America the vanishing

When will we declare independence of the madness now engulfing us?

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

“Several nations, under pressure…”

…with chaos and friction for all.”  We should probably update the Pledge of Allegiance, since Old Glory no longer flies over “one nation, under God, indivisible…”  As Matt Walsh writes:

Are we joined by our shared desire to be free? No. In the minds of many, the ultimate vision of freedom is a socialist utopia where the free market is abolished and the government provides all basic needs. To me, and many others, this is a vision of slavery, not freedom. It may be true that all Americans talk about freedom, and say they want freedom, but the only commonality between the competing views of freedom is the word itself. (emphasis added)

Can we be bound by our passion for human rights? Again, no. The situation with rights is much like that with freedom. Those on the Left – not just the leftist fringes, but the mainstream of the movement – would say that mothers have a “right” to kill their offspring, some Americans have a “right” to the money and property of other Americans, biological males have a “right” to access women’s locker rooms, gay couples have a “right” to the goods and services of Christian business owners, and so on. They see a “human right” as a claim always in competition with other rights claims. One right must supersede another. The woman’s right to autonomy must trounce, violently, a child’s right to live. A college student’s right to be free of debt must overpower a wealthy man’s right to the fruit of his own labor.

What they’re really describing is one group’s struggle for power and dominance over another. It has nothing to do with rights. Rights are inherent to our human nature; by definition, human rights cannot be in competition with one another. But since we have fundamentally opposing definitions of the term, we cannot be united around it.

If we cannot be united around tradition, language, or heritage, and we also cannot be united around a shared belief in freedom and human rights, then what is left?

Not much, it would seem.  The component elements of the formerly united States are worlds apart in their worldviews, and on the crucial issues of the day, compromise is impossible between those views (i.e. either an unborn child is or isn’t a human being and worthy of protection — there is no middle ground).  In these circumstances, our elections have become less one of minute adjustments of the national course, and more one of which worldview gets to impose itself on the other for the next cycle.  That’s not a Union – it’s an abusive relationship.

The question is whether the divorce will be amicable or contested.  But I firmly believe the split, while not desirable, is now inevitable.

This is chiefly idiocy at work

The American Cultural Revolution continues apace:

The mayor and city council in Duluth, Minnesota, are considering renaming any position containing the word “chief” because they believe it is a “microaggression” for Native Americans.

Job positions within the city’s government, including chief administrative officer and chief financial officer, would be renamed under the new policy as part of the city’s efforts to be more inclusive.

Duluth Mayor Emily Larson said the city will vote next week to remove the word “chief” from city job titles “so that we have more inclusive leadership and less language that is rooted in hurt and offensive, intentional marginalization.”

Alicia Kozlowski, Duluth’s community relations officer and a member of the Grand Portage and Fond du Lac bands of Lake Superior Chippewa, told the Star Tribune that the city is being proactive in working to remove these titles even before protesters have made the request. She said she finds the city’s use of the word “chief” to be “a racial epithet, and it turns into a microaggression.” (emphasis added)

First of all, I detest the word “microaggression,” which in reality means “I have such thin skin and a chip on my shoulder that I chose to take offense at something you said, regardless of any actual intent to offend.”  And it’s telling that now cities are actively looking for things to do to look virtuous to various groups without anyone actually saying they’re offended in the first place.  Nice to know Duluth is so well-run that they can devote such effort to incremental improvements towards paradise.  I’m sure whatever will be spent on changing signage, stationery and such to reflect the new titles is worth some potholes not getting repaired.

As is the case with most fussing these days, this issue completely ignores history:

chief (n.) – from about 1300 A.D., “head, leader, captain; the principal or most important part of anything;” from Old French chief “leader, ruler, head” of something, “capital city” (10c., Modern French), from Vulgar Latin *capum, caput “head,” also “leader, chief person; summit; capital city” (from PIE root *kaput- “head”). Meaning “head of a clan” is from 1570s; later extended to headmen of American Indian tribes (by 1713; William Penn, 1680s, called them kings. Commander-in-chief attested from 1660s.  (emphasis added)

In other words, the term “chief” was used to refer to people in positions in Europe THREE CENTURIES before any indigenous Native American officials were bestowed the title by Europeans trying to approximate their position in familiar language.  The application of the term acknowledged the leadership of the tribes being encountered.  But the term was not appropriated from the tribes’ own languages.  Duluth (or any other city) has no business attempting to eradicate its usage.

