search
top

Lines in the Sand

There’s been a lot of talk in the past about lines in the sand, and various challenges by various people for me to speak to where mine is.  Les Jones has an article about Obama’s Science Czar that would make the Russian variety appear to be a model of republican virtue.  Apparently, the man wrote a book on population control, where women could, according to Zombietime:

  • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
  • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
  • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
  • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
  • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

You can see the book on Amazon here, althought it’s out of print.  If John Holdren got the society he wanted, it would be over my line.  What he’s describing is not a free society, it is a fascist state, and any American would be morally justified in resisting it, violently if need be.

I am not suggesting that this dystopic future is fast upon us — the guy is only a science czar — and I have enough faith in the system our founders created that I doubt a few fascist assholes buzzing around the White Houe is going turn FEMA camps into a reality.  But it does speak to Obama’s character and judgement, that he would admit a man like this into his Administration.  Even if he’s only a science czar, at least he should be called before Congress to explain himself for what he has written here.  Sadly, I hardly give that has any chance of happening.  The Democrats won’t want to risk making the White House look bad, and the Republicans aren’t going to want to admit they all voted to confirm this guy because they didn’t bother to have anyone check up on his CV.  The best we can do is spread this around, and hope it will have an impact on the 2010 and 2012 elections.

32 Responses to “Lines in the Sand”

  1. Philbert says:

    We’ll see how seriously the “pro choice” movement really believes in individual choice by their reaction to this.

  2. workinwifdakids says:

    Jesus Christ, I am so sick and tired of things like this happening. Hasn’t anyone in Congress heard of GOOGLE?!

    • Bitter says:

      Workin,

      To be fair, this wasn’t on Google before the hearings as far as I can tell. So asking them to Google him isn’t quite and easy as it seems. However, Human Events did have a post up before the vote. At the very least, they should have snagged a copy of the book when that article came out and gotten every Republican to vote against him. They also should have forced the Democrats to explain exactly why they wanted to elevate him. I can understand why no Senators had read an obscure out-of-print book by a not terribly high ranking appointee, but it is a concern when one organization on the right puts it out there and they still don’t act on it. It’s still a big problem, but it’s not quite as simple as Googling him prior to the hearings.

  3. Monty says:

    I think its hard for us in America to accept any population control because there is really no need for it in our country. Consider the land area of the US is 3.7 million square miles, ranking us 177th in population density at 80 per square mile. Then consider China, where population control measures are being used, 360 people per square mile, ranked 77th, but still 4.5 higher population density.

    This is compounded by realtive amounts of arable land, 19% in the US, vs 11% in china. So 421 people per square mile of arable land in the US, vs 3272 per square mile of arable land in China. So based on Arable land population density in China is 7.75 times higher than that of the US.

    So Imagine the US with a population of 2.3 Billion today… whether or not you agree that those draconian population control measures would be approriate, in that context they would seem alot less unreasonable. I would like to think I would still oppose them, but its hard to be sure.

  4. Dave R. says:

    Huh. I was curious about who did vote to confirm him, but that info was harder to find than I expected. 10 minutes with google finally got that he was confirmed by voice vote, so I can only assume Republicans generally supported him.

  5. Alex says:

    Teen moms are in no position to be raising children. There’s too many idiots and nut jobs crapping out kids; our next generation of bank robbers and gang members. Maybe some people should be prevented from reproducing, and others need to have their children taken away.

  6. Sebastian says:

    It’s one thing to say it, Alex. It’s another thing entirely to seriously advocate it. Think about what that means. You want to send men with guns to remove Bristol Palin’s kid? Would Todd be morally justified in shooting the men you advocate sending dead?

    Man, who knew I had so many commenters who might support a fascist state.

  7. jdude says:

    Bearing arms to defend one’s progeny is entirely proper.

    If the US had a population of 2.3 billion… so what? There would be long lines at the theater and bad traffic, but there would still be enough arable land to farm. I cannot justify any situation where mandatory killing of people is acceptable.

