A minor mishap turned bigger than first thought

I'll likely be away from the computer for the next couple of days. I don't completely understand why, but I'm assured that this is indeed a pretty bad injury that requires some special attention from surgeons more capable than we have locally. Mr. Auster has posted at VFR the text of an email I sent to a few internet friends which explains the situation in a bit more detail.

Thanks in advance for your prayers and well wishes. I'll be back to give you an update as soon as possible.

Update, Oct. 23rd:

The docs pinned Sarah's arm back together in surgery early Tuesday morning. She was released from the hospital at noon Wednesday, and was home by 3:00 pm same day. Other than a slight swelling issue that we monitored closely all night Wednesday-Thursday, she appears to be doing exceptionally well. We have an appointment scheduled with the docs this coming Monday, when, if everything is a go, they'll put her arm in a more permanent cast. I'll let you know how that went in another update next week.

Update, Oct. 27:

Everything looked good on X-ray yesterday, and accordingly Sarah got her hard cast put on. Doc says they'll check it out again in three weeks, when, if all looks ok, they'll pull the pins out of her elbow. Ouch.

Read More

Another bludgeoning waiting to happen

What did I say the other day about worthless parent-figures who indulge and actually encourage unacceptable behavior from their children? Something about their bragging about how head-strong or strong-willed (re: undisciplined) their children are, as if to say that (1) this is a quality unique to that particular child (Newsflash: it ain't!), and (2) that being a strong-willed, disrespectful, unruly, assertive smart-mouth is a particularly laudable quality for a five year old to possess. But then of course, if these people thought otherwise they would have nipped that little problem in the bud long before little Grace turned five.

Well, anyway, apparently this sort of thing is so commonplace today that they actually pay people to write columns to the effect, letting all of the other negligent parent-figures off the hook for abrogating their authority and creating ungovernable monsters then turning them loose on a semi-conscious society. Here's a snippit from the article in question:

In the end, it's all for naught. Sooner or later all of us fathers of daughters arrive at the same place: time is fleeting, and our precious little girls are leaving, and too soon, and more than likely on the arm of some scheming longhair who isn't good enough for our angel and doesn't have the sense to know that the bill of a baseball hat goes in the front.

In all actuality this type is very likely perfectly suited to your little angel. You know, the same precious little girl who at five years old had already begun to borrow lines from her mother's playbook:

Like all fathers, I don't want to be left behind, but looking back I realize that Grace had already begun to pull ahead when she was about 5 years old. I was a Mr. Mom back then, and she got mad at me one day because I stepped on her My Little Pony or some other egregious act. She yelled: "Daddy, you're stupid!" I sternly [TM: yeah, I bet] told her that sort of behavior was just not OK and she needed to say she was sorry. She put one hand on her hip, looked me in the eye, and said, "I'm sorry you're stupid."

What?! You didn't realize that little Gracie picked up that attitude towards you from her mother-figure? What planet are you on, man?!

By the way, when's the next big horrorcore rap concert, ummm, dad? Not to worry though. I'm sure you'll sternly inform Miss Gracie that horrorcore rap music is bad, bad, bad. Just before she, hand on flinched hip, looks you square in the eye and informs you that you'll be taking her or she'll find herself another ride. After all, she's sorry you're too stupid to understand that she likes what she likes and that's all the justification she needs for doing it. But your stupidity ain't her problem now is it.

Best of luck to you, sir. You're definitely going to need it.

Read More

Departing rant

We'll be leaving shortly, going out of town for the next several days, during which time I'll be away from the computer. We should be back at home around Tuesday of next week, but nothing's written in stone. It all depends on whether we get everything done in the allotted time frame, which depends on other unknown factors. But anyway...

This whole situation with Emma Niederbrock and her parent-figures bothers me intensely. I can't put out of my mind what pitiful excuses for "parents" Emma's mother and father truly were, right up to the point that they got sixteen year old Emma and themselves bludgeoned to death by a twenty year old crazed lunatic killer wannabe that they did not even know yet brought into the fold like he was some kind of trusted member of the family. But I don't rightly know which is more pitiful -- Emma's parents and their idiotic, head-in-the-clouds attitude towards parenting, or their defenders who say that manipulative teenage girls can be completely uncontrollable.

I know a little bit about this myself. Being the father of three daughters, among which are one teenage daughter and another pre-teen daughter. Not to mention that my home is like teen and pre-teen girl grand central station at times, very often in fact. Not to mention further that I work with teen and pre-teen girls on a regular basis in a coaching capacity. I know all about how they manipulate (or attempt to manipulate), not just their parents but other authority figures in their lives, including yours truly. I know all about it, believe me. What they don't know is how I turn that to my and their and society's advantage.

You can't fool a fooler, as they say.

I discuss the parental ineptitude of Emma Niederbrock's parent-figures a bit in the comment section of this post. In point of fact, not only were they inept parents in spite of all their credentials and achievements, they were inept adults. Which isn't by any means uncommon in today's world, but these people were an exceptional case in point. I'm interested in your thoughts.

P.S. My wife had to listen to this stuff half the night last evening. I thought I'd try to spare her some of it today. But somehow I don't think I've quite got it all out just yet.

Read More

So you DO know who your children are meeting on MySpace

Auster has posted at VFR a follow-up entry on the quadruple "horrorcore" related murder in VA that I wrote about here the other day. Included in the VFR entry is an AP article which helpfully fills in some of the gaps left in the case by previous reports.

Let me simply say that I sit here, having just read the AP story a few moments ago, and I'm quite literally stunned, STUNNED by what I've just read. I've known of some pretty horrible parents in my day, but Emma Niederbrock's parent-figures take the damn cake. Unbelievable!

Mood: Disgusted, Outraged!

(Note: In the other entry I mistakenly wrote that Emma Niederbrock's father was a Baptist minister. He was, in fact, a Presbyterian minister, which I've changed the entry to reflect.)

Read More

It's 2009 -- Do you know who your children are meeting on MySpace?!

Lawrence Auster covers the quadruple homicide in Virginia of a Presbyterian minister, his ex-wife and daughter and the daughter's best friend here, here, and here.

Very disturbing stuff! Make your way around the MySpace community these young, impressionable elois were heavily participating in starting here, MySpace page of murder victim Melanie Wells, where she wrote on Sept. 13:

SFTW was f***in amazing, back in Virginia now, be back in West Virginia on Wednesday. I MISS EVERYONE!!!Mood: havin a blast
Posted at 7:43 PM Sep 13.

If you're a parent at all concerned about your childrens' mental and physical well being, you'll be shocked.

Read More

What an honor!

Look at this entry by The Editrix at her blog. And do not neglect to note the improvement in her blog's header. I love it!

Allow me to publicly thank The Editrix for honoring me this way. I've also thanked her privately with additional information concerning my family reserved for those I count my friends (you know who you are).

Thanks again to The Editrix.

Read More

If Sarah Palin isn't McCain's ticket to the White House, Piper Palin is

I've had a lot of critical things to say about Sarah Palin, mainly in comments over at VFR but at a couple of other places as well, including this blog. But today I had something of an epiphany.

No; I'm not taking any of it back. I think I've been fair to Sarah Palin while expressing certain legitimate concerns and criticisms. But I did have something of a revelation today that I'd like to share.

My revelation is that none of my criticisms or Auster's criticisms, or anyone's criticisms for that matter, are likely to make any difference at this point. Not that we shouldn't continue to criticize her when criticism is called for, but that it's not going to make any difference one way or the other.

When Sarah Palin's absolutely adorable six year old daughter Piper was caught on camera during her mom's speech at the RNC swiping her palm across her tongue for the purpose of laying her brother Trig's hair down, at that point the Palin family won the hearts of average Americans for once and for all. For those that didn't see it live, they heard about it and they've seen it now.

I watched it live and I even got a lump in my throat as I witnessed the scene. But don't tell my wife whose instinctive reaction was to let out a gasp and utter "Oh my God!" Then we both began to laugh joyfully together. This little perfectly innocent gesture of love toward her baby brother, this little non-scripted event involving this little girl acting the role of good little mother, which no amount of noise in the auditorium would turn her undivided attention from, captured our hearts. This was powerful, powerful stuff. The kind of stuff words cannot explain. It just is what it is. That's all.

