.jpg)
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Friday, September 6, 2024
Friday, August 23, 2024
Thursday, July 25, 2024
Tuesday, July 25, 1899. The Great Meet of the Newboys.
I haven't been covering it, but the summer of 1899 featured the Newsboy Strike in New York City, which was directed at the Hearst newspapers.
July 25, 1899: “Great Meet of Newsboys”
It was not the only newsboy strike in US history, but it is remarkable as a youth lead labor strike.
Last edition:
Friday, July 21, 1899. Ernest Hemingway born.
Monday, July 1, 2024
Saturday, June 22, 2024
Monday, June 10, 2024
Wednesday, June 10, 1914. The Zaian War and orphans in Texas.
French forces number 14,000 men attacked the Moroccan stronghold of Mouha ou Hammou Zayani at Khenifra, Morocco.
Last prior edition:
Sunday, June 7, 1914. Red Week
Labels: 1910s, 1914, Christianity, Italy, Ohio, Ohio (Canton), panoramic, Protestant, Red Week, religion, Women
Sunday, June 2, 2024
Boy Scouts no more.
The Boy Scouts of America is changing its name to Scouting America
Boy Scouts of America has announced it will rebrand as Scouting America, which, if media impressions are any measure, is a very big deal. Within days of the announcement, the collective online impressions of the news surpassed 14 million, according to the organization — a staggering figure that underscores the institution’s widespread influence.
Article in the Tribune.
Does it really suggest the "institution's widespread influence", or its tragic decline from what had been that influence?
I teed this up quite a while back and since that time the Southern Rockies Nature Blog, which is linked in here, has a really nice and personal blog entries on this item, entitled Bye Bye Boy Scouts. I can't really say goodbye to the Scouts that way, as I never was much of a Scout.
Usually I say I was never a Boy Scout, but that's not true. I was briefly. Probably around when I was in 6th Grade, or at whatever point it is when a person goes from Cub Scout to Boy Scout, when there were Boy Scouts. I didn't really last long in it, and it's hard to say exactly why. Part of it was, I think, as they group I was in, while they did do things, was slow to get around to doing them. The several merit badges I earned while I was in, I just picked out and did by myself. That "by myself" thing probably had a lot to do with it also, as by this time my lifelong introvert nature was firmly set in, and unless compelled by external forces or acclimated by long exposure to a group, you'll feel uncomfortable in a group. Usually I say that I'm "not much of a joiner", with this being, I think, part of it.
Another part may simply be that I'm highly rural and was then.
We don't tend to think of it this way, but Scouting was an urban movement.1 Aware of the inadequacy of young British men in the Boer War, Lord Baden-Powell, who after the war became the British Army's Chief of Cavalry, founded the Boy Scouts. The idea was twofold, those being 1) British boys had become a bunch of anemic unskilled wimps who needed some manning up from nature, and 2) British boys had become a bunch of anemic unskilled reprobates who needed some Muscular Christianity.
The original organization had no place for girls. Girls wanted to participate in things, and soon had their own organizations. The two didn't mix.
And frankly it didn't mix for good reason There are such things as manly, and womanly virtues. Much of what the original Boy Scouts sought to address was spot on in its observations, and Scouting did a really good job of addressing them. Often affiliated with churches, Scouting groups were successful in teaching boys a lot of valuable outdoor skills that often stuck with them for life, and they were benefitted in that goal by the absence of girls, who at a bare minimum are extremely distracting to boys and young men. Given their natures, young women are usually, although not always, much less distracted by young men.
There's been a lot written on the decline of the Boy Scouts, and there are various theories about it. One of the blogs linked in here, The Southern Rockies Nature Blog, has an article about it that's worth checking out. Whatever it was that brought it to its current state, it was still a pretty strong organization in the 1970s, when I had my brief association with it. At that time, even in the rural West, a lot of boys were part of it, and for that matter quite a few of their fathers had a strong association with it. Being in the Boy Scouts (which my father never was), was part of a multi generational thing.
Signs of decline were there even then. Of my good friends, only one was a Boy Scout, which his father had been. Another had a father who had a strong history of Scouting, but my friend wasn't in it. I was in a youth organization in my early teens, but it was the Civil Air Patrol, which with its martial aviation theme was a completely different type of organization. Rural kids, of whom I knew a lot, tended to be in the FFA, which had direct practical application to them.
I wish I could pinpoint what was going on, but I really can't. I've tried to do so here before, and probably haven't been successful. Looking at the topics addressed in this thread, however, I think part of it may have been that in the post World War Two era that went into the 1970s, the retained gaze upon the rural really faded. Even television reflected that as programming went from the rural focused on the 1960s, such as The Andy Griffith Show, The Beverley Hillbillies, and Green Acres, the last two of which anticipated the change, to urban centric dramas such as Newhart, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, WKRP In Cincinnati, etc. Americans had been moving into the cities for a long time, but suddenly they quit looking outside of them. Even a gritty urban environment depicted in something like The French Connection was celebrated in a way. It's notable that a figure like Clint Eastwood, who had come up in westerns, started appearing as Dirty Harry in urban California at the same time, and Dirty Harry, like Popeye Doyle, wasn't portrayed as any sort of Boy Scout.
