 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A crisis is brewing in the mother country. Panic bubbles below the surface, ready to boil over in a crisis of Biblical proportions. The stark question remains: are the Brits up to the dire task confronting them?
Considerable ink has been spilled over the past few years detailing the sorry state that is the modern United Kingdom. We on the western shores of the Big Pond can only observe and nervously wonder precisely what new calamity looms above the home of the Magna Carta.
The stoic English have already endured many changes. They have dealt with a virtually complete prohibition on privately owned firearms. Only a relatively few carefully tracked and guarded long guns remain available to citizens. Victims of crimes such as burglary who dare to defend themselves are tossed in jail as a "danger" to crooks while those same scum bags are released and given government money to sue those who shot them. (See the disgraceful story of what happened to farmer Tony Martin who had the temerity to believe his home should be his sanctuary...and paid the price. [Reference 3.])
Don't put razor wire on your fence to keep the predators at bay. That's verboten. Don't carry knitting needles, keys, or walking sticks that could conceivably be used to beat off attackers. Nuh-uh. Don't use anything that someone might interpret as "unreasonable" force in preserving your life. Bad-bad.
What should you do when struggling against someone intent on doing you great bodily harm? Yell. Loudly. [3] And wait. For the armed criminal to get scared. And run away.
Right...
Not content with decisively solving the gun-crime problem, British officials have also proposed a panoply of delightful improvements to their society. National ID cards so everyone knows who he is. Tracking devices in all automobiles to report on speeding, parking, and other violations. Universal DNA databases so you can prove your innocence. Increased censorship so you don't view too many naked men and women. Weakening the presumption of innocence so obviously naughty people don't escape justice. Abolishing restrictions on double jeopardy so criminals can be sent away if they're found not guilty the first time. Limiting the right to jury trials because educated judges are better than mere ignorant citizens at deciding guilt. Fining parents whose children skip classes...
Yes. Weighty issues, indeed. But these imbroglios are small potatoes compared to the major spud fixing its devilish eyes on the Empire That Was, threatening its very survival. If the UK's fearless leaders have their way, Jolly Ol' England is about to get a whole lot jollier.
Conservative party member, David Willets, wants more of his fellow Brits to get down and dirty. Make the two-backed beast. Do the dirty deed. Get laid. Hit more home runs. Score. Screw. Give it up. Bang. Get knocked up (in the Yank sense of that phrase...). You know. Have sex. Unsafe sex. Begat someone.
Apparently, the reserved Brits have been derelict in their duty. Willets claims that unless more young'uns start popping out, the economy will be in serious trouble. Those dirty-minded Americans with their bunny-rabbit ways threaten to beat the less prolific English. Must close the Diaper Gap.
It is true that writer Julian Simon correctly identified people as the "ultimate resource." But the inestimable Willets certainly offers a unique perspective on the subject. Seems that his countrywomen's birth rates simply are not up to muster; they shamefully lack in the ability to sustain the levels of pensions and governmental programs so essential to modern British existence.
Being the good and enlightened fellow that he is, however, Willets would not dare to suggest that mothers stay home and...mother...their children. Heavens forfend! No. He wants them out there and working. After all, how can one possibly tax someone without an income? (Don't answer that...!) Then, when the wee tykes grow and begin their own careers, the State can seize their cumulative incomes, too.
Ingenious.
Even though he says "...we have created an environment in which people are having fewer children than they aspire to," [4] he believes that the State -- "we" -- can correct that minor miscalculation. For example: the State should subsidize more housing and financial services. Make it easier for the child-free, er. -less to swing parenthood. The State'll get it right this time. Really. It will. Honest.
Graciously, Willets concedes that, "Nobody wants to force women to have more children than they wish." [4] Well. Not yet, anyway.
After all, sex has been a favorite preoccupation of politicians for ages. Not just their own, either. They are equally fascinated by yours, too. Banning contraception. Prohibiting literature about contraception. Denying homosexual sex -- sodomy -- or marriage any legal sanction. (E.g., see [1].) Preventing fornication (sex between unmarried folks). Keeping the unwed from shacking up. Outlawing polygamy. Restricting pornography and sex toys. Why, those busy-bee-bodies diligently and tirelessly crowd yet more onto their mounded plates to protect you from too much of a good thing.
At least Willets's proposals are meant to encourage rather than diminish that most primal of pastimes.
The social-engineering of sexual practices enjoys a prime spot in the politicos' toolbox, even today. Divorce laws are "blamed" for encouraging young whippersnappers to bail on troubled marriages and return to the ranks of the "unmarried." Wendy Wright, for example, is concerned about this unsavory trend. (It's good, then, that she is an official with Concerned Women of America.) She argues that advocates for singles are "selfish" and "narcissistic." Oh, dear.
They should, Wright says, place the needs of "society" above their petty desires and remain hitched. She claims that shacking up is often "unhealthy." Unlike many marriages, I suppose. Fifty-percent of which end in divorce. Mustn't quibble, I suppose.
Nevertheless, she -- like Willets in the U.K. -- is a fan of invoking the State to accomplish the ends she deems desirable for the rest of us. Likewise, Glen Stanton of the Focus on the Family maintains that the power of the State should be used to mold sexual behavior for the good of "society as a whole" via various laws and business policies. He lists any number of things married folks do that are essential for a "healthy community." [2] So keep 'em comin', mums and dads.
Knowing that these stalwarts are watching out for our best interests, that they've got our back...sides...covered, we can rest easy in our beds tonight.
Oh, wait. Resting is our beds is the last thing these civic-minded heroes want us to do. So up and at 'em, you slackers.
And remember! Keep a stiff...upper lip.
1. Robert B. Bluey. "Lawsuits Target Expanded Rights for Same-Sex Couples." CNSNews.com. 9-23-03. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200309\CUL20030923a.html
2. Jeff Johnson. "Singles' Group Calls Marriage Benefits 'Discrimination.'" CNSNews.com. 9-23-03. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200309\CUL20030923b.html
3. Wayne LaPierre. "Fugitive From Justice." America's First Freedom. October, 2003. pp 37 -39, 54-55.
4. Mike Wendling. "British Politician Encourages Couples to Have More Babies." CNSNews.com. 9-23-03. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200309\FOR20030923g.html
