The Living, Loving Multitude

My wife and I were up until past three o'clock this morning talking, my wife close to tears much of the time and I not too far behind. The context? I had just watched Bret Baier's hour-long special on Kermit Gosnell and my wife, unable to take the graphic nature of the pictures, had only listened to the audio. Not like the audio descriptions of Gosnell's 'House of Horrors' were any less intense or oppressively gruesome. One didn't have to see Baby A's scissor wound or the jars full of trophy baby feet to appreciate the horrific gravity of the crimes committed. The words were more than adequate. And what a great many words there were...

But the tears came from other quarters, surprisingly enough.

My wife admitted to me that she was not crying so much for the babies lost, although their short lives are more than irreplaceable. No, it was for Gosnell's soul that she was sorry, terrified that he would follow the path of the obstinate and never repent of his wretched sins. God's judgment is far worse than man's,  we were reminded, and heaven help him if he does not repent.

There were actually two reasons tears had come to both our eyes speaking of this wretched man, however. One was the aforementioned. But the second reason was even closer to home. It was due to the fact that all of the past week my wife and I had been discussing what it'd be like to have another child, wondering with excitement if we might want to try to get pregnant again this year. Talk of babies and their tremendous beauty and fragility, and their ability to wrench love out of us humans. And then this story. A story of abject disregard for human life, a story of a man and a culture that don't give a damn about women or their unborn children, a story of subhuman acts of cold-blooded violence for financial gain. It is a story repeated again and again in America, a story of lies and hatred and fear. It all hit like a punch to the gut for us as a couple who have never even touched chemical contraception.

How did the family move from being such a revered unit of society to being the butt of every joke on network television? When did such a profound societal selfishness settle in that women are routinely taken advantage of by men, and are then encouraged or forced to abort the consequences? When did the great lie finally take so profound a root in our nation's heart, the lie that having a family is a millstone around one's neck and that the child is a weird leftover fluke of an act that evolution meant to be a mere pleasurable pastime?

All of these are grievously important questions to ask, to be sure, but the more important thing is that I do not ask them rhetorically. I am not whining for a bygone era supposedly drowning in innocence and charm. I am also not asking these questions in a state of shocked disbelief, in order to demand that standards be raised or some other such woefully inadequate response. I have seen evil before, and it does not shock me. I am asking these questions in order to dig to the heart of the whole big festering ugly problem and find an answer. An antidote.

Many have written and spoken of the corruption and demise of Western civilization and its corresponding values, including me, and it is not really my purpose here to rehash all of those arguments. My purpose here is to look at all those previously thrashed out 'why' arguments and formulate a simple 'how to' antidote. Because I firmly believe that there is a simple solution to this problem, a solution so simple it may be regarded as naive and even irresponsible by many. We suffer from a stream of consciousness culture that has no clue what a family is supposed to be, no hint of what real love looks like, and no idea what happiness is. So what's the antidote?

Get married and have kids. Lots of kids. And bring them with you everywhere.

It is simple, and also frustratingly difficult. C. S. Lewis once remarked that the really important and difficult concepts in our language are summed up in short, simple words: love, hate, heaven, hell. He couldn't have been more correct. I am the second son in a family of ten children, and so I was keenly aware of society's mockery long before I ever had a wife or children of my own.

Getting married is the first huge step. So many people, especially younger people, simply choose to live together without marriage. No vows, no commitment, just simple cohabitation centered around the convenience principle. There is no real love in this arrangement, because there has been no act of will, just a simple change of location. The 'union', if it could ever be called that, exists on the very thin ice of mutual selfishness. Marriage remedies this by destroying the blasé of convenience, of creating a relationship that exists on purpose and for a purpose.

Having kids is somehow an amusingly huge leap of logic for many even after they get married. One would think the knowledge that sex is how babies are made would be enough to make this clear but it is sadly not so.  The mere act of having more than one or two kids nowadays is an act of revolt against the established order. So revolt away and have many children. Demonstrate to the world that your empowerment comes from the fact that by a simple act of physical union with your spouse you can help create another completely unique and irreplaceable person. Demonstrate that your fulfillment comes in serving those new persons and providing for their welfare, and that your reward is their little grateful smiles and enthusiastic attitudes.