The atmosphere of the late 60s also brought in destructive forces that we're still dealing with. The resolute male admired and celebrated from the era of The Strenuous Life on to the Ballad of the Green Berets suddenly, in the Strauss Howe fashion, yielded to the feminized and marginalized male, at least in the dominant WASP culture. It's never really recovered, and we can see some of the reactions to that playing out in society now.
In that atmosphere, Scouting attempted to adapt, but that's part of the problem. The campaign hat went out, and the red beret came in.2 Out with the old, and in with the new. The institution already had, however, its close association with Christianity and a sort of "goody two shoes" reputation. It probably should have just doubled down on that and its rural focus, but it tried to adapt instead.
Like other institutions that were heavily male and which had become somewhat soft, it also began to be plagued, apparenlty, with male on male sexual conduct.
People hate to discuss this part, so the realities of this should be noted. One of the byproducts of keeping boys and girls separate in Scouting is that it not only allowed boys to focus, but it kept boys and girls out of close proximity to each other. Scouting involves teenagers. No matter how focused or watched, when male and female teenagers are together, some of them will misbehave in ways that create life changing byproducts. A person only has to look at the expansion of the role of women in the military in order to appreciate this.3
We already know that the largest group of abusers of teenagers in this fashion are teachers. The decline in personal morality brought about by the Sexual Revolution helped unleash this, and I'd wager that a person could easily find a story of a teacher engaging in this conduct with a teenaged charge nearly every month. I ran across one just last week, in which the assailant was a female teacher and the victim something like a mere 13 years old. If this happens in an institution in which being discovered will result in the end of a career and jail time, and in which getting caught is highly likely, it's going to happen in situations in which this is much less discoverable.
Put bluntly, as the Muscular Christianity focus waned, the Sexual Revolution came on, and an overall feminization of society advanced, predatory homosexuality in the Boy Scouts became inevitable to some degree, and it had probably always been there at least to some extent. It's customary at this point to note that not all homosexuals are predatory, and that only a minority are, which is absolutely true, but it happened. That some people would let their behavior go in an all male setting shouldn't be any more surprising than those instances of male coaches preying on young teenage female athletes. It's reprehensible, but without additional external controls, it was going to occur.
This helped cause Scouting's popularity to drop off massively, and not surprisingly. Parents quit encouraging their children to be Scouts. Not really knowing what to do about it in the context of the culture, Scouting opened its doors to girls. This predictably hasn't helped, and it won't. Scouting will, I'd guess, be largely taken over by girls, but it won't be an organization that Boy Scouts prior to the 1970s would recognize.
There's something to all male bonds between conventionally oriented males that is unalterably different from ones with women. Probably our biology has a lot to do with it. The mateship that exists in military units, for example, which are all male, is completely different from an organization that has even one female in it.
The larger tragedy is that the very thing that Scouting was created to address in the first place, in large measure, is probably need as much now as it was then. The source of the problem is large the same, the urbanization of the country and the corrupting influence of urban life, combined with the absence of male roles, something that existed in the very early 20th Century and something that exists now, albeit for different reasons. Scouting, by having gone first soft, and then semi feminized, is no longer the organization that it was, that addressed that.
Footnotes:
1. Recently I read Doug Crowe's book A Growing Season, which is extremely off color, but extremely interesting. The back of the book, where the short review is, terms it a novel, but it isn't. The figures in it are all real, I either know of them or actually knew some of them.
It occured to me in posting this that part of the reason that the Boy Scouts lost its appeal to me here is that in a highly rural setting the first purpose of scouting, to introduce the outdoors, will be taken up by those who have a strong affinity towards it, which most young men do, all on their own. Going to Scouting events actually retards a person's ability to go outdoors and do what you want, with your young male associates, once somebody is of driving age, or at least it did then. As soon as somebody was 16, we were pretty much loose in the world.
As noted, not surprisingly, our companions in these forays were all male. I can't recall going on an outdoor adventure of any kind with a female of my own age until I was at the University of Wyoming. Nature segregates us in that fashion, even if society doesn't want us to. As A Growing Season demonstrates, that certainly gives rise to opportunities to engage in vice, although did not in any serious fashion, and the few of my fellows who really fell into it did so, notably, in town.
2. Only if troops adopted it, however.
3. Without putting too fine a point on it, two women I know of who were justifiably very proud of their military service, and neither of which might be regarded as libertine, had early discharges from the service for this very reason, followed by the birth of their oldest child not long after. The service with the biggest problem, seemingly, is the Navy, where close proxmity on ships has caused an alaraming pregnancy rate in some instances.
Related threads:
Youth organizations. Their Rise and (near) Fall, or is that a myth? And, did you join?
Blog Mirror: What Scouting Has Lost
Thursday, May 16, 2024
Friday, May 16, 1924. Harry Yount.
Harry Yount, sometimes erroneously referred to as Wyoming's first game warden (he wasn't), passed away in Wheatland at age 85.
Yount was from Missouri in 1839 and joined the Union Army during the Civil War, being taken prisoner by the Confederates from whom he escaped. His escaped from captivity was barefoot and lead to a condition of rheumatism, which left him eligible for benefits for the same when they were first passed in 1890. After the war, he headed West and engaged in a classic series of Frontier occupations, including bull whacking and buffalo hunting.
In the 1870s he was engaged by the Smithsonian in order to collect taxidermy specimens, and he became a regular member of the Hayden expeditions throughout the decade. During this period, he also took up prospecting. He was well known enough to be the subject of a newspaper profile in 1877. Around this time he became a commercial hunter in Wyoming, that still being legal until Wyoming took efforts to outlaw it early in the 20th Century.