Where does this end?  In the U.S. Air Force, the top enlisted rank (E-9) is called a Chief Master Sergeant.  Achieving that rank is a career pinnacle, and much of the trappings associated with it uses imagery of Native American “chiefs.”  The Navy has a similar term: “Master Chief Petty Officer” (also the service’s highest enlisted rank).  Such modern usage it titles should be recognized as simply acknowledging authority, but today’s Red Guards refuse to see any history, reason or nuance in their efforts to pull down all of the present in favor of the latest “Year Zero.”

History is important.  Language is important.  Culture and tradition are important.  That’s not to say that change isn’t sometimes needed.  But in the effort to pull up weeds, we need to avoid killing vital roots that sustain our way of life.  Slashing and burning the past never yields much in the way of good fruit.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within”  – Ariel Durant

Does anyone doubt we’re doing a good job of that these days?

American insurgency

“The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.” – Mao Zedong

Under cover of protesters reacting understandably to what appears to be yet another instance of police brutality, the enemies of our nation have launched what amounts to a full-blown insurgency.  Pallets of bricks conveniently show up in time to be thrown through store windows.  Networks of celebrities are providing bail money for those who are arrested.  Politicians are pledging support to Antifa, even as the Federal government finally labels it a terrorist organization (spoiler: it always has been).  And the airwaves are thick with misinformation and misdirection, minimizing the extent to which actual violence and destruction have become daily routine over the past week.

And if that wasn’t enough, at least one potential agent provocateur has now been arrested while posing as a National Guardsman.  Keep that in mind the first time you hear of an incident between a Guardsman and a ‘protester.’  Things are not always as they seem, especially in press reports.

This is perhaps the most dangerous moment for the U.S. since 1861.  President Abraham Lincoln rightly pointed out:

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow?  Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. (emphasis added)

And so it was our adversaries, beginning in the Cold War, began the “long march” through American institutions, seizing control of the means to shape the culture in such a way as to alienate a significant portion of the population from loyalty to the United States.  Their efforts were greatly aided by the deep scars of slavery and racism in our country.  One of the major reasons any sort of lasting racial reconciliation eludes us is that the issue is too useful a wedge for gaining influence — and yes, this is a trick used by partisans of many persuasions.  Remember the adage “divide and conquer.”

Now we’ve arrived at a point in our cultural programming where trying to rightly discern between protest and pillaging is dismissed as ‘racist.’  Now Mao’s ‘fish’ in the above quote can swim easily in the ‘sea.’  If only pillaging were the only goal, however.

Mao Zedong literally wrote the book on insurgency, after successfully fighting the Japanese in World War II and toppling the post-war Nationalist government of China.  He identified three phases to a revolutionary insurgency:

(1)  Organize: Build cells and support
(2)  Guerilla Warfare: Undermine the Government
(3)  Conventional (open) Warfare to topple the Government

Our internal enemies are well organized and enjoy considerable support from “the commanding heights” of society: educators, politicians, entertainers, wealthy ‘movers and shakers’ and so forth.  The violence we now witness is the movement into phase two.  Our Federal, State and local leaders are confronted with a choice: show restraint, in which case they look weak, or crack down, in which case the propaganda machine will work overtime to paint them in the worst possible light.  Either way, the insurgents seek to reduce support for our government.  President Trump has openly criticized State and local leaders for not doing more to control the violence.  Contrary to published reports, he is not calling for the arrest or abuse of peaceful protesters.  (Don’t rely on reports: listen to the man’s own words.  And notice ABC’s headline for the linked video.  Do they match?)  The corporate media blur the distinction between protester and criminal so that the president’s calls for law and order appear to be an effort to curb legitimate expressions of dissent.  Heads, they win.  Tails, he loses.