And finally, bring them out in public. Everywhere. Church, restaurant, park, you name it. There is so much negativity about large families in large part because people don't see enough of them. So show your kids off, let them be kids in public. Let them be the ones to demonstrate to the world how badly it needs love. Children do not judge, are trusting, vivacious, energetic, bold, brash, and funny. They will make the world less judgmental, more energetic, bolder, and will ensure that it laughs more.

I am issuing a challenge of sorts to all those who balk at new life, who claim it is too expensive, too draining, too much work, or who like Gosnell think it is just plain worthless or toxic. As you debate abortion policy, assist in the indefensible slaughter of our nation's children, or just plain decide not to have any children, my wife and I will be busily making our own. Not because we have no self control, as is so often suggested to those who decide not to load their bodies with toxic contraceptive chemicals, but because we are fulfilling a mandate. We were told to be fruitful and multiply, to fill this earth and subdue it. Every time we decide to have another child we are rewarded beyond our wildest expectations. Having children is work, but a work of joy.

Our society needs to relearn how to be normal, how to see the truth about itself and to not shy away in fear when presented with the difficult choices. And what better way than for us to lead by example? We need to see love, see it as normal, and see it as desirable. Only then will the world be rid of the likes of Kermit Gosnell.

God forgive them all, for they know not what they do.


Photo by Ernest F., Courtesy of Wikipedia.

Libertarian Vs. Christian

A brilliant expose of the problems with the libertarian solution to the American social and economic crisis.


















Photo by Kowloonese, via Wikipedia.

11 Years This 11th

I wish I could write something to bring solace to those families that lost loved ones eleven years ago today, but I would probably fail in the attempt.

I can only say that I pray the victims rest in the peace of Christ, that the families of the victims heal from the pain of loss, and that we as a people do not lose ourselves in the pursuit of justice.















Photo by UpstateNYer, via Wikipedia.

The Myth of American Exceptionalism

I had picked out a title and worked out most of the salient points of an article I wished to write, until I did some Google-assisted research and realized that not only had this article been written already, but at least twice. And under the same title as the one I chose.

So I read both articles entitled "The Myth of American Exceptionalism" and I have to say I had to agree with the main points both authors made, here and here. Now I understand that both authors are what the political right would label as "left leaning" (and therefore "unreliable"), but those who seek the truth must be willing to accept it from whatever source it comes. If you are of a conservative or liberal bent, please read both of these with an open mind and understand the points made before you agree or disagree. The term "American exceptionalism" involves the very definition of the word patriotism, a definition which remains extraordinarily misunderstood and abused in America today.

Photo by Lipton sale - via Wikipedia

Eugenics, Part I



Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921

 This article is part 1 of (I think) a 3 part series of articles on eugenics. It deals with eugenics projects the world over in the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries, and how those projects flourished pretty mch equally under nationalist, socialist, and capitalist systems, and how they were well-funded by all three.

State of the Campaign

And there you have it, everybody! Barack Obama's opening salvo in the battle to retain his job.

The State of the Union address has once again proven its usefulness not as a genuine, penetrating look at the true condition of the country, but as a mega-platform for rolling out agenda items and uttering platitudes. The 2012 State of the Union address was the same as its predecessors, except this one had more than its fair share (pun intended) of the campaign appeal, considering the election year we find ourselves in. It is an unhealthy political concept that so many presidents spend the last year of their first terms MIA from their job, in order to campaign for that same job.

Putting the smaller contention aside for the moment that no president should have two consecutive terms for precisely this reason, I have one much bigger issue to bring to my reader's attention. The issue was more than made plain by the Obama's before the speech even started. That issue was the guest sitting next to Mrs. Obama in the audience, the one and only secretary to Mr. Warren Buffett. This was the same secretary that was upheld as a symbol of economic "unfairness" because of the difference in tax rates between her and her employer. The presence of that secretary made it clear that not only was Obama uninterested in the honesty of his presentation, but that he was also unconcerned about a sense of seriousness in his speech. In the end, nothing he proposed in the speech was serious. And very little was honest.

