Ann Coulter believes that the two issues that matter most in this presidential election cycle are are 1) repealing Obamacare, and 2) halting illegal immigration. It made me wonder.
Republicans have good reason to oppose Obamacare, but illegal immigration? Not to diminish its importance as an issue, but really? Illegal immigration is more important than foreign policy and our pursuit of obscenely expensive foreign wars? More important than our economy and the job market? More important than our tax system? More important than domestic business regulation or international trade?
I don’t see how illegal immigration, which largely benefits the United States due to its influx of cheap labor, could even land itself in the top five issues facing our nation.
So why does Ann Coulter, the wicked witch of shock-conservative talking heads, think it’s so important?
Then it hit me.
Republican leaders want to counter illegal immigration in order to prevent latinos from voting for Democrats.
Latinos make up 9% of the US voting population, and collectively are growing at a much faster rate than the US population as a whole. They’re a coveted voting demographic who tend to favor Democrats by a wide margin: 65% of latino voters are registered Democrats, while only 22% are registered Republicans. There are two reasons for the demographic’s growth. The first is the group’s unusually high fertility rate. The second is that illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico into the US tend to rear children here, and their children become US citizens upon their birth.
Considering that 45% of US population growth after 2030 is projected to come from latino births and that latino voters strongly favor Democratic candidates, the Republican party is in a bit of a bind. If this trend continues, Democrats could be in a position to consolidate control of the house and the senate for a long time; perhaps as long as they did in the 20th century (from 1933 to 1995). For Republicans, then, restricting illegal immigration is not a fight about the party’s values. The party’s position is not a result of a careful assessment of policy options. Rather, restricting illegal immigration is a fight for the continued existence of the Republican Party, period.
Yitta Schwartz died in January 2010, but she is perhaps the most dangerous woman on the planet. She is dangerous not because of her demeanor or her smile, but rather her unique set of values, and what those values drove her to do: she excessively over-bred, leaving 2,000+ descendants, and consequently quickened the destruction of the biosphere that we call home. Mrs. Schwartz’ individual actions affected us all–she took from all of us, and gave us nothing in return.
Yitta and her husband Yosef had 17 children over the years, living in Antwerp and finally settling in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Those 17 children produced 170 grandchildren. Amazingly, Yitta could name all of them. Two more generations sprang forth from the loins of her grandchildren, and it is believed that she has at least 2,000 descendants, and perhaps 2,500, if they were to counted systematically. It is unlikely that Mrs. Schwartz knew of the outsized negative impact her progeny has had on the planet, and the commensurate setback in human sustainability.
Let’s not mince words; Mrs. Schwartz’ behavior is abhorrent. Her religion (Orthodox Judaism, or more specifically, Satmar Hasidic Judaism) gave her a belief that she should produce a brood as large as her body would allow. Her family planning behavior–that of having no control whatsoever over the number of her offspring–puts her squarely on the same level as wild animals.
The lack of strategy and planning that Mrs. Schwartz employed is an affront to the human intellect, and it also sets a dangerous precedent. Is it okay, in this day and age, to breed uncontrollably, to breed irresponsibly? If we were all to breed like rabbits (as Mrs. Schwartz certainly did), our species would be doomed to perpetually fight over dwindling resources, and our society would crumble. Law and order would vanish. All the work of our species, put in over thousands of years, toward the aim of building a more prosperous human condition, would be wasted.
If such a dystopian future is as detestable as I think it is, why then do we continue to allow humans to breed like wild animals? Why do we sign-off on the atrocious behavior of some solely becausee they subscribe to a particular brand of prehistoric beliefs? Is our desire to avoid offending religious and ideological groups responsible for putting society on a course toward its eventual ruin?
If our planet wasn’t overpopulated, then sure, overbreeding would be A-Okay, at least for a while. But in 2010, with a world population of 6.7 billion stretching the planet’s resources thin, excessive procreation hurts everyone. When anti-social behavior comes about, humans do the right thing–they ban and punish it. Perhaps it’s time that we ban excessive procreation.
