Worldwide One-Child Law?

So this knucklehead up in Canada thinks a planet-wide one-child law is the cure to overpopulation concerns. The author, one Diane Francis, cites China as her example of a country with the right policy on population control to help save the planet and, as a result, humanity.

Before I rip into Francis, a brief history on population growth. In short, there are four stages of population. Stage 1 is pre-urban, Stage 2 is the beginning of industrialization, Stage 3 is modern industrialization and Stage 4 is post-industrialization. As a nation grows wealthier, more educated, more equal between the sexes etc. the population tends to slow. Europe and North America are at Stages 3 and 4, though The United States of America has not quite hit Stage 4 due to our large influx of immigrants. Of course, one of the negatives of this population growth pattern is the “graying” of many nations.

When I first read this piece, I knew I had to be misreading it. Francis couldn’t be saying the world should follow the ethical standards of China. Not the one that is run by a government?that has refused to apologize for the Tiananmen Square massacre 20 years ago. Not the same one that tried to cover up SARS, sterilizes women and forces them to have abortions as part of their one-child policy and arrested many citizens and tried to prevent freedom of speech before and during the 2008 Summer?Olympics. I was also sure she couldn’t have meant the same one that has crushed Tibetans for over half a century and did so again last year.

Alas, I was wrong- Francis was referring to that very China. Francis has ignored the giant elephant in the room, namely China’s atrocious human rights history involved with its “success” story on lowering the size of its population.There are a number of other things Francis missed in her thesis, and I will touch on a few of them below.

First, there are a number of more-ethical-than-China ways to encourage a birth rate that helps population control. One is to create opportunities for widespread wealth. A second is to “[ensure] women’s equality and improving their education, while providing cheap contraception.” (Note: as a practicing Catholic, I do not find contraceptive use ethical; however, it is more ethical than the Chinese approach of forced sterilizations and abortions. Too, I think the other three improvements provide far more opportunity for slowing birth rates.) These opportunities are largely responsible for nations at Stage 4 of population growth patterns.

Another point Francis missed was the utter immorality of forcing abortions worldwide. As Jonah Goldberg put it at The Corner: “But one point does cry out to be made. Imagine if someone wrote an op-ed saying that we need a planetary ban on abortion. Feminists would get their dresses over their heads in outrage about such a naked assault on “reproductive freedom.” But here is a woman in a very prestigious Canadian newspaper arguing, in effect, that every country in the world should force women everywhere to have an abortion if they already have a child. Put aside, for a moment, the pro-life objections to this. Even if you think the unborn are really just a bunch of cells, mere “uterine contents” with no more moral import than fingernail clippings, how on earth can anyone believe in “reproductive freedom” and not be absolutely horrified by the police-state evil of such proposals?”

Thirdly, Francis forgets that over a dozen countries, including Finland and France, have taken giant steps toward energy independence by building nuclear power plants. Combined with Congress allowing more nuclear power plants and domestic drilling in America- the world’s second-largest carbon dioxide emitter- this would be a huge step toward renewable and cleaner energy policy that would reverbrate around the world. It would also create less demand for oil, which is obviously good for the planet. Since Francis is rightfully concerned about the impact of overpopulation on the planet?s resources, perhaps she would agree that eliminating the need for non-renewable resources and lessening the overall impact of humanity on the planet is better than encouraging forced abortions and sterilizations?

A last point- Francis is entirely inefficient with her method of controlling the world’s population. The best way to attack population growth is to have every single one of these fruitcakes voluntarily jump off a bridge. Let’s say just one percent of the Earth’s population agrees with her; that means we’ll get rid of 60 million people with no added effort or government involvement. Next, atomize Tokyo and Beijing- throw in New York, the Yankees are there- and our population won’t have to take decades to see results. In minutes Earth will be a happier, healthier place to live!

The fact is that a planet-wide ban on multiple children would, by its very nature, lead to a worst-case scenario situation of forced abortions, sterilization, government intimidation, a plethora of jailed citizens etc. The world’s one example of this is China, but allow me to extrapolate: let’s say each government takes its responsibility to help the planet seriously. They hire people whose job it is to keep the birth rate at one per couple. Of course, some people won’t follow the law, which means those officials will have only a few choices to prevent multiple births by a mother. The first is to arrest her and her husband for breaking the law- after forcing her to have an abortion, of course, to prevent the extra child’s birth- thereby causing the government to adopt the couple’s first child or find it a new home. The second is to not jail the couple- but to prevent births another way. The solution would be to abort the extra child and sterilize the mother and/or father (though probably the mother, since sterilizing the father would still leave the mother the opportunity to get pregnant from another source). Of course, if all else fails, the government could simply kill the parents and thereby save both the planet’s and the government’s resources, and put the firstborn child up for adoption.