A few minutes ago I found the You-tube video and watched it again. And this event still elicits very positive emotions in me. I can't help it. And I'm betting a lot of other Americans can't help it either. There's something almost magical about it. The shot starts out on Piper's mom giving her speech. This woman is easy to look at. And it's not just her physical beauty, though she's obviously very pretty, but you can see in her eyes almost a sincerity and goodness, maybe even a degree of naivete or uncorruptedness. But in addition you see her youth, the brightness in her face and her eyes, a very positive and outgoing attitude, and you just sense that Sarah Palin is a good and decent person, albeit one to be reckoned with. Then suddenly, without warning yet very naturally, the shot is on Sarah's youngest daughter Piper caring for her little brother. She's sweet and gentle, but not so cautious with him as to make you feel as though she thinks she's going to break him. You get the feeling this little six year old girl has already been trained very well; that she's a capable motherly caregiver with abilities well beyond her years, and that the Palins are well justified in placing a great deal of confidence in her ability to maintain perfect undivided focus, under virtually all conditions and circumstances, on her task of taking care of Trig. No amount of noise or commotion in the auditorium can divert Piper's attention from the duties at hand. She has a job to do; she can't be distracted by the insignificant goings on around her inside the auditorium. Relative to her job of taking care of Trig, this is all meaninglessness; a bunch of noise and racket that she simply can't be bothered with.

What a powerful testament; what a powerful scene! How could Obama ever touch it? How could he ever come close to touching it? Barack Obama doesn't have the stuff it takes to match this scene, let alone top it, even if he tried.

So as I said in the title to this entry, if Sarah Palin isn't McCain's ticket to the White House, Piper Palin is. But of course, you don't get Sarah without Piper or vice versa, they come as a matching set. With almost sixty days left until the general election and several debates to come, I'd bet my last dollar on it. Not that I'm particularly happy about it, or that I'll vote McCain, but I'll wager a McCain victory with anyone that cares to. And Piper Palin is a big reason why.

Read More

Is childless Marriage beneficial to society?

(Note: In connection with this post, please read Lawrence Auster's entry on the extreme radicalism of homosexual marriage. Scroll down and read Dana W.'s remarks and LA's reply to Dana on no-fault divorce, an issue I thought about adding to this entry but ultimately decided against.)

MARRIAGE, n. The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and a woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.(emphasis mine)

(Definition taken from Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language)

Contrast Webster's definition with an opinion expressed at Savage's blog on the purpose of marriage and why government benefits related to marriage should be strictly tied to having children. (Admittedly, when you start talking about government benefits passed out to folks who meet certain government-established criteria, I start to get a little nervous. As they say, "there ain't nothin' free," so one has to decide whether the rewards outweigh the costs. I think generally they don't when it comes to government favors.)

My parenthetical remarks aside, though, do you think that government benefits related to marriage should be reserved only to those married (husband and wife, male and female, man and woman) couples who have offspring; that government benefits for married couples should be tied to having children? That seems to be the consensus of some at BNWW and elsewhere. John quotes commenter Robert Hume from the Inductivist who writes in favor of this view:

The main purpose of marriage in modern times is as a support system for children. The state grants benefits to married folk in order to help raise children well.

It used to be that all married people had children, so the benefits were not mis-allocated. But now many heterosexual couples do not have children, so they reap benefits to which they are not entitled.

So homosexuals have noted that there were benefits that they could not get that heterosexuals could get … without carrying the responsibility of caring for children.

In this case homosexuals have a good “equal protection” argument.

The solution is to modify the law to tie marriage benefits to having children, not to being married.

The presumption is that society reaps little or no benefits from the institution of marriage except those which are directly related to the having and raising of children, and therefore, since society derives no appreciable benefits from the institution of marriage aside from the production of offspring, and since homosexuals can't have children which are a product of both partners, all government favors related to marriage must be changed to apply strictly to marital reproduction. So you've essentially killed two birds with one stone in Hume's opinion; you've stopped the mis-allocation of government marriage benefits to people who are not entitled to them (childless couples), and you've prevented by the same stroke homosexual marriages.

I simply have to disagree with this. Marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial to society in precisely the ways that Webster lays forth in his definition of the term -- it helps to prevent the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and promotes domestic happiness. So, while I'm not saying that government benefits related to marriage should be equal across the board (unless they're equally zero), I am saying that marriage between men and women is beneficial to society apart from having children. And if society is going to reward people for their particular contribution to the general welfare and encourage its continuance, it ought to reward childless married couples for theirs.

Read More

The case for having a "large" family

The following is simply a reprint from Vanishing American's excellent May 22 entry, Large families?, with a few of my own comments interspersed throughout.

What are the advantages of having a large family? What are the disadvantages? Can a large family be raised on a single income in today's economy? Are people with large families irresponsible, environmentally and otherwise? These are just a few of the questions VA touches on in her post. VA writes:

Caveat: the following is not meant to disparage anybody who has few or no children. I am speaking in generalities and I trust that nobody will take offense at anything I say here.

TM: Likewise. However, if you do take offense to something VA says, and I agree with, I have to tell you that in my opinion, having already encountered it many times before I'm sure, it's likely a personal problem. Each of us has his or her own little quirks that in the grand scheme of things don't amount a hill of beans. Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill, okie dokie.

VA continues:

In the recent discussion, the question of family size and number of children came up. Now, the most common reason we hear for encouraging large families these days, is the Mark Steyn-esque argument that we need to outbreed the Moslems. I think that's one of the least compelling, and the worst reasons, for having large families. First, can we, who are a dwindling number globally, out-reproduce the teeming Third World? Remember we are far outnumbered, and also keep in mind that this teeming Third World is knocking ever more insistently at our doors and windows. Those who are not already in our midst are on their way or planning to be on their way or trying to find out how they can get here, wishing to be somewhere in the 'rich world', as they call it in The Economist. So hoping to outpace the Third World in reproducing is a far-fetched hope.

There are better reasons for having large families, the best being that we love children and want to welcome as many as we can take care of into our already happy lives. And for Christians, we view kids as God's gift to us, and we want to raise them to know and love and serve and give glory to God.

As members of a large extended family called our nation or people, we want to raise our children to carry on the life of that group, and to continue our ways and our heritage into the future. Our children are the future for our particular line, and for our people.

Who should not have a large family, or perhaps any children? Those who don't want children, who are not prepared financially to care for them, or who are in some way not good candidates.

People should not reproduce carelessly and should not have children by accident.

TM: I agree with VA in the first instance. I have no personal interest in trying to "outbreed" the Moslems or anyone else. That we need to, if we need to, is just incidental to any good reasons for having a large family. Raised as I was in a moderately large family, as well as in a community where this was more the rule, than the exception, and having come away from that experience with an outlook more favorable than not to the experience, my wife and I determined early in our marriage that we and a relatively large family were more or less made for each other. This decision between my wife and I was made secretly and independently of anyone else, and as I said, very early on in our marriage.

I only have one disagreement with what VA wrote above worthy of note -- her use of the term "kids." Many moons ago (as my native ancestors might have put it) I was corrected for using the term, and I've never forgotten that invaluable lesson. A very prominent, influential, well respected individual said to me in response to my usage: "sheep have kids, human beings have children." Amen! The words we choose have impact and meaning in ways that simply escape us at times. I can't tell you how many times I've been in discussions with people where I emphasize the word "children" in place of their word "kids", and I notice an almost immediate dignified and reverential tone, which was not there before, come into their speech, and a new light come into their eyes. It's as if they'd never really thought of their children as dignified human beings with independent value, but as just so many dependent offspring (sheep) who happen to have the same bloodline and live in the same pasture. I could say a lot more, but in the interest of keeping this entry within limits, I won't. I would simply say that if you doubt me, try it for yourself next time you're in conversation with someone about their children.

VA continues:

But apart from all this, what are the advantages of big families?

Over the last 30-35 years, we've seen the triumph of the leftist-feminist idea that large families are harmful to women, who are thereby made nothing but domestic slaves to husband and children. Even many 'conservative' women believe this, and say as much. Once, only leftist feminists said and thought such things; now it's considered common wisdom among 'conservatives', sadly.

The other attitude that has won out since the counterculture days is the 'zero population growth' attitude, that somehow people having large families are irresponsible and backward and selfish, while having few or no children is the sure sign of an enlightened, environmentally responsible person.

Somehow, this ethic is never applied to the Third World peoples, whether they are at home in their native countries or whether they are here in our countries, breeding large families, at public expense.

Another argument that has been widely accepted is that couples cannot afford large families because today's world makes childrearing and stay-at-home mothering out of reach of 'average' people. I say this is not as true as we think; it's all a matter of priorities. It's only economically unfeasible for some people because they choose to spend their resources on pricey toys and gadgets, extensive travel, dining, and many other non-essentials while ruling out the 'expensive' family.

This is very much a 'live for today' attitude, which is at odds with conservatism or tradition.

Today we have much higher standards in terms of what we think is an acceptable standard of living. Many think poverty means having only one car, or living in a modest home rather than a McMansion, or shopping at a lower-price retailer (and I don't mean Wal-Mart) rather than having the trendiest, most up-to-date of everything.

In other words, many of us are spoiled and self-indulgent.
Most of us, myself included, could cut out a lot of the frills and nonessentials and thus have more money for the essentials. In this day of rising gas prices, and tightened budgets, we will probably have to cut out the fat.