In 1880, he was hired at the impressive salary of $1,000 per year to become Yellowstone National Park's first game warden, gamekeeper, or "park ranger" at a time at which the law was enforced in Yellowstone by the U.S. Army. He occupied the high paying job for fourteen months. Upon resigning he noted:
I do not think that any one man appointed by the honorable Secretary, and specifically designated as a gamekeeper, is what is needed or can prove effective for certain necessary purposes, but a small and reliable police force of men, employed when needed, during good behavior, and dischargeable for cause by the superintendent of the park, is what is really the most practicable way of seeing that the game is protected from wanton slaughter, the forests from careless use of fire, and the enforcement of all the other laws, rules, and regulations for the protection and improvement of the park.
His resignation seems to have come over a disagreement with the park superintendent, who wanted him to spend more time building roads.
After leaving the Park, he prospected, after a short and unsuccessful stint as a homesteader, in the Laramie Range for almost forty years, a remarkable stint at that occupation. He took out a marble mining claim and spent his later years there, working also at prospecting right up to the day he died. He collapsed near the Lutheran Church in Wheatland after walking into town, something he did daily. He was 85 years old.
Younts Peak near Yellowstone is named after him. The Park Service gives out the Harry Yount Award, established in 1994, annually to an outstanding ranger employee.
The Soviet children's magazine Murzilka appeared for the first time.
A bill to nationalize British coal mining failed, 264 to 168.
Last prior edition:
Thursday, May 15, 1924. "Patriotism, which is bought and paid for is not patriotism."
Saturday, April 13, 2024
Observations on a murder.
Earlier this week Robert Maher Jr., age 14, was murdered by Dominique Antonio Richard Harris, born in 2008, and Jarreth Joseflee Sabastian Plunkett, born in 2009. The killing seems to have been planned for several days prior to the assault in the Eastridge Mall that lead to Maher's death. Plunkett did the actual killing, with Harris slamming Maher to the ground beforehand.
The technical origin of the fight was that Maher had called Plunkett and Harris "freaks" during Spring Break (something that didn't exist when I was in school) and that enraged the two of them. He called them that has they went into a porta potty at a local park together, which is odd, but insulting them wasn't very smart. This raises the specter of the Matthew Shepherd killing, which had elements which never really seemed to be accurately reported. More likely, however, in the exaggerated juvenile maleness of the rootless and (I'll bet) fatherless mid teenage boy, that was an implied insult that had to be addressed.
Maher never seems to have gotten in a single punch in the assault. The two assailants, who had stolen their weapons along with Red Bulls and candy that day, acted in such a fashion that, whether Harris intended it or not, gave Plunkett the opportunity to viciously knife him.
There's no reason here, we'd note, to use the classic "alleged" assault language. The two teenage boys killed the third. They're going to be tried as adults. They ought o be put away, forever.
But what else does this event tell us?
Casper's a rough town.
One thing that I saw soon after the murder was a comment by somebody on Facebook noting how they have moved from New Mexico, where their son had been knifed in a fight, to Casper under the belief that this was a quite safe town.
In another context, we've already spoken about immigrants into the state being delusional about it, and this is one such instance. Casper has never been a nice town.
Casper was founded in 1887, and it was violent from day one to some degree. It was, however, originally a rial stop in cattle company, although it always had its eye on oil. It was the jumping off spot for the invaders in the Johnson County War, which at least gives it a bit of a footnote in that violent event. Casper's first murder occured on Saturday, September 20, 1890, when bartender John Conway shot and killed unarmed A. J. Tidwell, an FL Cattle Company cowboy in Lou Polk's dance house, following a round of fisticuffs. The blood has been flowing ever since.
Casper really took a turn towards the wild side of life starting in World War One. 1917, as we've addressed here before, is when the Great War Oil boom really took off, and with it came a lot of men and a lot of vice. One of the things that created was Casper's infamous Sandbar district, in which prostitution was carried out openly and prohibition flaunted. Repeated efforts to close it down utterly failed, until finally a 1970s vintage urban renewal project (yikes, the government taking a hand!") destroyed it.
With the booze and the prostitutes came murders (and no doubt disease) but it went on and on. By and large, however, as odd as it may seem, people just acclimated themselves to it. You got used to a town having a red-light district, and as there were some legitimate businesses in it, you'd go into it for legitimate reasons. As a boy, we walked into the Sandbar in the early 70s to go to the War Surplus Store, which nobody seemed to think was a big deal. The America and Rialto movie theaters were just yards from the district, and the district's bars lapped up out of it into downtown Casper, with some of them being places were to walk around, rather than past, if at all possible.
Casper had quasi ethnic gangs when I was young, and at least in the schools that I attended, that was a factor of attending them. You were careful about it. It was impossible to get through junior high and high school without having been in a fight. Most fights were hand to hand, but a teacher was knifed when I was in junior high breaking up a knife fight, so not all of them were. In high school we all carried pocket knives and none of us were supposed to. They were for protection. While I was in high school, one of our classmates, who had been held back more than once, was killed outside a bar in a shooting, the result of a fight he provoked, which resulted in an ethnic riot at the school in which shots were fired. The father of one of our classmates was killed by our classmate after he turned his molesting attention on her sister, having molested her for years. Neither of these crimes resulted in prosecution.