  8. The same old eugenics argument. This has been going on now for a long time.

  9. Alex says:

    Sebastian,

    Yes, I think Bristol’s child should be taken away, at gun point if necessary. That baby deserves a better set of parents; both Tripp and Bristol (and Levi) would greatly benefit from this course of action. Todd would not be justified in shooting the men; that would be doing his daughter and granddaughter a grave disservice.

    Jdude,

    Depending on the parents, sometimes the best way to defend their progeny is to let better people raise them. I agree, overpopulation does not justify killing; I think a better way to prevent overpopulation is to get people to stop cranking out so many kids.

  10. Dave says:

    Alex. Let me know when they start passing the arm bands and spiffy boots.

    Jeez. Think about what you’re advocating.

  11. Ken says:

    Something tells me Alex wouldn’t have the balls to do the things he’s talking about himself–he’d want someone else to do his dirty work for him.

  12. Buck says:

    Wow, do you have kids Alex. Do you want the state deciding your fitness as a parent?

  13. Ken says:

    Honestly, Sebastian, there’s a simple solution for trolls like Alex, if you are willing to use it.

    Post their IP addresses.

    It’s a fair bet that Alex would never dare say the things in the real world that he does on cyberspace.

  14. Thirdpower says:

    Have to admit. Fascist states to have some of the best uniforms.

  15. Wasn’t Kellog’s Corn Flakes developed out of the Eugenics Movement?

  16. Jym says:

    Ken: What makes you think he’s a troll? Some people may actually disagree with you and not be doing it just to troll, you know.

  17. Kahr40 says:

    And those uniforms make damn good targets.

  18. Clint says:

    ‘Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anybody driving faster is a maniac?’ – George Carlin

    That Great Appeal of Fascism is simply this: It “only” outlaws the idiots and maniacs!

  19. Alex says:

    Buck:

    I don’t have kids, nor would it be smart for me to do so. If I were to become a father tomorrow I probably would be an unfit parent, and my child would be better off in the hands of someone else. It would be stupid and selfish for me not to give the baby up for adoption.

    Ken:

    I don’t consider it dirty work. I’d be happy to participate in the things I talk about. AndI hadn’t realized that having an alternate viewpoint made me a troll. I’ve argued these positions in real life as well as in cyberspace.

    Don’t you want kids to be raised by sane, intelligent people, and not some screwball teenage couple who only got pregnant because they had the right body parts and a brain the size of a garbanzo bean.

    Think about it: I can’t build a structure on my property without getting all kinds of licenses and permissions from the city, but it’s okay for me to create another human being who will be at my mercy for the next 18 years, and the government can’t do anything to stop me.

    If I want to add a second story onto my house, I have to get approval from my city, but the octo-mom can crap out kid after kid and no one can say “No!”

    Bottom Line: I don’t think protecting children’s rights is the same as fascism.

  20. comatus says:

    Alex, sure fine OK, but you’re missing the point. Many people in these here parts do not believe The State will ever be qualified to make that judgment. And if you have a bunch of certificated, well-educated experts making the judgment, and they are appointed by The State, the same thinking applies. Entities like Experts or The School System no longer have a practical existence outside The State.

    There is no reason to believe that The State would ever make these calls based solely, or even principally, for the benefit of the victims. You’re going to have to try The Church. What could go wrong?

    And thus do I refute “Fascism: It’s For The Children.”

  21. Laughingdog says:

    I thought the whole point of these Czars is that they aren’t voted in by Congress. You know how these Presidents can’t be bothered with pesky things like checks and balances.

  22. jdude says:

    “Yes, I think Bristol’s child should be taken away, at gun point if necessary. That baby deserves a better set of parents; both Tripp and Bristol (and Levi) would greatly benefit from this course of action. Todd would not be justified in shooting the men; that would be doing his daughter and granddaughter a grave disservice.”

    I’ll accept, only for the sake of argument, that the parents depicted are not the best available. Yet I must point out a few things. As far as we can tell, the child is not abused. The parents are not mentally retarded, nor unfit to take care of themselves. Therefore I am interpreting your argument to be “because someone, somewhere, can raise the child better, it is thus proper to force this action.” Since the only difference in the child will only be a few iq points, or a trip to mcdonalds instead of a healty fish and salad meal, I find it entirely proper for the parents to defend with force the taking of their child.