Where do I start? I can assure you that my wife does not feel, nor has she ever felt, for more than a fleeting moment, like a "domestic slave" to myself and the children. Indeed, this is one of those things that I've run across many many times during our marriage. People automatically assume that my wife would be much happier if she had a career and weren't burdened with the necessity of taking care of six children. I don't know how it is exactly that they come to these conclusions, but I assume that it's mainly driven by the impulse that since they're happier with one or two children and a career, or they think they are (I'm not sure how they know they're happier), then she would be. Little do they know that she wants to have more children, and I do not. Selfish individual that I am, I don't particularly care for the idea of raising children in my senior years. Aside from the biological problems with having children past a certain age, I simply don't think midaged and elderly people are equipped (in any number of ways), on the average, to properly raise children. Simply stated, God has good reasons for limiting our productive childbearing years to a youthful average, and I don't question them. I simply try to understand them to the best of my meager abilities.

As to the "environmentally irresponsible" attitude about having a large family, I'd really rather not discuss it. I'm not out to make any enemies, so I think it's better that I not address it, if you know what I mean. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of people I know who have fewer children than I do use more, a lot more, of the earth's resources, among other things.

VA writes:

But are there real arguments to be made for large families?
I grew up in a fairly large family of five children.

My parents were from large families, of thirteen and eight children, respectively.

Here's what I know from experience and observation about large families:
The children of large families are given more responsibility, usually through necessity, and they have to pull their weight and do their part. This encourages a work ethic and a mature attitude at an earlier age, as well as giving them confidence in what they can do.

They learn the idea of accommodating and getting along with others among a group of siblings.

Kids in a large family are each others' company and entertainment, as well as emotional support. You learn to interact with peers through interacting with your sisters and brothers. Granted, it's not always a bed of roses, but neither is life in the larger world. It teaches you a sense of reality.

"The great advantage of living in a large family is that early lesson of life's essential unfairness."
- Nancy Mitford

Older children in the family act as role models (in positive ways, and sometimes negative ways). Older siblings can sometimes be an inspiration either to do good things, or an example to avoid, by bad example. Having younger siblings helps us learn childcare skills and responsibility, which prepare us to be parents in our turn.

Having many siblings tends to teach us not to be as materialistic, because resources are spread rather thinner in large families, and we learn to have regard for others and their wants and needs as well as our own.

Children in larger families have a less exaggerated sense of their own importance; in a larger family you are not going to be doted upon by your parents or grandparents as much as if you were an only child. You thus attain a sense of perspective about yourself and your value. You don't get the idea that the sun rises and sets on you, in a large family. It isn't all about you. There are other people to be considered, and everybody has to take their turn, and learn to wait.

I've noticed that many 'only children' have more trouble relating to peers, or that they tend to be more idiosyncratic, more inclined to be loners. That can be good or bad, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems rather lonely to be an only child. Friends somewhat take the place of siblings, but friends can and do come and go. They are not always there for life, as siblings usually are.

Now I can hear the arguments that 'brothers and sisters aren't always close; many times they can't get along, and even loathe each other.' That's as may be; no doubt it happens, but I don't see that in really well-functioning, loving families much. I didn't see any of that kind of conflict in my Dad's family; the bond between him and his brothers and sisters, and their loyalty to each other, overrode any squabbles they had, which were few.

Blood is, as the old saying has it, thicker than water. Friends can fall out and part ways forever, (and yes, so can family members) but especially with a large family, even if you are estranged from one or two of your siblings, there are plenty of others there for you. Large families present better odds of having supportive, loyal family members who will stick by you.

The same is true of parents and children. My beloved Grandma, with thirteen children and dozens of grandchildren and who knows how many great-grandchildren never lacked for someone to care for her at the end of her life. She did live a long and healthy and active life, and her health failed only at the very end. She was always surrounded by people who loved her as only family members can love.

Of course we can love those who are not kin. But there is a special kind of accepting, enduring, unconditional love that is found among close kin. We can see it also between loving spouses and among certain very close friends, but the family circle is the main source of such love, and after all, it's within the close family unit that we first learn love, acceptance, cooperation, self-sacrifice, and compassion. We also learn patience, and contrariwise, we learn how to stand up for ourselves, if we have contentious siblings.

The family is a microcosm of the larger world out there. It can prepare us to succeed and prosper, given the right conditions. Even a less-than-ideal family can teach us useful lessons.

And surely having large families, with many caring relatives is better for society, especially when seen from a conservative or traditional perspective. In the future, given the prevalence of small families, there will be many, many older people who will rely on nursing home care, and on the ministrations of strangers and the government to help them as they become infirm.

In past eras, when there were large families, siblings shared in the care of the elders when they could no longer take care of themselves, and there was less need for the old folks to be warehoused in nursing homes as they aged and their health failed. Usually, one of the many children could take in the ailing parent and care for them at home.

From a conservative point of view, smaller families and many childless adults will one day mean many frail elderly having to be cared for by the state and by strangers in the relatively near future. If our ideal is smaller government, and a shrinking of the 'nanny state', small families are counterproductive. The presence of strong (and large) family support systems means far less need for entitlement programs and institutions for the elderly.

Likewise, the leftist-feminist agenda has created a need for more day-care centers and has led to a tendency to put toddlers in 'pre-schools' at earlier ages, in the care of the school system.This contrasts to the customs of the past. When I was a child, most of us did not leave our mothers until age six, when we were required to start first grade. Now, at age six, most children are already veterans of the 'system', and fully acculturated to the public school institution.

So the smaller family tends to mean more isolation, early in life and late in life, with the reliance on the rather impersonal institution rather than the loving bosom of the family.

There are many reasons why the left pushed the idea the desirability of few or no children, and of the 'village' raising our children, as opposed to parents and the extended family having control over their children's upbringing. Overall, the agenda has weakened the family and home and the influence thereof, in favor of the influence of the state and debased popular culture.

And speaking of debased popular culture, has anybody noticed how much our popular culture tends to disparage and ridicule the family unit, especially the traditional family? Many sitcoms and movies tend to portray 'dysfunctional' families with obnoxious, boorish parents and malicious siblings. The family is treated very roughly in our entertainment media. I think this is intentional.

People in a society with mostly small families and a weakened family unit are often people with few close ties, people who are rootless and disconnected and more prone to alienation and anomie. They might be possibly more inclined to find 'surrogate families' in weird places, like cults, or political causes, or perhaps simply to remain permanent adolescents, doing adolescent things into middle age or beyond. We often read the standard excuses made by liberal sociologists and journalists about how fatherless kids, (of whom we have many now) or kids with weak family bonds, join gangs, and find their support system there. We are social animals, and people who lack the most primal connections will either tend to find some substitute, or perhaps just become isolated. There does seem to me to be a larger number of isolated, lonely people in today's America, compared to the past.

On WikiAnswers, someone asked about the advantages and disadvantages of a large family. The only response was this:

"If someone decides to have a large family that's their business, however having a large family you better have a good salary or both parents working as the cost of having a large family today is expensive. With a small family the costs are less."

Is this what it really comes down to, dollars and cents? It isn't possible to count everything in economic terms. Doing so, or even attempting to reduce everything to the naked economic calculations, shows a kind of soullessness that is the unique product of our spiritually impoverished time.

Our parents and grandparents raised families, often large families, in less prosperous times than ours. If they did it, so can those today who want families.

It all comes down to priorities.(emphasis mine)

“He that raises a large family does, indeed, while he lives to observe them, stand a broader mark for sorrow; but then he stands a broader mark for pleasure too.” - Benjamin Franklin

TM: With respect to this last lengthy section of VA's entry, as I said in a comment to the post, "I couldn't agree more with everything she said." My experience, both during my childhood (when we were much poorer and had much much less than my family has now), as well as during my adult years which has been primarily devoted to properly raising a large family (by today's standards), is essentially the same as VA's. Indeed, as people who know me well can attest, I've made the exact same arguments in the exact same terms time and time again. To my mind, and by my experience, it must be much more difficult to raise children right in a small, as opposed to a large family. I'm not saying that a large family necessarily assures that the children will turn out better, just that it must be, and is (I know) more difficult -- it must require a great deal more conscious effort to resist both a personal impulse, as well as the impulse of the extended family (grandparents primarily) to indulge them, to enforce proper discipline, and so on and so forth -- to "raise them in the way they should go" so that "when they are old, they will not soon depart from it."

Once again, I could go on and on and on about the advantages of having a large family, not just to myself and the children, but to society at large. But as VA rightly notes, it's all a matter of priorities. One thing that cannot be denied is that we now live in a debased culture full of self-absorbed, self-indulgent people. And I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of this culture of self-absorption and self-indulgence are the product of small, not large families. Any takers?

Read More

Parents obey your children, for this is right in liberal society

I've bemoaned the fact before that children in America increasingly are being raised with a growing sense of self-worth and filial empowerment, feeling themselves equal, if not superior to their parents and elders. It's an upside down worldview that finds anything good or right or proper in destroying the natural, God-ordained relationship between parent/elder and child. But as I've said before, anytime you begin to try to improve on God's perfect design, you're messing up.