Do not lose sight of the fact that during all of this chaos, the public is not paying attention to the recent declassification and release of very damning documents that show how contrived and politically motivated the entire “Russia Russia Russia” hoax was, and how Michael Flynn was wrongly targeted as part of that process.  Powerful people have great reason to do anything to keep focus from turning to these developments.  Many have remarked about 2020’s penchant for disaster. Think of the main media themes in the U.S. this year: in January, it was impeachment.  Hardly had that fizzled than we were told COVID would kill us all, so better shut society down.  Once it was clear society was tired of being shut down and was de facto on the way to opening up, suddenly a case of police brutality sets the nation on fire.  (By the way, want to see ‘diversity?’  Look at the four officers involved and fired — it wasn’t a gang of white cops, but photos of officers Thao, Kueng and Lane don’t appear in the Minneapolis Star’s report on Monday. Why is that?.)

None of these events are occurring in isolation.  This is not a normal election year.

I believe the experience gained in our overseas fights must be put to use here at home, and quickly.  The networks of support for organizing violent, criminal activity, must be rolled up, and those involved forced to pay a high price for their incitements.  There are very good reasons not to like Donald Trump, who is a deeply flawed man.  But many of his opponents (on both sides of the aisle) are no longer the “loyal opposition” — they are literally fifth columnists who are a domestic threat to the Constitution of the United States, willing to overturn an election through rumor and innuendo from within the apparatus of shadowy government agencies.  Never forget that our leaders and our armed forces take an oath requiring them to defend that document against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.  At the very least, there are a large number of people guilty of sedition in this country.  And while treason is a word too lightly tossed around these days, an argument could be made it’s applicable in some cases as well.

Even if the government moves effectively to end the current crisis, it’s not finished.  The reason insurgency is so hard to defeat is that unless the ideas and motives behind it are completely discredited, even losing in stage three can leave a small cadre of the committed to begin all over again.  This is the type of war we have been fighting in Afghanistan and the Middle East since 9/11, and the reason Al Qaeda and Islamic State still persist, however diminished.  Killing combatants is easy.  Killing an idea is damned well impossible.  (I use “damned” deliberately, as the resiliency of Marxist and Jihadist aspirations, despite the long historical record of horrors in their names, shows the hellish perniciousness of their deceit.)

This is why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  We have been lulled into complacency, our attention directed anywhere other than where it needs to be.  Whether the insurgency grows to phase three or is knocked back to the starting line for another generation depends on Americans learning what’s really going on.  Lots of dots need to be connected to see the picture.  The question is whether we have the attention span and discernment to do so anymore.  Otto von Bismark, the statesman most responsible for the creation of a unified Germany in the 19th Century, is said to have remarked “God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.”

I certainly hope that still holds true.

Thinking about family

“Ohana means family.  Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.”  – Lilo and Stitch

Warning: this turned into a long post.  There is a lot to unpack and consider in this article from The Atlantic magazine, entitled “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake.”  I began it expecting an attack on the so-called “traditional family.”  It is, in fact, a critique of the proverbial independent parents-with-two-kids model, but not for the reasons you might suspect:

This is the story of our times—the story of the family, once a dense cluster of many siblings and extended kin, fragmenting into ever smaller and more fragile forms. The initial result of that fragmentation, the nuclear family, didn’t seem so bad. But then, because the nuclear family is so brittle, the fragmentation continued. In many sectors of society, nuclear families fragmented into single-parent families, single-parent families into chaotic families or no families.

If you want to summarize the changes in family structure over the past century, the truest thing to say is this: We’ve made life freer for individuals and more unstable for families. We’ve made life better for adults but worse for children. We’ve moved from big, interconnected, and extended families, which helped protect the most vulnerable people in society from the shocks of life, to smaller, detached nuclear families (a married couple and their children), which give the most privileged people in society room to maximize their talents and expand their options. The shift from bigger and interconnected extended families to smaller and detached nuclear families ultimately led to a familial system that liberates the rich and ravages the working-class and the poor…

To my surprise, the author was not arguing the “nuclear family” is wrong — rather, that it is incomplete:

Continue reading

It’s not just the military

A former Naval officer makes an observation in The Atlantic magazine:

I spent nine years on active duty in the U.S. Navy. I served as an aircraft commander, led combat reconnaissance crews, and taught naval history. But the first thing I did upon joining the military, the act that solemnized my obligation, was swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. How strange, then, that despite all of my training, the millions of taxpayer dollars devoted to teaching me how to fly, lead, and teach, not once did I receive meaningful instruction on the document to which I had pledged my life.