The point is, for those who are shocked by the arrival of violence in Casper. . .well, it's been here since 1890.
The abandoned males
I keep waiting to hear the circumstances of the murderers' family lives and have not read any yet. I'm sure it'll come out as the story advances. While It's dangerous to speculate, there are reasons to suspect a few things, one being the killers likely had no fathers in the picture. We're going to hear at some point that they were raised by their mothers, or in irregular homes. I could of course be wrong, but I'll bet not.
Fatherless males are a major societal problem. Fatherless males that are raised in an environment of sexual license are an even bigger problem. Indeed, they're often fatherless for that reason in the first place, and they'll go on to spawn further fatherless children, who grow up in poverty and with little societal direction. A minority will find that structure in the Old Law, the law before the law, which reaches back to tribalism in the extreme. It's in the DNA.
The Old Law demanded death for transgressors too, something modern society has moved away from in large measure. I've already heard it suggested that Harris and Plunkett should receive death, but due to their ages, I think that not very likely. It'd be ill-advised, no matter what. But tribalism spawns more tribalism. The real personalities are lost of both the assailants and the victims.
Friday, April 12, 2024
Saturday, April 6, 2024
Saturday, March 9, 2024
Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 61st Edition. Illiberal Democracy. . . coming soon to a republic near you and boosting the birth rate.
"Mothers, fight for your children". World War Two German posters. Prior to the war you can find quite a few posers of fawning mothers with babies, including the ever popular large breasted young woman breastfeeding babies. The Nazi Party was freakishly pro natalist, even though the country was very densely populated. While I can't find it, a Nazi informational cartoon even exists lamenting a woman's increasing first childbirth age, taking it back to a point at which it was in the early teens.
There’s nobody that’s better, smarter or a better leader than Viktor Orban. He’s fantastic…He’s a non-controversial figure because he says, ‘This is the way it’s going to be,’ and that’s the end of it. Right? He’s the boss. No, he’s a great leader.
Donald Trump on Viktor Orbán, yesterday.
What the crap?
Right wing fawning over Viktor Orbán is really getting over the top. Why?
Well, I know why, it's because of his philosophy of "Illiberal Democracy", which will be coming soon to a large North American republic near you.
And while you are enjoying being told how exactly to think, you can get back to work on birthin' dem babies.
Eh?
Ah yes, has any notices that there's growing far right obsession on increasing the birth rate. It's one thing to support families, but that's not what I mean. If you listen carefully, there's suddenly a genuine "we need more babies" movement going on in the far right.
This has long been the case in Russia, which has crashing demographics, so it probably makes sense. If they don't arrest this trend, irrespective of how much Vlad Putin expands the borders of the country, sooner or later China is going to help itself to a large portion of Siberia. So its been going on there for a while, but appears to be picking up.
Vlad delivered a message on this in Russia yesterday, for International Women's Day, something that actually isn't about babies.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Dear women,
From the bottom of my heart, I wish you all the best on International Women’s Day.
We always look forward to this wonderful spring day with pleasure and excitement, preparing for it well in advance. Today, in every home and every family, Russians are expressing their most tender and loving wishes for their mothers, wives, daughters, grandmothers and girlfriends.
Dear women, you certainly have the power to improve this world with your beauty, wisdom and generosity, but above all, thanks to the greatest gift that nature has endowed you with – the bearing of children. Motherhood is a glorious mission for women. A difficult and critically important mission, but also a source of so much joy and happiness.
Family remains the most important thing for any woman, no matter what career path she chooses or what professional heights she attains. Her family, relatives, friends, her tireless concern for her children, their health and education, teaching them what is right and making sure they grow up to be decent and successful people is what matters most.
This year is dedicated to the family in Russia. The meaning, the essence of the family is primarily about the continuation of life, the continuation of the lineage, of the story of each family and our entire country. The family is the bond that has ensured continuity from generation to generation, and consideration and respect for women and motherhood are an integral part of our traditions.
The family, its interests and needs are in the spotlight and an absolute priority in Russia today. We will certainly do everything we can to ensure that families with children, including large and young families, young mothers, feel supported and assisted by the state.
I would like to specifically address the women who are serving in the special military operation now, carrying out combat missions, as well as to others who are now separated from their family members, waiting for our heroes to come home, inspiring them with their love, cheer and support, worrying about every soldier, helping them on the front line, in hospitals, and in numerous volunteer organisations. Again and again, you prove that a woman’s heart is truly an irresistible force, providing an example of perseverance and confidence that good and truth are on our side.
Dear women!
You take on extremely difficult challenges, achieving success and impressive results in a variety of fields. We, men, often feel amazed at your ability to get things done quickly and efficiently, yet thoroughly, seeing to every detail. You handle an endless succession of problems and burdens without losing your charm and allure. It is impossible not to admire you.
I would like to wish you genuine mutual understanding with those you hold dear, as many truly happy moments in your lives as possible, and success in everything that is important to you.
All the best to you. Happy International Women’s Day!
Tsar Vlad has spoken. Get to work on those babies.
Tim Scott, who recently sold his dignity to fawn over Don Trump, said a line like this just the other day in an interview where it wasn't subtle. It doesn't seem to have been picked up in the press, which doesn't seem to have picked up on this at all, but he said something like "we need more babies". I can't, however, recall the context.