But really, when you think about it, what other outcome might one expect in a society where liberalism is the dominant ideology? Since we're all God's children, and therefore owe due respect and subordinance to him who is our Father in Heaven, and since liberalism, when you boil it all down, is just an extreme form of rebellion against God and His authority over his creation, doesn't it stand to reason that liberal empowerment would result in the empowerment of children over their elders, among other evils?

Poetic justice? In that sense I would have to say yes. But it doesn't mean I revel in it.

Read More

Quality is Superior to Quantity, and the principle applies across the board

(Update: In connection with Hermes's entry, be sure to read the VFR entry on the subject, and particularly Mark J's comments.)

Over at Wise Man's Heart, Hermes has [finally! ;)] put up another great post. I recommend that you go read it, as well as the lengthy comments he's gotten to the post. All of it is good. Some of it is a little more negative than my personal attitude generally will abide, but it's all good, as I said, and well worth the read.

But I'd like to focus my attention on one aspect Hermes brings out in the post, and to ask Hermes (or anyone else who has the answer) one of those politically incorrect questions that many of us seem to shy away from asking...

First of all, let me say that I do admit a little disappointment at going to Hermes's blog and finding that no new entry has been added in awhile. But why? Because of the quality of his posts. In other words, Hermes, I'm learning quickly that the quality of your posts makes it well worth my while to check your blog for new entries on a regular basis.

Now, I have to ask the politically incorrect question. Hermes mentions that he and his fellow medical students were required to take an IQ exam prior to being admitted to medical school. The question is this: Do you know whether the standards with regard to the IQ exam are different concerning "minorities?" For instance, when I was in the Air Force years ago, I learned from two female co-workers (an African American, and a Cuban American) that the grade requirements for acceptance into officer's training school were lower for them than they were for me, based, of course, on their minority status.

This knowledge precipitated a heated exchange between myself and the ladies mentioned wherein the bottom of their argument was that this policy was acceptable because they didn't have the same educational opportunities that I had growing up. My response to this nonsense was simply this: If you think I had more "educational" opportunities than you had growing up, you are sadly mistaken and deluded. Indeed, and as I further argued, what they were saying in actuality was that it was they, not I, who had more educational advantages given them (not earned), and those perceived advantages for them would follow them around for the rest of their lives. But the higher point was that by lowering the standards for entry into officer's training school, this could do nothing but lower the overall quality of the leadership of the U.S. Military, which, of course, results in a sub-par military; at very least a sub-par officer corps.

Now, I don't recall whether the conversation ever got around to discovering whether this disparity in standards (one reason for this is because the conversation got cut short when accusations of bigotry and racism were carelessly cast about concerning another co-worker who was arguing the same points I was, just a little more forcefully, and who was called before the commander who ultimately determined that there would be no more talk of different standards applying to different groups) applied to different groups carried over into the actual grading of achievement once a minority applicant was actually admitted by a lower standard, but it seems to me that to be consistent in the lowering of such standards, that this would have to be the case, or the final outcome.

So once again, the question is this: Do any of you know whether different IQ requirements, and/or, different grading standards are applied within the medical field to applicants and students enjoying "minority" status? Quality in the medical field is superior to quantity of minority applicants accepted. And you can quote me on that.

As I recently explained to my gymnast daughter (who has shown a capacity for making most of the requirements of the next level, albeit somewhat inconsistently at this point), who wants to advance to the next level so badly she can taste it, and has expressed that she hopes her instructors will move her up: "Your instructors don't determine when you advance; you determine when you advance, and don't you ever forget it." The point being this, that irregardless of what she achieves or doesn't achieve in gymnastics or anything else, I don't want her ever thinking her achievements based in anything other than a combination of God-given talents and hard work on her part in developing those talents. I certainly will never encourage such an attitude in any of my children. And those of you that do, or will, should be ashamed of yourselves! And you can quote me on that as well.

Read More

Civil Rights for Minors?

(Note: This post has been expanded to include a couple of items which need to be addressed.)

Lawrence Auster over at VFR has put up an entry involving a discussion that he and I had yesterday concerning a VFR entry from 2006 he had sent me a link to in reply to a message I'd sent him regarding his entry Who and What rules America.

First of all, Note to Mr. Auster: I'm not a sponge! The "brief selection of VFR articles about liberalism" you sent me amounts to, by my calculations, 18 separate articles. It may be a "brief selection" by VFR standards, but it is not a "brief selection" by my standards! lol

Nah, just kidding y'all, I appreciate Auster's willingness to make me aware of, and provide me with the links to these articles. I've actually read several of them now. But to get to the point...


My question to Auster may be summed up in the final sentence of my initial correspondence with him on this topic where I ask:

"On what grounds did this child threaten and ultimately bring this lawsuit against his school?"

Mr. Auster's answer can be summed up in this sentence of his reply to me:

"Once you have turned schools into ideological battle grounds, you have fundamentally distorted them and the situation cannot be made right."

For a fuller understanding of the discussion as it took place, please click on the link to the VFR article, Should minors be allowed to sue their schools, even in a conservative cause?

Thanks to Mr. Auster for indulging me, and taking time to answer my question.

**********

A couple of items I need to address:

First, Auster and I seem to be in complete agreement as to what the only real and lasting solution for the problem here identified is, namely, a return to constitutional government. But this begs for an explanation as to what constitutes, to our minds, constitutional government. If the only real solution is a return to constitutional government, then we need to define in some detail what such a return would ultimately mean, or look like, or involve. I have asked Mr. Auster whether he has ever dealt with this question in a more particular way, and he informs me that he has not dealt with the question beyond the general terms in which he expresses them in his answer to me.

I therefore appeal to Mr. Auster to consider putting his talents to this important task. Some of you already know that my fellow AFBers and I have been working on, and have developed some models of what a return to constitutional government would look like, as well as what we believe the effects would be. Indeed, the whole idea of Balanced Government follows this theme of returning to constitutional government. The authority for the idea, we derive from the founding fathers and their writings on the subject. Particularly, the Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Address, and even Mr. Jefferson has something to say in extreme preference to governmental balance. As to Jefferson's preference to Balanced Government, I'm planning on doing a full post on it later on. As to Washington's, I already have a post up dealing with that, though it is by no means his last word on the subject.

But again, recognizing, as I do, the talents of Mr. Auster, I can see where his exploring of this subject in more detail in an article specifically intended to deal with the subject of a return to constitutional government on that level, might have the potential for some very fruitful and productive dialogue.

Second, in one of my replies to Mr. Auster, posted in the comments to the article, I say that this seems to me to be a case of the unprincipled exception. Auster replies to that statement in bold, saying that he's not sure this is a case of the UE. I did reply to his expression of doubt, wherein I explained how that I had concluded this to be a case of the UE. My reply to Auster's doubt is entered below, and italicized:

By the way, my invoking of the unprincipled exception (which I saw that you had questioned in bold) was/is based on the very principles of the unprincipled exception itself as you've defined them, or as I understand them, which state in part that liberalism does not allow for a direct attack on the principles of liberalism. So we end up dealing with the effect, rather than the cause.

This affects the nature of our conversations and our dealing with the problems of liberalism in a variety of ways, one of which, to my mind, is the customizing of our language and our rhetoric so as not to offend people (conservatives included) who are more or less liberal. This can become excessive, or extreme, and the whole point of our challenge to liberalism can be, and often is, distorted thereby. Thus, the message being distorted, the effect of the message results in minimal gains to the conservative cause.

Auster replies that he expressed doubt because I was expressing it (the UE) in an unfamiliar way. That makes a lot of sense because I've been known to do this kind of thing before in order to save space and time, and it usually ends up being a mass of confusion. For an example of what I mean here, go to the comments section of the AFB post, Why Libertarians have it Wrong, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Read More

Is Worldview the Cure for the 'Disease' We Face?

In the previous post put up yesterday evening I asked you all to look for a post this morning having to do with what I discovered upon reading the entries put up at a few of my favorite blogs while we were away. The implication being, of course, that I was going to concentrate my efforts this morning on saying a few things about the aforementioned blogs and the entries which had been posted during my absence. Well, as these things seem to go for me fairly frequently these days, that has now all changed, though I intend to do another post on that subject later today...

It's no secret that I frequent VA's blog, nor that I hold her in pretty high esteem among bloggers. And it's been on numerous occasions like this one that a post at VA's has sparked some idea for a related post here at Webster's.

Most of you know by now that I have a pretty simple approach to the world and the problems facing it. Usually it all boils down, for me, to a poor religious foundation on an individual level. That leads to a poor foundation at the various group levels. Truly I believe, in direct contradiction to what seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, that the 'whole' of society is exactly equal to, not greater than (or lesser than for that matter), 'the sum of its parts.' Personally I believe this very idea, or concept, is at least indirectly responsible for many of the problems our society faces these days.