It’s a fair statement.  I’ve always been interested in the history of our nation and its institutions, so when I served on active duty I had a fairly solid knowledge of our Constitution.  It surprised me how many others did not — and moreover, how many didn’t care.  A member of one of the teams I once led was an enlisted legal resident from the Philippines (did you know citizenship is not required for military service?  You do now…).  She was studying for her citizenship exam, and we were all cheering for her to complete that lengthy process.  Out of curiosity, I asked to see the study materials she’d been given.  It was fairly detailed, and I realized if she mastered it she’d likely have a better grasp of how our nation is supposed to function than most high school graduates do today.  (This is why LEGAL immigration processes and paths to citizenship, rather than amnesties, are important).  For fun, I tossed a few basic questions from the book out to the rest of the team, and was disappointed in how little they could answer.  Like the author of the linked article, I reminded them they’d sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, so they might want to know what’s in it.

The military is in many ways a reflection of the society from which it’s drawn, and this is but one example.  There is a glaring lack of basic understanding of our institutions, particularly among those who are handed the privilege of voting at the tender age of 18.  I taught High School for a year after leaving the military.  The seniors I had for Government were roundly disinterested in the subject (to be fair, they weren’t thrilled with many others, either).  I explained they wouldn’t play any of their sports without knowing the rules.  So why were they content to begin adult life without knowing them?  Frankly, it was a depressing experience.

Almost 2,500 years ago, one of the most successful republics in history inscribed 12 tablets with basic social laws, and placed them in a public forum for all citizens to see.  This action did not create a utopia, of course, and by today’s standards some of the laws are quite questionable.  But it did foster an idea later expressed as “lex rex”  (“the law rules”), as opposed to governance being merely the whimsy of those in power.  Though that republic later fell into tyranny and then disarray, later documents such as the Magna Carta continued this line of thought: that there were limits even to a king’s power.

What limits today do Americans recognize on Uncle Sam and his little cousins, the States?  Can Sam simply take your money without due process?  What about your home?  Is the 2nd Amendment subject to curtailment by the States?  Did the writers of the Constitution intend for the government to be a dispenser of welfare?  Are we supposed to have equal justice under the law, or is your risk of prosecution for similar offenses dependent on whether you are a former deputy FBI director or someone working for a president who acts as an ‘outsider?’

Short of the Bible, there is no more important document in our society’s fabric than our Constitution.  Yet the average American today is alarmingly ignorant of both.  Is it any wonder our nation is so troubled?

Doctor Who?

Not long ago, Vox Day wrote a book called “SJWs Always Double Down,” detailing the fact that rather than admit being wrong, the typical Social Justice Warrior will just push harder in their desired direction in an effort to steamroll opposition.  Unfortunately, the British TV series “Doctor Who” seems to be providing a picture-perfect example of this in action:

2018: Controversially casts Jodie Whitaker as the first female incarnation of the Doctor in the half-century history of the show

2018 – 2019: Ratings for the show drop dramatically

2020: Casts Jo Martin as the first *black* female incarnation of the Doctor…

My family enjoyed the show’s “modern” run episodes until it started going downhill in the Capaldi era, about 2014.  There were always secondary characters and subtexts I could have lived without (Captain Jack being exhibit A).  But when the producers decided to gender-swap the long-running “Master” character into “Missy,” I had a strong feeling it was a trial balloon to prep viewers for doing the same with the Master’s long-time nemesis, the titular Doctor himself.  We’ve not watched a single episode since Capaldi left, although I’ve kept up with some of the reviews, which only confirmed my decision.  From the furor on fan forums, we’re far from the only ones to have jumped Tardis.  The younger crowd, having been thoroughly indoctrinated, reflexively dismisses critics of these changes as badthinkers.

The destruction of various franchises by “rebooting” them with characters who are now the opposite sex, or some LGBTQXYZABC specimen is increasingly pernicious.  It demonstrates yet again how evil is parasitical.  It doesn’t create – it only consumes, degrades and destroys.  Fortunately, there are still those who seek to create, preserve and enjoy the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

Appetite for destruction

How joyless must life be for anyone who believes humanity to be merely a plague?