    “Depending on the parents, sometimes the best way to defend their progeny is to let better people raise them.” In the extreme, such as severe abuse, I’ll agree that force is necessary. Otherwise the choice must be up to the parents. Not you, me, or anybody else.

    In summation, I vehemently disagree with your position.

    I am not a parent.

  23. jdude says:

    What I wrote in one line may be misinterpreted, so allow me to expand here:
    replace this sentence:
    “In the extreme, such as severe abuse, I’ll agree that force is necessary.”

    with this one.
    “In the extreme, such as severe abuse, I’ll agree that government or community force is necessary to isolate and protect the child.”

  24. Buck says:

    Alex, what criteria do you use to decide the Palins are bad parents. My guess is no one can meet your standards. I observe parents in my neighborhood who could make more of a effort, but they don’t need their kids taken from them. But by your comments you endorsers a social tyranny that would cause me draw a line in the sand.

  25. Buck says:

    And I know it’s misspelled, typing while after wrist surgery and being motion sick will cause errors.

  26. RAH says:

    Biological urges to procreate do not depend on how prosperous or wise the parents are. In fact if more children are born there is greater odds more children will live to procreate. Parent’s only real posession is their children and they are biologically programmed to defend them, So if a totalitarian idiot like Alex thinks it would have been a good idea to steal my children, I have every moral right to kill him.

    i think that every mother has that instinct, it is called the mother love to protect her children. Some are deficient and bad mothers but the children if they survive will create more children. That is the meanin of the biological urge to peocreate our species to ensure that more children are created

  27. Alex says:

    Abused children are like time bombs. Some one abuses/neglects/etc a kid, then that kid grows up, commits crimes of his own, raises his own family, and starts the cycle all over again. This is not good for society.

    If you are a teen mom and you think you’re capable of raising a child to adulthood, then you’re either stupid or delusional, either way, you’re unfit to be a parent.

    I don’t get it. I just don’t see any problem with what this Science Czar is advocating.

    • Bitter says:

      I just don’t see any problem with what this Science Czar is advocating.

      You mean you support the government forcing pregnancies, as well? That’s right, read what the man wrote. It’s not just that he wants to force abortions upon people, but also to give the government complete control over the reproductive decisions of all women. In fact, he laid out a legal framework to make not having children (or, his primary view, having children) a crime. You are a little facist if you support this, Alex. You realize that with your ideal government, there would be no room for guns in private hands, correct? Proper population control could not happen when a father is willing to kill and die to defend a woman about to give birth to his child.

  28. Alex says:

    Bitter:

    You make a good point.

  29. Matt Groom says:

    My father has a saying that fits this debate:
    “Nobody is qualified to do anything until they’ve done it for six months.”
    And this is true. You can go to school, get a degree and get a job, but you certainly won’t be able to do it well until you’ve done it for an extended period. This applies to parenthood as well. If you have never been around kids, and maybe don’t even like children, you certainly are not going to be a “natural” when it comes to parenting, no matter how many books you’ve read or family sitcoms you’ve watched.

    No matter what you believe or what anyone tells you, there is only one reason you exist, and that is to have children. If you raise them well, and they grow healthy and prosperous, it increases their chances of having healthy and successful children of their own, thus spreading your successful genes across another generation. Nothing is more important that this. Not the state of the world, not the fairness of government, not your economic status, not your level of education, not your level of religious or spiritual enlightenment, and certainly not your own personal happiness. But short of someone who absolutely cannot have children of their own, the only people who will be able to care for and raise your children is YOU, because you cared enough to stay.

    Everything in life has a learning curve, and the very idea that the government should be able to deny someone a natural right because they cannot intuit the perfect form of an act the very first attempt is naive and evil. The reason we do everything we do is so that we can provide for the next generation, whether we know it or not. You do what is good for yourself BECAUSE it is good for your children, even if they have yet to be born.

  30. N.U.G.U.N. says:

    Most people do not realize that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenist. And saw it as a solution to the black problem, and other undesirables.

top