If the idea is accepted and acknowledged generally as a truth (and I think it may safely be said that it is), then I know we have a huge problem on our hands that results from that kind of thinking. There may be 'power in numbers,' but no more or less than those numbers add up to. And if you want to discover the character of the nation and this people as a whole, just look to the individuals making the nation up and let that be your answer, disheartening as it may be. At least that's an honest approach which leaves little room for individuals to wriggle themselves out of their ultimate responsibilities.

And that's really the subject I want to get to in this first full post following my recent absence. VA discusses this morning the problems involved with identifying personal issues of 'self-indulgence' as, or equating them with legitimate 'diseases.' She focuses her post on drug and alcohol addiction, and the tendency these days to treat them both as diseases, as opposed to treating them in the old fashioned, or the traditional way as problems associated to the lack of personal restraint and control.

Personally I believe strongly in the admonition of the Bible to 'raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not soon depart from it.' And truly, y'all, can any of us say with a straight face that a majority of American children (little people) these days are raised by their parents, or influenced by our society in that way?

America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster, certainly keyed in on this approach essential to maintaining and perpetuating a largely 'self-governing' society. In his very definition of the term “education,” Webster defines it as “all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and to fit them for usefulness in their future stations. Note Webster's choice of terms here – discipline, correct, form, fit. And I gotta ask, folks, if our methods of 'education' are not “intended” to do all that, then why would we ever think we'd end up with a society comprised of self-governing people? How could we ever honestly believe that our constitution and the principles it was founded on could ever survive?

As I read VA's post the thought kept coming to mind, sentence after sentence, that this is far from what is intended within today's 'educational' establishment. But the primary educators of our children, irregardless of who, or what sphere of government is ultimately chosen to the task of educating them, are their parents and adult family members. But what exactly is happening with today's youth? Why is education, and the primary educational institutions in this country (the home, the church, and the schools) failing our kids? Why does each successive generation seem to exhibit less and less self-governing qualities, and more and more dependency on others, on government, on drugs, on alcohol, you name it?

Is it not that they're being raised this way? Is it not that the disease of liberalism has so infected all of our primary educational institutions that this is just the natural result of their poor raisings? I believe so, and I believe that one indicator of this is the growing tendency for parents to seek a medical cure for problems of the temper exhibited by their children, and for the schools to assist them in doing so.

All too often these days parents are all too willing to identify problems with their children which they seem to believe is related to some 'disorder' possessed of their children in a way unique to other children. I suspect I know at least part of the reason parents are inclined to accept these false notions about their kids. First, it gets the parents off the hook for the bad behavior of their kids, or so the parents believe. Second, the parents derive a lot of self-indulgent pleasure from the sympathies they receive from family members and the general public when they have a child with 'special needs.' Third, if they have a 'special' child with 'special' needs, there are all kinds of financial benefits to be derived therefrom, and so on. But is the problem correctly identified, and is it as widely spread as we're led to believe? I certainly believe that the problem is mis-diagnosed much of the time, if not most of the time.

One thing I've always said regarding my own children, albeit somewhat jokingly, is that “they all had A.D.D. until I beat it out of them.” What I mean by that, obviously, is that they all (every last one of them) showed all the signs of having an 'attention deficit' until it was cured through the methods of instruction and discipline intended to (1) enlighten, (2) correct, (3) form, (4) fit. And if this is not the method for producing self-governing individuals 'fit for usefulness in their future stations,' as self-governing, independent, and productive American adults, then I'm utterly deluded.

The point being, of course, that our tendency these days as parents and guardians to darken the understanding, encourage the practice of bad behavior through non-correction, to allow the manners and habits to be formed outside a guiding moral influence, and to raise children not fit for usefulness in their future stations is all too common, and all too noticeable out in the real world. And if you don't believe it, just make it a point the next time you go to a public place, to watch how much parents indulge their misbehaving children.

But of course these misbehaving children just can't help themselves, can they? They must have some disorder that causes them to behave so badly, whether there's been a term put to it yet or not, and for which there must be some prescription drug available to control it. And if not there will be, right? Pretty convenient excuse for those parents who themselves are very often self-indulgent, drug addicted types, wouldn't you agree?

-DW

Read More

Congratulations Miss Becca!

Just a quick (yet significant) entry to congratulate our very own Miss Becca for having made another advancement in the world of gymnastics. Miss Becca is my ten year old daughter who somehow talked me into letting her take on another activity (tumbling classes) some time back. She's quite an athletic little girl, and quite persuasive too (y'all know what I mean dads).

My brothers over at the AFB have been kept up to date with Miss Becca's rapid gymnastics advancements over the last year or so. What they don't know about is that due to my good friend's lengthy hospitalization (about four months), and the necessity of our seeing to his care during this time, we made the decision to temporarily suspend Miss Becca's gymnastics pursuits for the higher purpose. We didn't know, of course, that our friends' serious illness and hospital stay was going to last so long, but we finally determined to suspend Miss Becca's gymnastics puruits indefinately, until all was resolved with our friend.

I can happily report that our friend is indeed out of the hospital and doing much better now. Once he was finally released and everything looked like it was going to be ok, my wife and I started to plan for when we'd enroll Miss Becca back in gymnastics classes. It was decided between us that the fall session would be the date to shoot for. And it just so happens that the fall session is now beginning.

Also, we've been looking for a closer gymnastics academy than the one she's been attending, given that that one is 90 miles away. We found one closer to home that, though it hasn't the reputation throughout the USAG gymnastics world that the other one does, nonetheless has a fine reputation in this State for producing very good gymnasts. So we decided to give it a try.

Tonight was Miss Becca's tryout at the new place, and I'm happy to inform you that she did exceptionally well, despite about a six month layoff, and was acutally advanced to the next level of competitive gymnastics.

Nice show, Becca! USAG, here we come!

-DW

Read More

What About Immigration Congressman???

Below is a letter I received in the mail from my state Representative yesterday. In the letter you'll note how 'proud' my representative is of his social 'achievements' during his tenure in office. But as he says, there's a lot more work to be done. So without further ado...

Dear District 17 Friend:

I hope this letter finds you well. As you may know, our state Legislature faces many tough decisions as we weigh priorities on a daily basis. As your State Representative, I am proud to represent you and work for a better Oklahoma. Our annual Legislative session ended in May, and I am now back in the District listening to your concerns for our State.

While in Oklahoma City this session, I was able to help negotiate and pass:

• The “All Kids Act,” increasing Medicaid eligibility for children from 185% of the poverty level to 300% while also providing coverage to families of four making up to $62,000 annually. This legislation will result in as many as 42,000 additional Oklahoma children being covered by health insurance.

• Legislation expanding student access to a quality college education as well as providing a permanent funding source for OHLAP. OHLAP allows students whose family makes under a certain income and meet certain educational and public service requirements, to have their tuition paid by the state.

I also helped to defeat legislation that would have given tax exemptions to oil companies. Those proposed exemptions would have resulted in a deficit in funding for the county government and local school districts and an increase in property taxes.

While I am proud of our many successes achieved during the past legislative session, I know my work is not finished. There are several initiatives I plan to address next year. As your State Representative, I will continue to fight for:

• Protection of our water resources from out-of-state interests.

• Safer communities for Oklahoma children.

• Increased funding for roads and bridges.

• Responsible government and ethics reform.

It is an honor and a privilege to serve you in the House of Representatives. I will continue to put aside partisan politics to do what is right for all Oklahomans as I work to find solutions to everyday concerns. Even though I am back at home in the District until the Legislature reconvenes in February, you can still contact me through my Capitol office by calling the toll free number...

Sincerely,...

Well, I certainly intend to give his office a call. I should like to know why there's no mention of the accomplishments of the body of which he is a member regarding the immigration situation as it now stands in my State. This is one of my chiefest concerns, nay, it is my chiefest concern. And though the Legislature has dealt with the situation legislatively, one of my concerns is that there's a battle about to ensue in the courts over this legislation. It seems to me that the immigration situation in this State is and should be priority numero uno for our representatives in the State Legislature, and until this State successfully and without question ameliorates this crisis. Our State's courts are likely to be clogged with suits filed on behalf of immigrants, legal and illegal, in this State, leaving Oklahoma citizens seeking justice out in the cold. Beyond that, every point that my representative makes about what his priorities are and have been in that body have something to do with the immigration situation as it now stands in the State of Oklahoma.

So, I ask you again, Sir, how is it that you're working to solve that problem at the root of these other things you're so proud of achieving? If you're not dealing with that crisis first and foremost, then you're not representing my interests, nor the interests of Oklahomans.

-DW

Read More

We Interrupt this Broadcast to Bring You a Special Story

So I rise early this morning to get back to work on my commitments here at Webster's, but before I start I make a couple of my usual rounds, and wouldn't you know it, I run into this posting over at VA's: 'Too many People'

I'm going to attempt to make this fairly short and sweet. VA does a fine job of saying most of what I should like to say anyhow, and more...