It seemed that every accomplishment the president put forth to bolster his record had a corresponding glaring caveat. He spoke of the growing number of jobs, but failed to mention that many of these were temporary, only pushing through the busy retail seasons and not counting the jobs lost concurrently in other areas. He spoke of a falling unemployment rate, only to fail again to mention that many working people have simply stopped looking for work and are no longer counted. He expounded on the promise of and his support for clean energy jobs, and remained silent on the fact that those clean energy companies are failing not for lack of money but for lack of a competitive product.

His lack of seriousness concerning his record is truly breathtaking, not so much for what he did say as for what he left out. But more breathtaking is the blatant dishonesty of many of his accusations.

He cast banks and lending companies as the villains and the American people as the victims of the 2008 financial crisis, whereas in reality the public has been told by their own government that mortgaged housing is their right, not something to work toward responsibly. The government also shares the blame for its soft mandate to lending companies to loosen credit to those with bad financial records.

This is only one example of his dishonesty. It is evident also where he speaks of the health care overhaul as merely reforming a private sector business. Wrong. The overhaul specifically mandates that the government not only expand its own medical programs to cover some people, but also subsidize low income Americans' medical plans to ensure low cost.

Obama essentially accomplished three things with the speech. The first thing is that he lavishly portrayed himself as the hero of the working class, the savior of the nation, the messiah to a broken country and a broken system. He would have our nation "built to last," (again, failing to explain how the nation has survived for almost two hundred and fifty years without him.)

The second thing is that he permanently pitted himself against the Congress in an unsubtle effort to diminish its check on his power. There are a startling number of solutions he proposes that he plainly states he will accomplish by presidential fiat, as well as smirking about his end run around Congress concerning recess appointments. This is a man clearly interested in a kind of vaguely limited dictatorial power where a "do-nothing Congress" will simply be bypassed whenever it collides with his wishes.

And the third thing the speech accomplished is it gives even more evidence of Obama's unwavering belief that the government is more entitled to a citizen's work and his possessions than the citizen himself is. Obama cannot give up on the idea of a country that guarantees outcomes, rather than the mere opportunity to attempt an outcome. Every solution he proposed comes from government, as if the government actually is the one that creates jobs. To invert a famous saying of Ronald Reagan, Obama sincerely believes that we are a government that happens to have a people, not a people with a government.

Every proposal he put forward in the speech was a new tax burden to pay for yet another federal agency. He spoke about cutting budgets and streamlining departments, but the total effect would be minuscule compared to the enormity of the money problem the government faces. As I contended earlier, the man is not serious.

In the end, it boils down to this: President Obama wants to raise taxes, consolidate his own power, direct and regulate the economy according to his own whims, play the market with taxpayer money, and most importantly of all, get reelected.

As a campaign appeal it was pretty blatant. And, I hope, mixed with some desperation. I would like the president to know one thing above all else, and that is this: someone else might actually be better at the job than he is. He refused to speak of the true nature of the economy last night, because the truth is actually quite bad. I find it hard to be convinced that we have turned a corner, when I am still seeing people being laid off left and right around me and as I watch the unrelenting surge in the price of every consumer good.

Don't yank us around anymore, Mr. Obama. You, in fact, are the problem, not the solution. I don't know who I am voting for come this November, but it will most certainly not be you. When the only solutions you can think of are more of the same bad policies and attitudes, you loudly proclaim yourself a failure.

Whose Democracy?

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

On December 6th, 2011, the Associated Press put out a story about Hillary Clinton's comments concerning the first elections in Egypt after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. The story suggested that the United States leadership considered the elections in Egypt to be fair, especially in juxtaposition to the concurrent Russian parliamentary elections. However, Clinton warned in the story that democracies need to hold as unviolable the human rights of their citizenry, in particular their women, and that certain parties who had won majorities in Egypt were a potential roadblock to the establishment of a just democracy.

