That jackass Kristol has no freaking clue what he's talking about. He's the one who needs to read more Kipling -- specifically, Kipling's later work, written after his son was killed in action in the First World War (the boy's body was never recovered). Kipling wasn't so thrilled about the White Man's Burden after it devoured his son.

The Children

THESE were our children who died for our lands: they were dear in our sight.
We have only the memory left of their home-treasured sayings and laughter.
The price of our loss shall be paid to our hands, not another’s hereafter.
Neither the Alien nor Priest shall decide on it. That is our right.
But who shall return us the children ?

At the hour the Barbarian chose to disclose his pretences,
And raged against Man, they engaged, on the breasts that they bared for us,
The first felon-stroke of the sword he had long-time prepared for us—
Their bodies were all our defense while we wrought our defenses.

They bought us anew with their blood, forbearing to blame us,
Those hours which we had not made good when the judgment o'ercame us.
They believed us and perished for it. Our statecraft, our learning
Delivered them bound to the Pit and alive to the burning
Whither they mirthfully hastened as jostling for honour—
Not since her birth has our Earth seen such worth loosed upon her.

Nor was their agony brief, or once only imposed on them.
The wounded, the war-spent, the sick received no exemption
Being cured they returned and endured and achieved our redemption,
Hopeless themselves of relief, till Death, marvelling, closed on them.

That flesh we had nursed from the first in all cleanness was given
To corruption unveiled and assailed by the malice of Heaven—
By the heart-shaking jests of Decay where it lolled on the wires—
To be blanched or gay-painted by fumes—to be cindered by fires—
To be senselessly tossed and retossed in stale mutilation
From crater to crater. For this we shall take expiation.

But who shall return us our children ?

Thanks for the reminder about Quentin Roosevelt. I suspect that if our neocon masters of the universe had lost family members in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd be singing a different tune about dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

Reading histories and literature of the First World War often tends to make people more anti-war. It certainly did in my case.

BTW, one of the reasons why I read up on WWI is that I played wargames set during this period and wanted to find out more about it. Ditto for Kipling -- the British Empire's colonial era has always fascinated me and he exemplifies the mindset that got them into little wars around the globe (including two in Afghanistan).

I seem to remember Ceaucescu decaring that Romanian women had to produce some astronomical number of children. The human fallout from this ill-advised program was ugly. And then there was Nazi Germany and its Aryan breeding program, which was even more disturbing and repugnant. I don't think European countries are eager to replay these scenarios, regardless of how far their birthrates fall.

Economics and social attitudes are going to drive family size. It's useless to exhort people to have more children if they believe they can't afford them or face problems after they have them. Removing employment barriers for working mothers in Europe would go a lot farther to persuade European women to have children than forcibly taking away their birth control or appealing to them to preserve the master race. They could take a page from America's situation, flawed as it is. In America, one's marital and parental status is supposed to be off-limits for job interviews. Nobody posts their marital status prominently on their resume here -- the very idea seems absurd! Childcare is expensive, to be sure, but it's also readily available. There's not a great deal of stigma attached to going back to work when your kids are young, either. Part-time work is an option that many American mothers take, too, which may not be as available in Europe. Lots of mothers start their own home-based businesses, which I believe is much easier here than in many European countries. Generally it seems like American mothers have a wider range of options when it comes to combining work and childrearing.

Men will eventually be reined in, too.

The American chapter of the Taliban has their guns trained on contraceptive access in general, not just emergency contraception. Banning EC is only the beginning; it's the thin edge of the wedge that sets a precedent for removing other forms of contraception and rolling back Griswold vs. Connecticuit (and its concommittant establishment of the right to privacy). They eventually want to eliminate access to all forms of contraception, including contraception used by men.

No man is an island, BS65. Women's loss of contraceptive options directly affects men; haven't we read enough moaning and groaning here about child support and women who "entrap" men with pregnancy to know that? So do not ask for whom the contraception bell tolls; it will eventually toll for you.

Obama had better keep on top of the attacks. John Kerry's response to the Swiftboat distortions of his record was too little, too late.

While I agree that most people who listen to right wing talk radio are not going to vote Democratic, the blast of bloviating bile emanating from the dial is going to poison discourse in general. I am convinced that this is a good chunk of Hillary's problem. Their constant attacks on her over the years have dimmed her reputation and sown doubt among people across the political spectrum.

Obama doesn't carry that kind of baggage so their attacks on him will have to be nastier and sharper. This "Jewish red diaper baby" baloney is just the tip of the iceberg. They'll throw everything at him just to see what sticks.

... to a Filipino wizkid who'll do their job for pennies.