Fifty years ago, I concluded that the best thing for the planet would be a peaceful phase-out of human existence. We’re causing the extinction of hundreds of thousands of other species. With us gone, I believe ecosystems will be restored and there will be enough of everything…

At 25, I wanted to show I was serious. A medical school gave me a discounted vasectomy in exchange for being a student doctor’s first try at the procedure, which was successful…

Procreation today is the moral equivalent of selling berths on a sinking ship.  It’s true that society would be greatly diminished without children, but it isn’t right to create them just because we like having them around.

And on the flip side, if they’re inconvenient, just abort them, right?  The author doesn’t say this, but one can deduce enough of his worldview that it’s a good bet he supports abortion on demand. (“Marriage never made sense to me anyway: I would have missed getting to know many wonderful women had I stuck with one.”)

This desire to destroy humanity comes straight from The Enemy, who sees in us the imago dei and strikes at it in any way possible: war, murder, abortion, suicide — anything that snuffs out the physical vessel carrying the lifebreath of God.

As the Genesis account makes clear, we were entrusted with the stewardship of the Earth.  One cannot steward if one is not around.  Are there areas in which we can do better?  Most certainly.  But the root cause of the world’s problems is not our existence.  It’s our fallen, sinful state – the same state that causes so many to worship the creation instead of the Creator.

Regarding this business of “selling berths on a sinking ship:” I can understand people who wonder about the wisdom of bringing a child into the world.  I first became an uncle days after 9/11, and I wondered what sort of world my niece and my own (then young) children would grow up in.  In many ways it hasn’t been what I would have wished for them.  But one of the advantages of studying history is a realization there truly is nothing new under the sun.  Did Americans in 1942, or 1917, or 1863 have any less reason to wonder about the world they’d leave to their posterity?  What about earlier Europeans facing the plagues, or invasion by the Mongols?  The West has enjoyed such a high standard of living since the 1950s that we forget what a rare exception to the rule this has been (and how much a Biblical worldview has been instrumental).

The West has all but lost the hope that comes from Christ.  Churches are emptying.  Bibles are unread ornaments.  People trust their own wisdom rather than that of the ages.  Other worldviews are not necessarily devoid of logic — their logic simply produces different conclusions.  If we believe our physical environment is all there is, then preserving it at any cost – even human extinction – can seem a reasonable conclusion.

Modern environmentalism (as opposed to Biblical stewardship) is a religion.  It seeks to answer “the big questions:” how did we get here (chance/evolution), why are things imperfect (human activity), and what is the solution (in this case, complete elimination of humanity).  The writer of the linked article clearly takes comfort and derives purpose from adherence to the logic of his beliefs.

But if we believe this is just a stopover on the way to eternity, then the value of each individual human being becomes infinitely greater than a world already subject to entropy, whether we’re around or not.

It behooves us not to knowingly or carelessly foul our temporary home.  It profits us even more to remember it’s just that: temporary.  But love — true, sacrificial love: that between spouses, between parents and children, between those who belong to the Body — is eternal.

American extinction

A trio of reads, looking at current trends from different lenses:

First, the Wall Street Journal notices how changing demographics are influencing the future of our politics:

For years, the establishment media has admitted that the nation’s changing electorate — almost entirely due to mass legal immigration — is dooming the Republican Party in elections across Orange County, California, and now, Virginia.

Under current legal immigration levels, the U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country…

Ronald Brownstein, senior editor for The Atlantic, notes that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This means that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding roughly 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.

But immigration (legal and illegal) isn’t the only driver of this demographic change.  The original posterity of America’s founders, increasingly, isn’t showing up anymore:

The accentuated shift toward racial and ethnic diversity among the nation’s child population is not only driven by a growth in nonwhite racial and ethnic groups. It is also facilitated by a decline in young whites. Overall, the nation’s white population has grown tepidly–by 0.1% since 2010. It declined by 247,000 between 2016-2018 according to the new estimates. But the number of white children under age 15 has declined over the 2010-2018 year period by 2.2 million, continuing a trend already observed in the first decade of the century.