In some ways it reminds me of a debate I had some months back with a liberal gal about 'mountain climbers,' and whether or not they contribute to society. And BTW, if you're debating a thoroughly indoctrinated liberal person, you're not going to convince them, so from my view that shouldn't be your purpose anyhow. Your purpose should be, as I've learned, to refute their arguments for the sake of the wider audience.

But getting back to the point, this person was arguing that mountain climbers, and those who engage in activities she later generalized as “high risk sports” or something like that, do not contribute to society and should be forced to contribute to society through differing means like training in mountain climbing techniques which would be taxed heavily, fees paid to climb a given mountain which would go to fund rescue efforts and so forth. This particular individual had a bone to pick with most anyone who engaged in 'amateur' pursuits of any kind, insisting that anything that was deemed to be 'risky' should come with the requirement of the enthusiast to become a 'professional' before ever being allowed to pursue such a thing. And who, pray tell, did she think should determine what is 'risky,' and what not? Well of course, the government. Typical liberal.

My argument against this point, of course, was that there are any number of 'high risk' activities out there that the government needn't bother itself with - “Aren't you liberals ever satisfied; haven't you saddled the government with enough activities it's not equipped to deal with? And of course there was a lot of passion from the other side about how poor old grandma would be turned away in her moment of need due to the fact that 'high risk sports enthusiasts' had overwhelmed the rescue services financially and in the availability of manpower. Liberals always pull grandma out of their hip pockets when they need her most. But enough on that.

VA's post deals with the Duggar family in Arkansas, and some of the “ignorant of the facts” vitriol which has been leveled against them. They don't live but a stone's throw away from yours truly, in a manner of speaking. And I should like to take the family to visit them sometime. The Duggars, if you haven't heard of them, have seventeen children. That's right, 17. They have a huge home, as you might imagine, but something that some of you may not be aware of is that they built that home with their own hands. I remember watching a documentary about the family during the time that they were still building this home, and one of the older male children said something on camera that struck a chord with me, he said, and I paraphrase:

“Dad said “I think we can pour the foundation.” And I said that I thought we oughta hire a professional to do it. But Dad thought we could do it, so we did it. Later, Dad said he thought we could frame the walls. I said I thought we might should consider hiring a professional framing contractor to do the work for us. But Dad thought we could do it, so we did. Then it came to putting the roof up and drying the house in. Dad thought we could do it, I thought...well, we did that too...

Interestingly enough, the home they built had very little work done on it from outside the family. Yep; truly this family, The Duggars, built the home they now live in with their own hands. Quite an accomplishment in my books, for someone whose profession is not 'construction.'

All that one needs do is to click on the profile of yours truly to find that I have six children, which, even in this neck of the woods is considered to be a lot, too many by most standards. I know this because I listen to the gasps that always attend my first sharing of the fact that I have 'so many.' Lot's of times people want to know how many different mothers these children have, automatically assuming that there must be more than one. Usually they seem pleasantly surprised when I inform them that they all have one mother and one father.

But as I shared over at VA's in a comment to her post, I can't even begin to count the times that people have gone plumb out of their way to strike up a conversation with us in some public place, announcing that “these are the best behaved children I have ever seen.” They are shocked, shocked I tell ya, that six siblings consisting of three boys and three girls, and ranging in age from two to nineteen years (the nineteen year old is out of the house now, making his own way) can behave and get along together so very well. I suppose there's something to be said for the ideas and negative predispositions people generally have about 'large' families. Heck, I even complain myself about the fact that “I have enough mouths to feed, I don't need, and shouldn't be taxed to feed everyone else's offspring, nor their aged.” To me, government coerced taxation aimed at 'social programs,' like welfare, food stamps, WIC, State funded health and dental care, and etc., is the same as taking food out of the mouths of my children. Of course, I'm totally against the dependency that such programs create, not to mention the undue attachment to 'government' that they create as well.

But before y'all go assuming anything about large families, barking out blatantly stupid comments about how that you're going to have to feed and shelter these offspring of these 'oversexed' parents, you might want to do a little research. As I noted over at VA's, some folks need to pay more attention to that old adage which states: “To assume anything, makes an Ass outta u and me.”

Nonetheless, though, I ain't real sure about this, but I think my wife may have an eye on a couple or three of the Duggar boys, and a couple or three of the Duggar girls, for some odd reason. And y'know, there's a ratio advantage in our favor there...lol

-DW

Read More

Something Worth Sharing

You'll recall that I expressed a desire to be back at it after returning home Thursday night if all went as planned. Well, all didn't go quite as planned, which was as much my own fault as the fault of anything else.

We finally got back home yesterday at around noon or so. I got on the computer and made a couple of quick rounds, after which I started to work on a couple of items that I'd promised to get to this weekend...

But here I wish to share with you what ultimately delayed our return home by at least sixteen hours or so. Our original designs were successfully completed within the original allotted time frame, so we should have been home on schedule had I not decided to extend one entertainment portion of the trip.

One of my purposes, besides the pressing issue I told y'all about, was to take the kids fishing that evening – something that we haven't done as a family in quite a few months, and that's not like us. As it turned out, we were having so much success (and fun) catching fish that we decided to stay longer than we'd originally planned to. To give you some idea of how many fish we caught, not to mention the ones that 'got away,' I spent two solid hours cleaning them after dark, and I'm no novice at filleting fish.

By the time I finished cleaning fish, a measure of fatigue had crept up on me. That coupled with the fact that the kids were eager to spend the night at the other place finally convinced me that we should wait till the next day to make the drive home. The kids would have preferred that we'd stayed for the entire weekend as they were really wanting to do some more fishing and four-wheeler riding. But I told them we'd do it another time since I had work to do at home.

But anyway, we had a good time fishing even though we lost probably twenty or thirty dollars worth of new fishing lures. Even ol' Sam (my 2 year old) caught a fish all by himself. And come to think of it not one of us got skunked this time around.

-DW

Read More

Custer's Rout of the Indians at the Battle of Little Bighorn?

Over at John Savage's blog under this title there is a discussion in the comments section about Americans not knowing well their own genealogy. I agree with both John, and VA that this is most probably and widely the case among Americans, including myself which I'm somewhat embarrassed by as well as ashamed of.

Here's a personal story in this vein that you might find interesting, perhaps even one to which some of you can in some way relate...

When I was about six or seven years old is the farthest recollection I have of Dad making me aware of my native American heritage. This is kind of a funny story and I recall it often attaching a lot of humor to it, though I think there are some serious aspects to it as well.

At that time some of you may recall that capitalist American toy manufacturers and retailers had seized upon what I suppose must have been a good deal of interest amongst the American population in the history of Custer's last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

My recollection of this phase of Americans becoming interested in some of their post-civil-war history is best explained I think in the fact that Mom had purchased for me an action figure of Col. Custer himself, along with his horse and other bells and whistles. My best recollection is that it wasn't long thereafter that Dad brought me a counterpart to this action figure – either “Crazy Horse,” or “Sitting Bull,” most probably. Dad of course had an ulterior motive for providing me with the toy, and one in direct opposition, not necessarily to Mom's motive (I highly doubt that Mom had one to begin with other than just providing me with something I wanted most likely), but to her specific gift which I had probably requested.

Despite the true history of the Battle of Little Bighorn, my childhood replays of the battle always had Custer's regiment triumphant over the Indians. That's the way I wanted it to be, and since they were my toys I could play it out however I wanted to, or so I thought...

I remember one day while Col. Custer and company were thoroughly routing their Indian nemeses, Dad stopped me in the midst of my fun and began to explain to me that 'that's not the way it happened at all.' He further went on to ask me why it was that I preferred the Custer doll over that of the Indian he had provided me? This question of Dad's was prompted by the fact that I generally took very good care of the Custer doll and his horse. The Indian companion piece Dad had provided me was not so fortunate as that, however. I didn't have a very good answer, and it was really kind of a confusing question for me, in retrospect.

Looking back on it now, I would assume that my mind had been impressed with these ideas through different forms of media, as well as from the warring factions between my parents on this issue. I can't explain exactly why Dad's preference in this regard did not take well with me. I always thought of my Dad as being something of a 'larger than life' figure, and virtually everything he told me I took to be absolute and unadulterated truth. But in this particular an exception to that rule was very obviously noticeable, and Dad of course picked up on it and began to try to counter it with some extensive educational efforts on his part.

After Dad had that initial talk with me I remember trying to play the battle out to more conduce to the way that he had explained to me that it actually happened. But after having done so a couple of times I reverted back to my own preference for how the battle should have gone in direct contradiction to what Dad had told me. And I was in no way in the habit of contradicting my dad, nor had I any desire to disappoint him; quite the contrary. But in this case my personal preference proved to be just too strong to overcome. Of course, I was careful from there on out to have the Indians winning whenever Dad was around. And Dad and I entered upon a game of pretended preferences for several years thereafter.

