the future of the French Intifada at Fat Steve’s Blatherings.I thought you might find it interesting. By the way, love the Independent Women’s Forum, but I can’t decide which Charlotte is my fave.

Well, we can decide that we love you, Steve! Here are some excerpts from Steve’s post, which compares the 1968 antiwar riots of 1968 (to which the Democratic Party caved and then sank, permanently, it seems, out of power) to the French riots of 2005 ( to which the French government is reacting the same way, with likely similar consequences:

“[I]n November 1968, at San Francisco State College, a  ‘Third World Revolt’ took place. When the college President showed signs of pre-emptively surrendering, the demands of the demonstrators escalated, the demands were labeled ‘non-negotiable,’ and the details included things the President was forbidden to do by state law.  In 1969, the President of San Francisco State resigned in despair.  The new President, S. I. Hayakawa, didn’t even pretend to try to reason with those ‘in revolt’.  He just called in the cops.  When a sound truck was driven onto campus, in defiance of his orders, the 62 year old college President pushed through the crowd, climbed on top of the truck, knocked a student off the top of the truck, and ripped out the speaker’s wiring.  The ‘revolt’ soon fizzled out….

“Electoral consequences?… S. I. Hayakawa became a U.S. Senator….

“The Republican party is now as free-spending as the Democrats ever were, but it is also the party of national confidence and self-assertion on the world stage, just as the Democrats once were.  The only Democrats elected President since 1970 took office at a time when foreign affairs weren’t considered critical.  The only incumbent Republican Presidents to win their campaigns for another term since 1970 were those known for a tough foreign policy.

“We now can project the French situation.  Appeasement is already being tried.  The French government hopes the weather will turn cold and end the disturbances.  That may happen, but next year, we’ll see more riots.  Eventually, the present French and European appeasing Establishments will be tossed out.”

Read the whole thing.