This has really started to appear now that the topic of IVF has come up. I'm a Catholic, and frankly I fully agree with the Church's position that IVF is immoral, in part because it creates people to be wasted. That this has turned into a controversy, however, was predictable. Interestingly, however, some of the language that now appears is along these lines. Republicans are declaring that they're in support of IVF as we need more babies.
This showed up a bit in some odd way in the State of the Union address rebuttal by Sen. Katie Britt. Frankly, State of the Union addresses have become almost completely pointless since the introduction of television for the most part. Joe Biden's was a bit of an exception, and there are others, but usually the President declares the State of the Union to be great, hands out kittens, and leaves. In the rebuttal, the opposing party comes in and declares puppies to be great, but kittens to be a menace.
This year Sen. Britt, a youngish Alabaman Senator, delivered the rebuttal from her kitchen. Some thought the scene of a woman delivering a message from a kitchen to be an ironic accident.
I doubt it.
I think the message was intentional. Women's primary duties are in the kitchen. . . and maybe the bedroom.
Her speech
Good evening, America. My name is Katie Britt, and I have the honor of serving the people of the great state of Alabama in the United States Senate. However, that’s not the job that matters most. I am a proud wife and mom of two school age kids. My daughter Bennett and my son Ridgeway are why I ran for the Senate.
I’m worried about their future and the future of children in every corner of our nation, and that’s why I invited you into our home tonight. Like so many families across America, my husband Wesley and I just watched President Biden’s State of the Union address from our living room. And what we saw was the performance of a permanent politician who has actually been in office for longer than I’ve been alive.
One thing was quite clear, though. President Biden just doesn’t get it. He’s out of touch. Under his administration, families are worse off, our communities are less safe, and our country is less secure. I just wish he understood what real families are facing around kitchen tables just like this one. You know, this is where our family has tough conversations.
It’s where we make hard decisions. It’s where we share the good, the bad, and the ugly of our days. It’s where we laugh together, and it’s where we hold each other’s hands and pray for God’s guidance. And many nights, to be honest, it’s where Wesley and I worry. I know we’re not alone. And so tonight, the American family needs to have a tough conversation, because the truth is we’re all worried about the future of our nation.
The country we know and love seems to be slipping away, and it feels like the next generation will have fewer opportunities and less freedoms than we did. I worry my own children may not even get a shot at living their American dreams. My American dream allowed me, the daughter of two small business owners from rural Enterprise, Alabama, to be elected to the United States Senate at the age of 40. Growing up sweeping the floor at my dad’s hardware store and cleaning the bathroom at my mom’s dance studio, I never could have imagined what my story would entail.
To think about what the American Dream can do across just one generation in just one lifetime, it’s truly breathtaking. But right now, the American dream has turned into a nightmare for so many families. The true unvarnished state of our union begins and ends with this. Our families are hurting. Our country can do better.
And you don’t have to look any further than the crisis at our southern border to see it. President Biden inherited the most secure border of all time. But minutes after taking office, he suspended all deportations, he halted construction of the border wall, and he announced a plan to give amnesty to millions.
We know that President Biden didn’t just create this border crisis. He invited it with 94 executive actions in his first 100 days. When I took office, I took a different approach. I traveled to the Del Rio sector of Texas. That’s where I spoke to a woman who shared her story with me. She had been sex trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12. She told me not just that she was raped every day, but how many times a day she was raped.
The cartels put her on a mattress in a shoebox of a room, and they sent men through that door over and over again for hours and hours on end. We wouldn’t be ok with this happening in a third world country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it. President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.
This crisis is despicable, and the truth is it is almost entirely preventable. From fentanyl poisonings to horrific murders, there are empty chairs tonight at kitchen tables just like this one because of President Biden’s senseless border policies. Just think about Laken Riley. In my neighboring state of Georgia, this beautiful 22 year old nursing student went out on a jog one morning, but she never got the opportunity to return home.
She was brutally murdered by one of the millions of illegal border crossers President Biden chose to release into our homeland. Y’all, as a mom, I can’t quit thinking about this. I mean, this could have been my daughter. This could have been yours. And tonight, President Biden finally said her name, but he refused to take responsibility for his own actions.
Mr. president, enough is enough. Innocent Americans are dying, and you only have yourself to blame. Fulfill your oath of office, reverse your policies, end this crisis, and stop the suffering. Sadly, we know that President Biden’s failures don’t stop there. His reckless spending dug our economy into a hole and sent the cost of living through the roof.
We have the worst inflation in 40 years and the highest credit card debt in our nation’s history. Let that sink in. Hard working families are struggling to make ends meet today. And with soaring mortgage rates and sky high childcare costs, they’re also struggling to how to plan for tomorrow. The American people are scraping by while President Biden proudly proclaims that Bidenomics is working.
Goodness, y’all. Bless his heart. We know better. I’ll never forget stopping at a gas station in Chilton County one evening. The gentleman working the counter told me that after retiring he had to pick up a job in his 70s so that he didn’t have to choose between going hungry or going without his medication.
He said I did everything right. I did everything I was told to do. I worked hard. I saved. I was responsible. He’s not alone. I hear similar concerns from fellow parents, whether I am walking with my friends or whether I’m at my kid’s games. But let’s be honest, it’s been a minute since Joe Biden pumped gas, ran a carpool, or even pushed a grocery cart.