“Progress … is about to hit the buffers of overpopulation, the greenhouse effect, and the exhaustion of resources. However fast we run, we never seem to get anywhere. Has the industrial revolution made the average inhabitant of the world healthier, wealthier, and wiser? Yes, if he is German. No, if he is Bangladeshi. Uncannily, … evolutionary science is ready to suit the mood. The fashion in evolutionary science now is to scoff at progress; evolution is a treadmill, not a ladder.”
CNN reports that the world’s population is forecast to hit 7 billion in 2011, with the vast majority of its growth coming in developing and, in many cases, the poorest nations:
97 percent of global growth over the next 40 years will happen in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the Population Reference Bureau’s 2009 World Population Data Sheet. “The great bulk of today’s 1.2 billion youth — nearly 90 percent — are in developing countries,” said Carl Haub, a co-author of the report. Eight in 10 of those youth live in Africa and Asia.
High fertility rates and a young population base in the developing world will fuel most of the growth, especially in Africa, where women often give birth to six or seven children over a lifetime, the report says. The number is about two in the United States and 1.5 in Canada.
A stark contrast can be drawn between Uganda and Canada, which currently have about 34 million and 31 million residents, respectively. By 2050, Canada’s population is projected to be 42 million, while Uganda’s is expected to soar to 96 million, more than tripling.
“Even with declining fertility rates in many countries, world population is still growing at a rapid rate,” said Bill Butz, president of the bureau. “The increase from 6 billion to 7 billion is likely to take 12 years, as did the increase from 5 billion to 6 billion. Both events are unprecedented in world history.”
Population growth is the biggest problem that our generation will face. Adding bodies and at the same time increasing resource consumption per human is a recipe for disaster.
The silver lining is that, as societies develop, their birthrates go down. Developed areas like Hong Kong and Macau sport responsible fertility rates, with the number of children born per woman at less than 1. South Korea, Singapore, and Japan hover around 1.25 children per woman, and most of Europe is in the 1.25-1.6 range. Canada’s is 1.5, and the United States’ is 2.05–both under the “replacement rate” of 2.2, which would mean zero population growth.
The problem is the poorest nations, including Niger, Guinea-Bissau, and Afghanistan, where women have seven children, on average. How they can support these children, let alone educate them and provide them with quality medical care, is beyond me.
When I give, I like to give smart.
I give to the right organizations that I’ve researched and know well, and I prefer giving when my donation is being matched.
A few weeks ago, I found one of those opportunities when a distant acquaintance/relative named David Alhadeff was raising money for the Lance Armstrong Foundation. David was kind enough to offer a personal match AND a corporate match from his firm, Goldman Sachs. 3X leverage on a philanthropic donation is a situation I like, so I donated and then sent out an email to some family members who were also kind enough to donate. With one email, we increased his fundraising amount by 21% (but more importantly, The Lance Armstrong Foundation got 3X that much!)
Today, a similar opportunity has presented itself. A wealthy donor has offered to match gifts to Planned Parenthood up to $1M:
From now until June 30, a generous donor will match every online gift to Planned Parenthood dollar-for-dollar up to $1 million. This means that, for example, if you give $50, Planned Parenthood will actually get $100. With more and more people turning to Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers for care during this economic recession, now is the best time to give. Whether you can spare $5, $50, or $500, your contribution will be doubled: https://secure.ga0.org/02/match09pporg?source=match09fbc3
Planned Parenthood is a leader in women’s health, and often provides services free-of-charge to underserved and poor women (including cervical cancer screenings, breast exams, contraception, testing for STIs, et cetera), and Planned Parenthood can’t continue to provide those services without your support.
2X leverage on your donation for a good cause…what are you waiting for!?