I think the point of this story, besides my attempting to provide you with a good chuckle, is that even to this very day I have a strong bias in favor of my European heritage and over that of what little Indian blood I actually have running through my veins. As a matter of putting our history back in what I would consider its proper context, I think there's a largely neglected need for individuals like myself to express their true preferences, not succumbing to the pc pressure of always esteeming the poor, hapless Indians as having been manipulated, raped, pillaged, murdered and robbed at the hands of the true savages - the 'white devil invaders.'

I tend more to view 'ownership' in the way that Locke explained it, which is to say that the earth was given to man in common, but to establish a true ownership of anything thereof, one must invest that which may be reduced to his and his alone – his labor. Personally I have a hard time accepting the idea that occupation in and of itself establishes ownership in any 'American' sense of the word. I mean, I could go set up camp on a given piece of property, but the great likelihood is that the owners thereof – those who have invested their labor in the acquisition of that property – when they find me out, are going to do whatever is necessary to have me removed, as well they should.

I need a better explanation than 'the Indians occupied this land first' to convince me that they had established ownership of it entirely to the exclusion of anyone else. I don't deny that the Indians were wronged in some respects, but nor do I unquestionably accept the apparent conventional wisdom that the white devils wronged them in all respects, and that we're now occupiers of a land ill-gained. That to me is just a bunch of emotionally based hogwash, the logical conclusion of which makes me ill to stomach, to be frank.

In any event, Dad and I still have these conversations from time to time. He's not as apt as he used to be to try to convince me against my preferences and against my better judgment, but he still sticks largely to his guns on this issue. I suppose this issue will always be a point of contention between us, given that neither of us is likely to change his mind anytime soon. But for those of you who tend to take Dad's side on this question, and particularly those of you having also an attachment to the Christian faith, I would respectfully remind you, as I have Dad on occasion, that our Lord and our God must be extremely offended by an abject denial of that heritage of ours which actually resulted in 'securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves.'

These ideas of God, man, and government are traceable back to our European roots, not to the original occupiers of this land of ours. These ideas are most probably responsible for 'securing the blessings of liberty' on an individual and a collective level to the most people and generations history has heretofore ever recorded. Our European heritage is directly responsible for the blessings we enjoy, yet so easily dismiss today as a matter of luck. And as we ride upon the backs of our forefathers and mothers, we tend at the same time to dishonor them in denying that vital part of our unique heritage.

Lord forgive us, for we know not what we do.

-DW

Read More

Entertainment Media - A 'Carnival' Atmosphere

I hope and trust y'all will not mind my going in something of a different direction temporarily until I get myself caught up on what's been happening on the blogosphere (or my chosen corner of it - btw, it's ok to refer to a given section of a 'sphere' as a 'corner', just think of it in Biblical terms and we'll be alright) during my four or five day absence. At the moment of the writing of these words I've now been online for about two hours reading a few entries from other blogs (Vanishing American in particular) and I find myself rather struck by how quickly information is disseminated across this medium.

Much in contrast to the soap opera style 'news' and 'information' shows on today's mass media outlets where one may return after a long stint away and generally take up right where he/she left off weeks, months, or even years before, my chosen corner of the 'blogosphere' is a different baby altogether, as y'all well know. And this entry will be dedicated to speaking to that topic...

Over at VA's is posted a Monday entry on this very topic: Fluff and nonsense. VA notes in the post that though there is certainly an element of demand for what is termed 'cotton candy news,' in spite of that she also encounters, as I do, a lot of people of different walks, educational backgrounds and so forth, who generally despise this kind of 'news.' This causes her to question on some level why it is that the MSM engages itself in this kind of insignificant news coverage.

Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the education and experiences of the media people themselves. In short, it's what they know, all they know, and all they've ever known. And when there's a shortage, or a perceived shortage of 'newsworthy' stories to cover, these media outlets invariably revert back to what they know and understand best - entertainment.

Of course VA is discussing in the post a general problem across the MSM, but she does mention two specific examples - Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton - of the MSM's incessantly engaging itself in this kind of 'news coverage,' and she wonders on some level why this is. I think the 'cotton candy' euphemism is an appropriate one, and if we take thought to where it oughta lead us, it strikes up a pretty fitting analogy as well I should think.

We've often heard today's 'news' and news coverage referred to as a circus. But a carnival or a fair might be a better way of describing it in some instances. There is an atmosphere as well there should be at these carnivals of fun and entertainment. We associate certain ideas with certain things, and the carnival atmosphere is meant to be one of fun and entertainment. But why is it that news coverage seems to be increasingly more 'entertainment' oriented at the expense of the dissemination of knowledge of the useful kind?

I've said this before but I'll repeat it here. I think this is a more pervasive 'trend' than many of us realize. It seems to me to touch virtually everything; this 'entertainment' style of the sharing of information and knowledge. Those of us who complain about it are simply not interested in those kinds of 'facts,' or that kind of 'news' because we see it for what it is - irrelevant to real news and current events.

Now, I'll say here that I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is from Adam. I do know who Paris Hilton is because I've heard her name mentioned countless times. But beyond her being the heiress to the Hilton hotel dynasty (or whatever it is) and the fact that she was recently jailed for some kind of personal misdeed, I know very little of her as well, and that's the way I'd prefer to keep it so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to educate me on this point. lol But my main point here is that I for one am apt to know a lot more about some relatively obscure character in American history, what they did and didn't do, and so on, than I'll ever likely know about Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton despite the MSM's incessant coverage of these irrelevant types.

And what I mean to say here is that I'm not nearly as comfortable in the carnival atmosphere as I used to be. That kind of 'fun and entertainment' is to me reserved for special and limited occasions. While I'm there and while I'm purposely seeking entertainment and pleasure I'm also willing to pay exorbitant prices for cotton candy and candied apples, and etc., as well as to pay twenty or thirty dollars for a fifty cent toy in a 'game of chance' where the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the carnival and against the individual player. I'm willing to do this because I seek entertainment in that instance, but that instance is very short-lived.

The same principle applies I think to the media and the kind of news it generates nowadays. I only wish to be 'entertained' occasionally, and it's on those limited occasions that I'm willing to pay the exorbitant rates that go with that entertainment. This probably explains why I don't particularly care for cable news. Occasionally I'll turn it on when I get the hankering to be entertained. But having been thoroughly entertained over the course of a couple of hours or so, then I'm generally good for weeks or even months.

I suppose, on the other hand, that this form of media (the blogosphere) might be said to be a form of 'entertainment' itself. And that some of us just prefer this kind of entertainment to that which the MSM engages itself in providing. In this case the MSM has its audience and participants, and the blogosphere has its audience and participants, and both have their games and sideshows that draw and captivate the attention of the attendees and observers. And in this case it all depends on what interests the individual attendee; does he prefer to shoot darts at a wall full of balloons at a dollar a dart, or had he rather shoot a basketball into undersized hoops, or to toss rings onto bottle necks, or whatever?

VA devotes most of her thoughts on this to the idea that the 'educational' establishment has more or less contributed to the desire among many to be entertained in this manner and in this kind of a 'carnival' atmosphere. People are generally going from game to game, bag of cotton candy in hand, seeking to be entertained at the expense of seeking out and desiring useful knowledge. And I think that this all begins at home where parents, seeking entertainment and fun themselves above all, and working a significant number of hours (for those who actually do still count it their duty to provide for their own entertainment) to satisfy their desire to be entertained, pass this on to their children who grow up in a home atmosphere where self-indulgence is paramount to everything else. Then they attend schools and churches where this self-indulging entertainment values system is promoted and encouraged as well.

But I would make a great distinction between the two forms of 'entertainment' if in fact both may be described on some level as such. True, I'm entertained by what goes on in this corner of the blogosphere much more that what goes on throughout the MSM. But I'm not simply entertained by this, nor is it simply entertainment that I seek in frequenting it. No; what I seek overall is to absorb and to disseminate useful knowledge. And this more or less determines what blogs I find to be interesting, and what blogs I find to be less than interesting. Generally speaking, if the contents amount to little more than an extension of what the MSM is providing, then your blog isn't going to interest me much. I can be entertained that way through that source if that's what I seek. But if that's the kind of 'entertainment' your blog is intended to provide, you're going to have a hard time competing with the 'big boys.'

In any event the question still remains, why is it that the MSM engages in this kind of 'entertainment news' so frequently? And as I said before, I think part of the reason lies in the fact that this is all they know; this is the kind of 'news' that the MSM and most the folks involved have been used to providing for decades now, and it's just natural that they'd revert to it very frequently when they feel there is a shortage of 'newsworthy' stories out there to report on. It's also notable that to the MSM that which is considered 'newsworthy' would be determined by their predispositions about the value of a given piece of news. While I may question the value of reporting incessantly on the personal misdeeds of one Miss Lindsay Lohan, who is just a name to me, I think that the MSM folks may well believe that their interest in Lindsay Lohan translates to our interest in her. If they think it newsworthy to report on her life, then we must think it newsworthy as well, right? Wrong!