Obviously, Francis does not care for the human species- that is her prerogative. As of now, her opinion is not quite in the mainstream. It’s not even a Google option. Unfortunately, as Goldberg said, her piece was in a “very prestigious Canadian newspaper,” so it’s up to those of us who think this policy is heinous to stop it in its tracks so it does not reach the status of “mainstream.”

By the way, AllahPundit says it more concisely and better than I can.

Why He’ll NEVER Be King of Late Night

I apologize, as I seem to be slightly behind on things these days.? However, while gracing the “Book of Faces” (Facebook) at work, I came across a note from Mr. and Mrs. Todd Palin in response to nefarious remarks made by David Letterman.? I was only aware of his remark regarding Mrs. Palin herself.? As reported below:

Sarah Palin called David Letterman “pathetic” Tuesday after the CBS “Late Show” host said the Alaska Republican governor sports a “slutty flight attendant look.” (seattlepi)

My thoughts were fairly apathetic.? I understand that many people outside of the Republican Party, and many Conservatives within, are not overwhelmingly impressed with Sarah Palin.? However, David Letterman’s ad hominem snipes at Sarah Palin and her family just demonstrate his like of class, abundance of curtness, and misunderstanding of comedy.? Some of the top tens, chuckle, ok.? Calling her a “slutty flight attendant,” well we are just offending all sorts of people now aren’t we Dave?? Frankly, Sarah Palin was right, because Dave’s attempts at humor while simultaneously trying to degrade were pathetic after all.? No tact, no double entendres, no puns.? Just “you’re a stupid ho.”? Bravo Dave.

I had gone on with my life, aware?of the fact that the two funny segments of Dave’s nugatory program would likely be repeated??on Morning Joe. Erstwhile, another comment had been made regarding Mrs. Palin’s trip to a New York baseball game that I was not totally aware of.? Also, it is my understanding that Dave was attempting to make a joke about Bristol Palin, but the younger 14 year old daughter was at the game and not Bristol.? The Palin’s each responded accordingly:

“Any ‘jokes’ about raping my 14-year-old are despicable. Alaskans know it and I believe the rest of the world knows it, too.”

- Todd Palin

“Concerning Letterman’s comments about my young daughter (and I doubt he’d ever dare make such comments about anyone else’s daughter): ‘Laughter incited by sexually-perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands – that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone’s daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.’”

- Governor Sarah Palin

About What a Movie Costs These Days…

…OK, so I am exaggerating slightly.? Slightly.? A typical dinner and a movie?does not run $24,000, even in the People’s Republic of Maryland (where I find myself currently).? Granted, going to dinner in the ‘glamorous’ Montgomery County can help worsen?anyones’ credit problems, but I can’t say that I have a credit limit quite as high as the collective of?American Taxpayers.? Despite the talks of frugality, despite the lectures of personal sacrifice, despite the stern fatherly warnings about responsibility, the Obamas decided that they were going to have a date-night dammit.? And not just any typical date night, a $24,000 date night complete with ferrying their entourage and reporters and all.

Please, don’t get me wrong.? I am not a nit-picky kind of guy.? Perhaps I am just jealous because I cannot manage $24,000 dates (or anydates for that matter).? I find the Obama’s recent trip to New York City for the express purpose of having a date to be appallingly inconsiderate, supercilious, and demonstrates a disconnect with not only the average citizen of this country, but with manners in general.? For many of the younger, in-DC crowd who fancy themselves on Capitol Hill or Federal Triangle the Obama’s personify the cool part of living in the District.? Some of us like the trendy way the Obama’s conduct themselves, with their feaux middle-America aura, and their quaint date nights and frequenting small burger and hot dog joints.? They cannot utilize the resources of our government (Secret Service, smaller Air Force 1 versions, Marine helicopters, etc.) and expect us simpletons to look at you as a peer.? In a world where the President lectures us on paying taxes, while appointing tax-evading cabinet members; where car executives are scorned for taking private jets (they paid for mind you) while the First Couple parades around in their own (tax payer-paid mind you); and we are lectured on being blind to race and gender when liberals make arguments that certain people have to be selected for Supreme Court? Justiceships?because of their race, or gender; I can only echo the words of Marie Antoinette, “qu’ils mangent de la brioche!”? I hope the Obamas enjoyed their cake.

-rj

New York: The Empire Tax State

You can’t create an Empire State without a little cash to go around.? The tax break looks to be coming to an end in New York.? A recently passed bill titled the “Amazon Tax” will be coming to online purchases near you – er, if you live in New York.? The New York government has decided that companies selling goods in New York should be shouldering the tax burden for the state.? This will go directly against the basic premise that is the Internet Tax Freedom Act which was created in 1998 to help the new medium to foster and grow.? Maybe the government is starting to decide its grown enough, and it wants a piece of the pie?

Check out Ars Technica for a detailed breakdown.

-nick