While this may look like a well-reasoned response to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Nour, both of which are demonstrably hardcore "Islamists," the reality is that the problems with her statement are manifold. In fact, Clinton's reprimand and warning is not only deceptive and naive, but also almost entirely laughable. Forgive me if it seems like I call anything dealing with the revolution in Egypt laughable; quite frankly, I see nothing to laugh about with anything going on in that country at the moment. I do, however, feel compelled to laugh when I hear something as ridiculous as Mrs. Clinton's statements.

The reasons for my bitter mirth all spring from the same error, and Mrs. Clinton carries the consequences of her error in several different directions and so must my answers tend as well. I will start from the error and move towards its consequences.

The problem with her statement lies in her profound misunderstanding of the term "democracy" which she is so fond of throwing around especially in regards to the Arabs and their so-called "spring." A democracy is, as I have always been taught, direct rule by the people by majority vote, where every single person receives representation by the mere fact of their having one vote to cast and one voice to add to the discussion. (The ancient Greek philosophers characterized a democracy as the least good form of government and the closest kind of society to anarchy, but that discussion is for a different time.)

Now, I say she misunderstands democracy not necessarily because she doesn't understand the definition I gave above. Her misunderstanding is made clear in the assumptions she draws from democratic elections.

The first example of unclear thinking that she offers is that she immediately jumps to talking about the universal rights of man and how democracies and transitions to democracies must respect them, especially the rights of women snd free religious expression. Huh? I fail to find in the definition of a democracy the charge that "all democracies must respect human rights to be true democracies." Ironically, a purely democratic government is not terribly interested in human rights, it is only interested in what the majority of the people want.

This first erroneous assumption leads directly into the second, which is that the majority of people always desire what is good. This is historically provable to be untrue. An angry mob does not usually display sound judgment or moral rectitude in its actions, but hey, the mob's will is the will of the majority of its members.

Mrs. Clinton's second mistake translates very neatly into her third, which is that all democracies must conform to our American revolutionary ideas in order to be just and true. This means in effect that if a democracy emerges overseas in the Arab world and the majority of the people elect a party that is hostile to the United States' policies, that democracy is suddenly null and void.

Her thought process suddenly becomes a ridiculous oxymoron. The Egyptians can have their democracy, as long as the majority of people in said democracy elect to follow policies that conform to American ideas.

The icing on this idiotic cake is the Secretary of State's naive idea that just because the Egyptians desire free and fair elections, that they also desire a state which tolerates other religious groups besides Islam and that women will be treated fairly and justly. This is in fact a fantasy of alarming proportions. Nations governed by Sharia law have historically been at odds with Western ideals, and Egypt is no different. In fact, the elections suggest that Egyptians (at least Egyptian men) desire the establishment of Islamic law as the law of their land judging by the votes they freely and democratically cast.

Hillary Clinton in effect would give America the option of voting for its mores and its way of life, and effectively deny any other democracy the right to do the same. It is peculiar that a staunch feminist and renowned liberal like Mrs. Clinton would show such little tolerance to another, when all that she and her party will preach about is tolerance and fairness.

Henry Ford, the premiere supplier of affordable transportation back in his day, once famously said that you could have his Model T in any color, so long as it was black. The same is true with America's leadership, both the current and the previous administrations. Mrs. Clinton and the rest of us must erase from our minds the idea that freedom and democracy is something we grant to other nations as something that is uniquely American branded and conditional. To persist in such a way of thinking is not only unpatriotic, but is the allowance of a "soft" tyranny of the United States over the rest of the world.

America's Last Just War

U.S.S. West Virginia burns after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

My DVD shelf at home exhibits a wide variety of topics and genres, from romantic comedy to thrillers, and yet if you were to canvass the content of said DVD shelf with respect to how much money was spent on each genre, the war genre would most definitely top the list.