Meanwhile, the rest of us see our dollar, and we know it doesn’t go as far. We see it every day. And despite what he tells you, our communities are not safer. For years, the left has coddled criminals and defunded the police, all while letting repeat offenders walk free. The result is tragic but foreseeable.
From our small towns to America’s most iconic city streets, life is getting more and more dangerous. And unfortunately, President Biden’s weakness isn’t just hurting families here at home. He is making us a punchline on the world stage. Look, where I’m from, your word is your bond. But for three years, the president has demonstrated that America’s word doesn’t mean what it used to. From abandoning our allies in his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan to desperately pushing another dangerous deal with Iran, President Biden has failed.
We’ve become a nation in retreat. And the enemies of freedom, they see an opportunity. Putin’s brutal aggression in Europe has put our allies on the brink. Iran’s terrorist proxies have slaughtered Israeli Jews and American citizens. They’ve targeted commercial shipping and they’ve attacked our troops nearly 200 times since October, killing three US soldiers and two Navy Seals. Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party is undercutting America’s workers. China is buying up our farmland, spying on our military installations and spreading propaganda through the likes of TikTok. You see, the CCP knows that if it conquers the minds of our next generation, it conquers America.
And what does President Biden do? Well, he bans TikTok for government employees, but creates an account for his own campaign. Y’all, you can’t make this stuff up. Look, we all recall when presidents faced national security threats with strength and resolve; that seems like ancient history. Right now, our commander in chief is not in command.
The free world deserves better than a dithering and diminished leader. America deserves leaders who recognize that secure borders, stable prices, safe streets, and a strong defense are actually the cornerstones of a great nation. Just ask yourself, are you better off now than you were three years ago? There’s no doubt we’re at a crossroads and it doesn’t have to be this way.
We all feel it. But here’s the good news. We the people are still in the driver’s seat. We get to decide whether our future will grow brighter or whether we’ll settle for an America in decline. Well, I know which choice our children deserve and I know the choice the Republican Party is fighting for. We are the party of hard working parents and families and we want to give you and your children the opportunities to thrive and we want families to grow.
It’s why we strongly support continued nationwide access to in-vitro fertilization. We want to help loving moms and dads bring precious life into this world. Wesley and I believe there is no greater blessing in life than our children. And that’s why tonight I want to make a direct appeal to the parents out there and in particular to my fellow moms, many of whom I know will be up tossing and turning at 2:00 am wondering how you’re going to be in three places at once and then somehow still get dinner on the table?
First of all, we see you, we hear you, and we stand with you. I know you’re frustrated. I know you’re probably disgusted by most of what you see going on in Washington. And I’ll be really honest with you, you’re not wrong for feeling that way. Look, I get it. The task in front of us isn’t an easy one, but I can promise you one thing.
It is worth it. So I am asking you for the sake of your kids and your grandkids, get into the arena. Every generation has been called to do hard things. American greatness rests in the fact that we always answer that call. It’s who we are. Never forget we are steeped in the blood of patriots who overthrew the most powerful empire in the world.
We walk in the footsteps of pioneers who tamed the wild. We now carry forward the same flame of freedom as the liberators of an oppressed Europe. We continue to draw courage from those who bent the moral arc of the universe. And when we gaze upon the heavens, never forget that our DNA contains the same ingenuity that put man on the moon.
America has been tested before and every single time we’ve emerged unbowed and unbroken. Our history has been written with the grit of men and women who got knocked down, but we know their stories because they did not stay down. We are here because they stood back up. So now it’s our turn our moment to stand up and prove ourselves worthy of protecting the American Dream.
Together, we can reawaken the heroic spirit of a great nation because America, we don’t just have a rendezvous with destiny, we take destiny’s hand and we lead it. Our future starts around kitchen tables just like this, with moms and dads just like you. And you are why I believe with every fiber of my being that despite the current state of our union, our best days are still ahead.
May God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
Okay, this speech wasn't Vlad's "how's that baby making going?" speech, but there's some interesting subtle messages in it. Delivered from a kitchen, with lots of references to kiddo's. You know, y'all?
As an aside, this was just about the most affected Southern style of speech ever by somebody who is really Southern. I can't recall a political speech with so many "y'all's". And the "Bless his heart" line. Do Southerners realize that other Americans either don't know why Southerners say this, or find it weird? No wonder this speech has been so widely lampooned.
Anyhow, I want to be very careful here as I'm certainly not against married couples having children, (note I inserted married in there) and I'm a proponent, perhaps a radical one, of traditional values, but neo pro natalism is a little weird.
Pro natalism?
Yes.
Consider Pronatalist.org.
There's a movement going on and the founders of Pronatalist.org, Simone and Malcolm Collins, are sort of at the point of the spear of it. And in a way, while I'm not accusing them of anything, the message is pretty clear. Populations are collapsing, they argue, and having babies is the counter to it.
Well, if that's correct, that's an obvious solution, but the added subtly to it is that the right kind of people aren't having babies.
All the other problems before us in this country, important though they may be, are as nothing compared with the problem of the diminishing birth rate and all that it implies.
Theodore Roosevelt.
Hardly remembered now, a big concern of the early 20th Century, in some quarters, was "race suicide". Basically, whites had a declining birth rate, even before pharmaceutical birth control, and African Americans didn't.
