Letters to the Editor
-
I LOVE THE HATE FILLED LITTLE ARGUMENTS
that home schooling should be outlawed for instance. The better to inculcate everybody with the same feminist mind death plan.
Lots of heads in the sand on this board, I am surprised. I keep wanting to place my eggs into the 'left' basket, and all I find is ignorant people who refuse to face reality, think they can mind meld with people to change them or shame them into silence, and who think their philosophy is the only valid one. I got news, I am centrist because I find lots of valid arguments on both the right and the left.
Anyway. The right does outbreed the left. Conservative families have women willing to be swayed into having more kids. I cannot think of one liberal family with more then 2-3 kids, but I can think of tons of con families with 4-10 kids. Face it, liberal women separated themselves from men's influence, and if given a chance women flee from motherhood like from a plague.
I wish I could say the mightly few lefties will win out against the many cons, but in reality the money follows the cons too.
Lefties are the froth on a sea of conservatism, and always will be. Does that make the lefties invalid? Of course not, it is nice that society can support its poorest and make good in the world, and give people choices in life through democracy, all things the right despises deep down.
But the right has one thing I see more and more missing from the left, a sense of REALITY and a willingness to do what it takes, organize, whatever to get one's way.
I refuse to side with the left more and more partly because of this unwillingness to think rationally, but also because I see the feminists trying to twist the left into an organ of power for their man hating ways. Give us men some repro rights, admit that you femis are supporting lazy women who want to blame men, stop trying to tie men to world problems, men are only protecting ALL OF SOCIETY, MEN AND WOMEN. Men get the be shat on by women. wonderful. I do not need it, my sensitive ego does not need it, nobody needs it. Life is hard enough for most men.
So I remain roughly in the center, looking and hoping the left sees some light beyond its own belly button, and avoiding staring into the more and more noxious and narcissitically selfish power cabal that has taken over the right.
anyway, my blab blab on this topic (for those who think I always say the same thing)
BTQ, very few on the left seem to think for themselves. I do not know if this is recent, but I do not think it is healthy for our future as a society.
-
another priceless letter from brightstar
Brightstar, you're not a centrist, bud. You are, however, extremely misogynistic, and that comes across in almost every letter you submit. I don't know what happened to you to make you hate women so much, but it baffles me that you hang out on Broadsheet all day long, posting letters right and left about how women need to learn their place. Maybe that time would be better spent in therapy, figuring out why you're so angry.
-
"Is Longman on to something?"
Nope. Each generation rejects its parents beliefs, right? So the conservatives are breeding their nemesis!
-
"Is Longman on to something?"
Nope. Each generation rejects its parents' beliefs, right? So the conservatives are breeding their nemesis!
-
conservative ruling class
Can't Salon employ a historian or a political scientist to help Broadsheet with some basic human and political history? People who have power, money, and authority - most of it undeserved and unearned - do not generally give it up with out a fight. Hence a backlash.
The best predictor of birthrate is female education. The leadership elites -male and female - of the GOP are generally well educated, and they tend to have small families. Yes, some "conservatives" have large families; they tend to be working-class or lower-working class, and they are useful idiots for the ruling GOP elites. Just off the top of my head: no children: Elizabeth Dole; Limbaugh; Coulter; Buchanan. Kay Bailey Hutchinson has one adopted child. The Cheneys; the Bushes; Kate O'Beirne; George Allen; and Mary Matalin each have two children. None of these people are breeding like rabbits. They would like for the rest of us to do so.
Mega churches are full of people on their third marriages. (Mega churches may preach the evils of divorce, but if they restricted their membership to the undivorced, their pews would be empty.)
Finally, let us visit Patrick Henry in 25 years. I'll bet you cash money that their divorce rate is as high - if not higher, than their unchurched contemporaries.
-
Don't worry about it.
There are much bigger problems, starting with the fact that there are a lot of people who don't/won't have a dozen children themselves, insisting that everyone else (at least those who are white Americans or Europeans) have as many children as they possibly can - and a lot of these people are in politics or behind the throne.
Natalists aren't a problem, because there is no reason to think that the next generation will subscribe to the same principles. In fact, judging by my own experience as the child of natalists (for such is the proper term for those who think they can/must/will outbreed their rivals and inherit the earth that way) and as longtime member of the "prolife" movement someone who knows many other such natalists, it's an experience likely to turn off the kids in question to having children altogether, certainly not more than a few.
Because the older children (invariably daughters) who "get" to do the looking after of a zillion younger ones get burnt out on it, and can't be tricked into thinking it's going to be all warm fuzzy fulfillment, not if they've been dealing with the diapers and the puke and the *biting* and the insults of younger siblings all their lives.
And the younger ones grow up frustrated at never having anything nice, never getting to go to camp or Disneyworld or do anything like their friends, and being pitied for having secondhand clothes and toys because there isn't any money because "children are more valuable than things", and resolve to make sure that their own kids have a better life, by not having more than they can take care of properly. Not even poor Rick Santorum can maintain a family of 6 comfortably on a mere $160,000 plus benefits per year - how well will the other 90% of Americans manage?
So just as with the waves of immigrants whom nat ivists feared (and still fear) will outbreed "us", coming to Ellis Island with their 14 kids, but who quickly stopped having such large families (even if they were Catholic - the Pill is a very "don't ask, don't tell" thing) and thus the whole of the US is not populated mostly by people whose names end in vowels or start with O', the idea the natalists have that they will have zillions of children who will all go on to remain zealous conservatives and have zillions more children apiece, thus grossly outnumbering everyone else in the community is wishthink. (For one thing, statistically, if you have 10+ children, one of them is almost certain to be gay.)
Worry about the politicians and pundits and priests - and the plutocrats and corporate overlords who have been backing them for the past century - who realize that they need a lot of desperately poor people willing to do any work for any pay and not complain, to be their cannon fodder and technoserfs in order to maintain them in the style to which they have become accustomed. Those are the ones pushing maximum fertility (often playing on old racist phobias) for a goal quite other than the glorification of "Life" and Motherhood (and Apple Pie) that they pretend.
As always, it's "follow the money" and "Cui bono?" in the end. How many kids does David Brooks have, after all? I suspect it's less than six...