This decline in white youth reflects lower white birth rates. But more importantly for the long term, it reflects an aging of the white population that has led to proportionately fewer women in their childbearing years.

As a result of these trends, the very idea of American citizenship is being rendered moot:

Americans cherish their citizenship. ((I’m not sure that’s demonstrably true anymore — Jemison))  Yet they have all but lost it. The erosion of the citizen is insidiously accelerating in two quite different directions. It seems as if we are reverting to tribal pre-citizenship, in the manner of clan allegiances in the centuries before the rise of the Greek polis and the seventh-century-B.C. invention of the concept of the citizen (politês). Or perhaps the better comparison is to the fifth-century A.D., when northern nomadic ethnic bands crossed the Rhine and Danube and replaced the multiracially encompassing notion of “civis Romanus sum”—“I am a Roman citizen”—with tribal loyalties to fellow Goths, Huns, or Vandals…

…multiculturalism is retribalizing America, in the manner of the fragmentation and evaporation of the Roman Empire. Millions seem to owe their first loyalty to those who share similar ethnic, racial, or religious affinities rather than to shared citizenship, common traditions, and collective histories that transcend race, creed, and clan.

If we wonder why illegal alien residents who commit felonies are rarely deported or must be deported repeatedly, or why few college graduates know much about the Constitution and American history, or why loud social-justice-warrior athletes so eagerly mouth Chinese platitudes about curtailing free speech inside the United States, or why the protections offered by the First and Second Amendments depend largely on where you work or live, one of the reasons is because American citizenship as we once knew it is becoming meaningless.

I highly recommend reading and thinking about each of these linked pieces.  Those who foisted the Immigration Act of 1965 upon the country succeeded: they have dissolved the people and “elected” another… one less likely to oppose their anti-American agendas.

Yankee, go home

There’s an old joke: what’s the difference between a Yankee and a damnyankee?  The first describes a person from north of the Maxon-Dixon line.  The second describes such a person who moves to the South, then tries to turn the South into the north.  That latter variety is easy to spot these days, as several States move to restrict or end organized infanticide.  Yankee transplants are having to come to grips that, outside their trendy neighborhoods in select cities that have been seduced economically, there are still wide swaths of the country that reject the currents of the current age:

Living in a very liberal city in a very conservative state is a trick mirror. “You really forget that you are in the Deep South here,’’ she said. The news was an awakening. When she had moved to New Orleans she volunteered for Planned Parenthood. She knocked on doors to ask for donations, expecting at least some to be slammed in her face. But nearly everyone she met was already making contributions to Planned Parenthood…

How will these new abortion laws affect the redistribution of talent to places whose economies prosper from that talent? Under the current conditions, I wondered if women like Tess and her friends, many of whom moved from New York or Los Angeles, would have chosen to relocate to the Deep South. I asked some of them, and they told me that they were not sure.

Well, they moved once… maybe a roundtrip ticket was in order.  Southerners have had just about enough of progressive proselytizing down here.

I concede that it’s interesting to talk to progressive Northerners who moved South, thinking that the Grand March of Progress would inevitably make the benighted (but cheap) metropolises of Dixie into non-deplorable locales — but who are learning that they, in fact, live in the South.

What chaps my butt about the piece is the assumption by the author (and those she writes about) that the South ought to assimilate to the dominant progressive culture. The message of this piece is, If you Christianist troglodytes don’t let us progressives have our abortions, we’re not going to move there and contribute to your economies.

I have an idea! All y’all could pack up your progressive colonialism ethic and go the hell back home.

And all God’s people said “amen.”

By passing the nation’s most restrictive abortion law, pro-life advocates are setting the stage to provoke a legal fight they hope will culminate with the Supreme Court revisiting Roe v. Wade.

It’s like the Alabama legislature watched all the giddy, tone-deaf hubris surrounding the New York legislature’s passage of their own bill expanding abortion rights (you remember the cheering pro-choice crowds and buildings awash in celebratory pink lighting), and said enough.

It is heartening to see a developing repentance and rejection of the idea of abortion on demand.  I pray our nation experiences such revival that one day our descendants look back on its supporters with the same horror reserved today for those who defended slavery.

DZtZTzpWkAIdqHd