There are some things here which are real problems, as well. The decline in Western nations is a symptom of something, and that something isn't good, whatever it is.
But the added problem here is that it's easy to cross from concern into being creepy, and far right and far left movements do that, and have done that on this very issue in the past.
Consider the efforts in the 2023 legislature to oppose banning child marriages, which we posted on at the time. Some of our comments.:
I've been waiting for the opposition to happen.
This bill sailed through the house and is in the Senate, and I'm frankly surprised that the opposition didn't appear before now. Not because the bill is a bad idea. It's a good one, and it should pass. Marriages lower than 16 years old are a hideous idea, and frankly marriage below 18 sure a good one. Nonetheless, a similar attempt at banning such marriages failed last year.
The reason I thought it would fail is that there's some silent opposition from at least the members of one religion in the state, and I thought it might arise there. But, it didn't. The objections to have a religious tinge to them, but not from the expected quarter.
But it's also taken on a rather creepy tone.
Apparently the email, which wasn't published in full by the press, stated the following:
This bill may seem harmless, but there are concerns about constitutional rights that you need to form your own opinions aboutAnd then it linked to a blog post which it endorses, stating that it's a succinct analysis..
The blog post is easy to find. And it provides, in its entirety, the following (complete with photo):
HB0007 - Underage marriage-amendments
Sponsored By: Representative(s) Zwonitzer, Dn and Oakley and Senator(s) Case and Furphy
ESSENCE: "No person shall marry who is under the age of sixteen (16) years." PERIOD. END OF STORY. AND "Marriages contracted in Wyoming are void without any decree of divorce:... When either party is under sixteen (16) years of age at the time of contracting the marriage."
ACTION:
Write the members of the Senate and ask them to vote "NO" when HB 7 comes up on Monday's 2nd Reading.
Jim.Anderson@wyoleg.gov; Fred.Baldwin@wyoleg.gov; Eric.Barlow@wyoleg.gov; Bo.Biteman@wyoleg.gov; Brian.Boner@wyoleg.gov; Anthony.Bouchard@wyoleg.gov; Evie.Brennan@wyoleg.gov; Cale.Case@wyoleg.gov; Ed.Cooper@wyoleg.gov; Dan.Dockstader@wyoleg.gov; Ogden.Driskill@wyoleg.gov; Affie.Ellis@wyoleg.gov; Tim.French@wyoleg.gov; Dan.Furphy@wyoleg.gov; Larry.Hicks@wyoleg.gov; Lynn.Hutchings@wyoleg.gov; Bob.Ide@wyoleg.gov; Stacy.Jones@wyoleg.gov; Dave.Kinskey@wyoleg.gov; John.Kolb@wyoleg.gov; Bill.Landen@wyoleg.gov; Dan.Laursen@wyoleg.gov; Troy.McKeown@wyoleg.gov; Tara.Nethercott@wyoleg.gov; Stephan.Pappas@wyoleg.gov; Tim.Salazar@wyoleg.gov; Wendy.Schuler@wyoleg.gov; Charles.Scott@wyoleg.gov; Cheri.Steinmetz@wyoleg.gov
CONCERNS:
HB 7 denies the fundamental purpose of marriage:
Marriage is the only institution in Wyoming Statute designed to keep a child's father and mother living under the same roof and cooperating in the raising of any children that they, together, conceive. This is the NATURAL RIGHT of every child. As such, it is protected in the Wyoming Constitution (see. Art. 1, Sec. 3 and 23). Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children prior to the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children.
The sad fact that physical maturity often does not match emotional and intellectual maturity is an indictment of our modern educational system. That is a problem that should be addressed. But we should not use it as an excuse to instantiate bad law.
HB 7 denies parental rights.
Parents, by virtue of their right to conceive children, have the pre-political (i.e. God-given) responsibility to raise their own children. This right and responsibility includes guiding their own maturing children into the estate of Holy Matrimony. HB 7 strips parents of their right to consent to properly desired and well-ordered marriages when they are below an arbitrary age. Moreover, this arbitrary age limit is demonstrably lower than the historical norm of millennia of human existence.
It is true that some perverse religions and cultures COERCE children to marry young, against their wishes. Sometimes, as in the case of human trafficking, this coercion comes from outside the family. Sometimes, it comes from the parents themselves. The Constitutional rights of children require that side-boards be in place to prevent such perversions. But those side-boards already exist in the form of written parental consent and judicial review of that consent. HB 7 removes those side-boards and replaces them with an arbitrary number that has no organic or essential impetus behind it.
Comparison with other states:
Nearly all (49 out of 50 states) set the minimum age of legal consent at 18--just exactly as Wyoming does. Also like Wyoming, 46 of 50 allow people to get married below the minimum age if their parents give permission. Of these, 37 set the lowest age of marriage with parental consent at 16, while four (IN, NE, OR, WA) set it at 17, two set it at 15 (HI and MO), one (NH) sets it at 13, and two (CA and MS) have no minimum age for parental consent.
In addition to CA and MS, 12 other states (AK, GA, HI, KS, MD, MA, NM, NC, OK, RI, UT, WV, WY) have judicial mechanisms that allow exceptions to the minimum age with parental consent. Some of these exceptions specifically name pregnancy, some prohibit age-differentials between the bride and groom more than four years. The sponsor testified that "Wyoming is one of eight states remaining, I believe, that do not have a minimum marriage age in statute" (AK, CA, MA, NM, NC, OK, RI, WV, WY and Puerto Rico). (Only California has both NO minimum age, and NO judicial mechanism.) The remaining 42 states set the absolute minimum age at 13 (NH), 15 (HI and MO), 17 (IN, NE, OR, WA) and 18 (KY and LA) and 16. HB 7 wipes away Wyoming's current mechanism for taking into account ANY special circumstances.