The genre of World War II movies, to be precise.

No, it's not because I'm a sucker for blood and gore (although war and war movies tend to produce prodigious amounts of both), nor is it because I need a patriotic rush every now and then (which seems to be the reason behind the making of Captain America.) I own war movies of that kind both for the stories of greatness and tragedy that they contain, but also to remind myself who we are and why we fight wars, and which ones to not fight.

But thinking on my buying habits concerning movies focusing on World War II, I think I stumbled on something interesting. It seems that my fascination for this particular war is hardly unique. In fact, it exists and persists almost universally in (male) America today. The evidence for this is everywhere, from Stephen Ambrose's many books on the topic, to the endless number of video games that depict various battles of World War II. I live not 30 miles from one of the most beautiful World War II monuments ever built, the D-Day Memorial in Bedford, VA. It is a relatively new construction of staggering emotional complexity and artistry, dedicated shortly after Saving Private Ryan, a film about the D-Day invasion, hit theaters. Saving Private Ryan was quickly followed by a string of World War II films, notable among them being Band of Brothers and The Pacific, as well as Pearl Harbor.

Why the mystique? What makes World War II so especially memorable? A comparable number of soldiers died in battle in World War I, and yet many Americans hardly know the events of the war that set the stage for World War II. Why is that?

I offer here my humble opinion on the subject: I put forward for consideration the idea that World War II is the war of choice for study and dramatization because it holds little to no controversial value in terms of the justice of the Allied cause. In fact, I will go as far as to say that World War II could very well have been America's last great morally justified war.

Consider it for a second: on America's side there was no preemptive strike of any kind, nor did we actively push for war with either Japan or Germany. Those are two very important factors, especially for the perception of a war in hindsight. It takes the greater part of the onus of explanation and justification off the United States.

To bolster that fact even further, let us first look at the Japanese side of the conflict: we were brutally attacked at Pearl harbor with little warning from Japanese leadership, with whom we were in peace negotiations with at the time. In other words, Japan was saying one thing and planning and doing something quite different, attempting to hold us up in peace talks while the Imperial Navy knocked out any and all of America's ability to wage war at sea. The attack on Pearl Harbor thus became a morally ironclad reason to go to war, perceived as such at the time and ever after as well.

The other side of the equation, Nazi Germany, was a somewhat different affair but the ending was the same. Instead of attacking us, however, Adolf Hitler took the next most self-destructive action and simply formally declared war on the United States. Our case would have been a little harder to make otherwise.

Then of course there remains the indisputable evil of Nazism and the horror of the “Final Solution.” Most sane people cannot harbor any remorse they may have had for Hitler's dashed dreams when they see pictures of Dachau and Auschwitz. The skinny limbs and hollow faces of Jewish corpses evoke too strong of a reaction to be forgotten that easily. It was then and remains to this day an evil worth fighting to destroy. In a similar vein, the horror of Japanese occupation and treatment of prisoners lends a powerful moral argument to the righteousness of America's cause.

The fact is that no one seems to look back at World War II and declaim against the involvement of the United States in the conflict. We more look back for a fresh perspective on the war and how it was fought, not necessarily why it was fought. The reason why we fought is culturally accepted in the United States as good.

I think we are in a healthier place now in our view of the Second World War than we were immediately following it. The films of the late forties and fifties generally depict the war as all guts and glory on the Allied side, death as a noble and bloodless thing, and the American fighting man as close to a demigod in the rightness of his cause. We know a bit better now, as the film Saving Private Ryan suggests with its horrifically real portrayal of the assault on Normandy beach. Heroism was involved, yes. However, we now can accept the soldiers who fought in the war as human beings with courage and cowardice.

All in all, it makes a compelling case for the continued fascination with the last epic global conflict. Never again, it seems, would we live in a world that was so patently divided into good and evil and in which the good fought the evil the old-fashioned way.

Our modern world of the 21^st century being so muddied up in its morals, alliances, and pursuits, maybe having such a war to reflect back on does our nation some good.