Give To Planned Parenthood
OctoMom has been punished for her outlandish behavior: she’ll be undergoing surgery that will leave her unable to conceive again (tumors on her uterus).
“The number of hungry people in the world could soon hit a record 1 billion, despite a recent drop in food prices, the U.N. food aid organization said Wednesday.”
How about this: STOP FUCKING HAVING KIDS! Then there won’t be any starving people!
Levi Johnston, the young man who knocked up Bristol Palin, appeared on The Tyra Banks Show to tell his story, in which he stated that Bristol’s mother knew the pair weren’t celibate because he would often stay the night in Bristol’s bed. Sarah Palin’s propaganda machine spit back:
“We’re disappointed that Levi and his family, in a quest for fame, attention, and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies,” a spokesman said. “Bristol’s focus will remain on raising Tripp … and advocating abstinence.”
For abstinence to work, you have to abstain. Bristol gets the contradiction. She told Fox News back in February that she realizes abstinence is “not realistic at all.”
“Who goes from 6 children to 14? What does she think…that she’s playing blackjack or something?”
Nadya Suleman’s reckless behavior is finally taking its toll. The home she resides in is being foreclosed upon.
No payments have been made since May 2008 — she’s behind $23,224.98.
Here’s the notice of foreclosure: .pdf.
Unmarried mother of 14 Nadya Suleman is the poster child for irresponsible childbearing, and more evidence has come to light that suggests she is unfit to raise children:
In 2001, [Suleman] reported being depressed “with recurrent thoughts of death,” according to state workers compensation records reviewed by The [Los Angeles] Times.
The mother of octuplets born last week in Bellflower told NBC News she wanted to have a “huge family” because she longed for personal connections she felt she lacked in her childhood.
“[I lacked a] feeling of self and identity. I didn’t feel as though, when I was a child, I had much control of my environment. I felt powerless. And [having a baby] gave me a sense of predictability. Reflecting back on my childhood, I know it wasn’t functional. It was pretty dysfunctional.”
Let me get this straight. A woman with a dysfunctional childhood who has had suicidal thoughts suddenly thought it would be a grand idea to have a bunch of kids, so they might suffer from her vitriolic presence?
This woman should be locked up in a mental hospital and sterilized for the good of society.
Nadya Doud has had 14 children out of wedlock.
When you have six, why do you need more?
It should be illegal to have this many children. How is she going to provide for them and ensure they have a decent upbringing?
President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday. The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the “Mexico City policy” reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.
Please do strike it down, Mr. Obama.
Recessions usually cause birthrates to crater:
One was the Great Depression, when the U.S. fertility rate (the number of children born per woman) fell to about 2.1, and the second was in 1976, when the rate hit a low of 1.7 after the oil crisis and a severe recession.
The fertility rate now is back up to 2.1 and has been stable for a while.
With the declining economy, it’s becoming more difficult for couples to legitimize having more children. For a family making $80,000 a year, an extra child can cost $10,000/year in groceries, diapers, and college fund contributions. For families making more, they can expect to spend $30,000/year per child from expenses like private education, nannies, and tutors.
Let’s hope this brings down the fertility rate to more responsible levels.
- Featured (492)
- Politics (251)
- Humor (191)
- No F***ing Way (187)
- Music (174)
- Business (173)
- Philosophy (162)
- Finance (147)
- Quotes (137)
- Seattle (125)
- Technology (114)
- Economics (102)
- Europe (97)
- Conversations (86)
- Emerging Markets (67)
- Must. Have. (66)
- Fashion (62)
- The Web (60)
- Photography (59)
- Cellphones (49)
- Out and About (41)
- Design (40)
- Travel (34)
- Responsible Population (32)
- Sports (31)
- Video (30)
- Gotham (28)
- What I'm Reading (28)
- City of Angels (26)
- History (24)
- Health (18)
- Restaurants (10)
- Movies (6)
- F1 (3)
- Art (3)
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- March 2007
- July 2005
- May 2004
- July 1999