Testimony:
Additionally, the bringers of HB 7 offer no evidence that Wyoming is facing any statistical uptick of coerced marriages. In the House committee, there was no testimony weighing the trade-off of parental rights over against any “significant issue” with child marriage in Wyoming. To the contrary, the sponsor of the bill openly admitted that “it is not what we would call a problem in this state.” On average 20 marriages per year under 18 and under in Wyoming. There was no testimony about the factual number under 16. Nor was there any testimony about why under 16 years old there should be no judicial exceptions.
Rather, the sponsor openly testified that the reason for bringing the bill is to “keep up with the Jones’” (i.e. 42 other states have put arbitrary age restrictions on marriage. After this dubious motivation, the testimony given in committee was fraught with hypothetical harms. For instance: “if a minor wants a divorce, she can’t hire of lawyer.” Or, “Minors might be coerced into marriage.” Or, “Minors, are not mature enough to marry.” All these cautions are already covered by current law that requires a judge to investigate whether or not the person is being coerced into marriage if that person is mature enough to legally consent. It is rather insulting to say that Wyoming judges are not up to the task that has been given them by law. But, that could be remedied by giving them legislative guidance or additional help. The responsibility does not need to be taken away altogether.
HB 7 violates the right of Wyoming citizens to marry.
Only a generation ago, people were regularly ready for marriage by the age of 15, not 16, and still today many Wyoming couples are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary after having been married prior to 15. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pertinent, here. "1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." As evidenced by the wide differences between states, the age of 16 is an arbitrary limitation that may serve as a general rule, but cannot be absolutely enforced without violating the "full age" standard of Article 16. HB 7 would arbitrarily strip away that right from people who actually have a legitimate reason to marry, and who desire to give their child a stable and loving home. This is unjust both to child and parents.
FOR FURTHER READING:
Cowboy State Daily, Bill Banning Teens Younger Than 16 To Marry Passes Unanimously Through Senate Committee
Jonathan Lange, UNICEF Comes to Wyoming: Ham-handed uniformity oppresses the human family
PROGRESS:
1/13/2023 H Introduced and Referred to H03 - Revenue
1/17/2023 H03 - Revenue:Recommend Do Pass 6-3-0-0-0
Ayes: Representative(s) Byron, Harshman, Northrup, Oakley, Storer, Zwonitzer
Nays: Representative(s) Bear, Locke, Strock
1/18/2023 H COW:Passed / 1/19/2023 H 2nd Reading:Passed
1/20/2023 H 3rd Reading:Passed 36-25-1-0-0
Ayes: Representative(s) Andrew, Berger, Brown, Burkhart, Jr, Byron, Chadwick, Chestek, Clouston, Conrad, Crago, Eklund, Harshman, Henderson, Larsen, Lloyd, Larson, Jt, Lawley, Nicholas, Niemiec, Northrup, Oakley, Obermueller, O'hearn, Olsen, Provenza, Sherwood, Speaker Sommers, Stith, Storer, Trujillo, Walters, Washut, Western, Wylie, Yin, Zwonitzer, Dan, Zwonitzer, Dave
Nays: Representative(s) Allemand, Allred, Angelos, Banks, Bear, Davis, Haroldson, Heiner, Hornok, Jennings, Knapp, Locke, Neiman, Ottman, Pendergraft, Penn, Rodriguez-Williams, Singh, Slagle, Smith, Strock, Styvar, Tarver, Ward, Winter
Excused: Representative Newsome
2/2/2023 S Introduced and Referred to S07 - Corporations
2/9/2023 S07 - Corporations:Recommend Do Pass 4-0-1-0-0
Ayes: Senator(s) Barlow, Boner, Case, Scott
Excused: Senator Landen
2/9/2023 S COW: Passed 15-12 (standing vote)
Aye: Case, Cooper, Anderson, Boner, Scott, Jones, Pappas, Geireau, Ellis, Schuler, Barlow, Landen, Rothfuss, Furphy, Bouchard
Nay: Dockstader, Baldwin, Kinsky, Hicks, Steinmetz, Biteman, Salazar, Ide, French, Kolb, Hutchings, McKeown
Absent: Nethercott, Brennen (chair), Driskill, Laurson
Note the photograph, presumably representing a teenage girl, was in the original, I didn't put it up there.
The gist of the argument is several fold as being presented here and elsewhere, which is.
1. The bill will make it impossible for girls younger than 16 to get married if they get pregnant.
2. In the past such marriages were common and its only through the operation of negative modern societal institutions that they aren't now.
3. There are lots of examples of such marriages working out.
All of these are pretty bad arguments.
Which, in a lot of ways, defines the far right in general right now. It's taking a genuine concern, and morphing it into something.
I.e., a concern over the loss of existential, and frankly Christian based, values and culture, doesn't need to morph into fawning over Viktor Orbán and imagining that Donald Trump is Cyrus the Great.
Last prior edition:
Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 60th Edition. Catching some z's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)