I could give a hoot about what Lindsay Lohan is doing these days, whoever she might be. But if you wish to discuss with me the goings on with folks who have an impact on all of our lives to some extent or the other, then I'm likely to be more attentive.

But since I have a very short day ahead of me today, as far as my work goes, I'll be back in a couple of hours to post a couple more items as well as to continue to play some more catch-up on the blogosphere. Until then, y'all be good and keep on entertaining yourselves with useful information and knowledge.

-DW

Read More

Traditionalism and Worldview

Often I wonder whether 'worldview' gets its due consideration when we discuss the ways and means of correcting and rectifying some of our most egregious mistakes over the last, say, 140 years. I would even go further back in time, but to date it back to the 'constitutional' overthrow of some of our more vital foundational constitutional principles seems to me a good place to look.

As I make my way around the 'traditionalist' blogosphere I often note what seems to me a tendency to long for days-gone-by that really weren't that long ago, and may not have been as good as they could have been, or as good as we perceive them to have been; or as 'traditional' as we think them to have been. Often these longings are for times which fall within the span of our own lifetimes, which is natural I suppose, given that we're most acquainted with, and attached to that which we've actually witnessed and experienced and feel a personal connection with. And I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone.

Indeed, I can remember when I was still in H.S., and even in grade-school -not so awful long ago- and I often fondly reflect upon those times as something of an 'age of innocence.' Much of that reflection has to do with the relative innocence of my mind at that age, of course, and the way that this youthful innocence of mine perceived the world around me. Much of it has to do with the environment I was raised in as well - a good, moral family and community structure with much emphasis placed on being good and doing good, as opposed to the self-indulgence and the materialism that seems to rule now. I was also raised in 'small-town-rural-America,' and that in itself had a profound impact on the way I viewed the world around me, as well as the way I remember that time, not so long ago...

During the early part of the 1990's I was serving in the U.S. Air Force, stationed at Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, AK. At that time there was a nation-wide effort underway among the homosexual community to have the words 'sexual orientation' entered into all the 'non-discrimination' laws of local governments, and Anchorage was one of the cities wherein this push was happening in full force. I remember it well because as a completely committed member of the opposition to this movement, I counted it my duty to brave sub-zero temperatures and adverse weather conditions to make sure I had done all I could possibly do to stop the progress of these measures. In the end, as I've related before at the AFB, these initiatives passed, but the very next election cycle literally every member who had voted for them was summarily removed from his/her seat and replaced by new members who repealed those laws. Those were the 'good ol' days.'

That battle was won, but the larger war is ongoing and we traditionalists have incurred some significant losses along the way. I look back on those days, as well as the days of my childhood and think to myself how wonderful those times were given that abjectly immoral behaviorisms were not only not encouraged, but they were put down by an overwhelming display of moral rectitude from the vast majority of Americans when the time came. One of the faults we seem to have, though, is that the 'goodness' in us seems to supercede our instinct to survival once a movement like that is perceived to have been effectively put down. And in the end, rather than to go that 'extra mile' making certain that these things will not arise again anytime soon, we tend rather to have sympathy for those we've defeated, and to even help them back up. I often think of it in terms of a fist-fight wherein having neutralized your opponent's ability to cause you harm at that moment, conscience (or something) convinces you to let the poor soul up; often even to help him up, brush him off, and send him on his way. And I cannot help but to think that often this is a huge mistake. And yes, I've had the misfortune of having to do it all over again.

We look back with fondness to yesteryear because relative to today it was a fine, one might say even an 'innocent' time. Yesteryear was a time when we seemed to have possessed more grit, more determination, more goodness, more everything that may be said to be good and wholesome, and 'American,' and of course, less of everything else. The America of yesteryear would not have allowed the moral degeneration and degradation we see today to have occured. No; it would have put it down thoroughly, convincing the licentious movement that it had better not come back for more if it knew what was good for it. And there is a great deal of truth to that.

However, when we traditionalists long for days-gone-by we should not fail to recognize that those times and those generations we generally laud as better than ours are partly responsible for what we're experiencing today. I have always thought of the 'greatest generation' label put to the WWII generation as extremely misplaced. It was this generation, was it not, that effectively brought in 'social security,' and the 'welfare state?' I don't concern myself with whether their intentions were 'noble' in this cause; the effects are what they are, and in my opinion they speak poorly of themselves. And certainly there must have been those 'traditionalists' who were absolutely opposed to these measures, longing themselves for 'days-gone-by' when Americans were more self-reliant, and when they had rather starve than to take a government handout.

In another time traditionalists rose up and vehemently opposed the proposal and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and the 15th amendments following the war between the States, warning that the effect would be detrimental to all this nation was founded on. And it was traditionalists who shouted in opposition to the introduction of progressive education in America, raising cautions themselves against the probable and long-term effects this 'new deal' would have on this country, her laws and institutions, and on the minds and hearts of her people.

Nevertheless, here we are in the year of our Lord, 2007, and of our nation's 'independency' the 231st, and progressive government education of our impressionable youth, once just a fancy of some obscure group of liberal minded nobodys, is now just an accepted norm with majority America. Indeed, I would venture an 'educated' guess that in stark contrast to this once 'unAmerican' style and methodological approach to education in this country, the American psyche has now been thoroughly indoctrinated to the supposed 'superiority' of this thoroughly liberal educational philosophy. But this is not enough, the march must go forward say the liberals. Indeed it does, for how many of us have witnessed the disgusting rise of government funded 'early childhood development centers' across the fruited plain?; and even in small-town-USA, accompanied by the happy consent of the parents and grandparents of these helpless two and three year old unformed and uncultivated minds.

It's a tragic set of cause-effect events which have happened in our nation over the last 160 years or more. Traditionalists have been there all along like 'voices crying in the wilderness': "repent, repent!," but to no avail. The most that traditionalism has been able to do, it seems to me, is to slow the progress enough to avoid all-out armed conflict between the warring factions...most of the time. But the march of progressivism; of liberalism, and of abject moral and cultural degradation seems to have moved forward pretty well unimpeded to this point. We find ourselves in a nation, as well as influenced by its socialist tendencies, that our founding generation simply would not have recognized in any meaningful way. And it seems we must ask ourselves how much further we may stray before we reach the point of 'critical mass'?

The 'worldview' of our founding generation -that which is responsible for the creation of this nation in its pure form- was much, much different than is ours. Today worldview seems to get little direct notice even among 'traditionalists.' At least that worldview of the nation's original creators gets little direct attention. Often it seems that the worldview of the generation of my grandparents is equated with that of the founding father generation. But is this true? Is this consistent with the facts? We may say with little reservation that the worldview of my grandparents' generation was certainly closer to that of the founders' worldview than is ours. But still it can be shown that there was already a wide gulf between the two. And in fact, were the founders capable of transcending time and observing the two, they would probably recognize little in either largely consistent with their own. Just as we look back to those days of our youths with such a longing that 'if only things were that good today,' and so we should since it is the 'good' of those days we so long after, we should as well look past those days to the days before them, and the days before them, and so on until we arrive at the time when the pureness of this nation, of its laws and institutions; of the very worldview of its people reigned supreme.

In the year of our Lord, 1833, and of this nation's 'independency,' the 57th, "America's Schoolmaster," the honorable and learned Noah Webster, published these words in the preface of his work: "History of the United States":

The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of Republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct Republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the New Testament or the Christian Religion.

Later in this little volume Webster makes these equally remarkable assertions:

Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian Religion. Men began to understand their natural rights as soon as the reformation from Popery began to dawn in the sixteenth century; and civil liberty has been gradually advancing and improving as genuine Christianity has prevailed....the religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government...

Certainly we must look to our government as well as our churches and note a marked movement away from orthodoxy in both. We may look back twenty, thirty, even to fifty years ago and wish that our churches were now as uncorrupted as they were then. But do we not recognize that 'uncorruptedness,' that 'pureness' in them only as we contrast it with the corruption we see and witness today? Might we not travel back to Webster's time and truly find that 'almost all the losses to civil liberty in this country owes its origin to the prostration of the Christian Religion?' May we not further conclude that 'Americans first began to lose sight of the true origins of their natural rights as soon as the movement away from orthodoxy began to dawn in the 19th century; and civil liberty has been gradually diminishing and deteriorating as prostrated Christianity and other religious impurity has prevailed.'

It may not be popular to say these things in today's pc dominated America, but since I'm not one to toe the pc line, and since I am definitely one to strongly resist further advances of this pc dominated culture we find ourselves in, I'll say it, and let the chips fall where they may. My friends, there is a unique worldview that has always been consistent with genuine American traditionalism, and I think we should probably reach back further in time to discover it in its purest and its simplest form. For I think that therein lies the very key to our salvation.

As has been said before: "Worldview is everything!"

Read More