Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 03/14/2006 View Mon 03/13/2006 View Sun 03/12/2006 View Sat 03/11/2006 View Fri 03/10/2006 View Thu 03/09/2006 View Wed 03/08/2006
1
2006-03-14 Home Front: Culture Wars
The liberal baby bust
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tu3031 2006-03-14 13:17|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [470 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 While stationed at Ft Hood during the late 1990s, the on post church service I attended had two muti-kid families. One was Morman (sic?)and had eight kids, they had a baby boy during this time, so there were three boys and five girls. The other big family was Texas Aggie/Presbe...can't remember how to spell the demonination name... and also had a new baby boy the same year as the Morman(sic)family. They had seven kids, five boys and two girls. Both were neat families with wonderful children. Thus Utah and Texas are destined to rule America......
Posted by KJB43">KJB43  2006-03-14 14:25||   2006-03-14 14:25|| Front Page Top

#2 I think this is a bunch of linear thinking crap.
Posted by 2b 2006-03-14 15:55||   2006-03-14 15:55|| Front Page Top

#3  I think this is a bunch of linear thinking crap.

Is this parody? If not, explain.

Posted by no mo uro 2006-03-14 17:41||   2006-03-14 17:41|| Front Page Top

#4 I think this is a bunch of linear thinking crap.

?????????

Insightful? Comment? Shallow?
Posted by Almost Anonymous5839">Almost Anonymous5839  2006-03-14 17:43||   2006-03-14 17:43|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't question the numbers or any of the particular facts, I question the cause and effect that he implies that the numbers indicate.

I think it is interesting that he compares Salt Lake City and Seattle. Isn't it just as likely that people who choose to live in Seattle will be progressive for two reasons - the culture in Seattle is "progressive" and so those who grew up in it, or who like that culture would flock to or stay in Seattle?

Likewise, Mormons live in Salt Lake City and have large families. Those who aren't Mormon don't flock to Salt Lake City. In fact, I've known many people who have moved to Salt Lake City and moved away cause they didn't like the exclusivity of the Mormon culture. But they were conservative.

It would have been more telling if he had chosen two cities that had similar cultures. Like maybe Boise and Witchita - or something like that. Then compare the large families v/s small families and how they compare in their overall conservative v/s progressive values. I'd wager you wouldn't find such a disparity as he presents.

Besides, people who HAVE large families tend to participate in family friendly activities, like church. Just cause it's true that mormons and catholics and people who tend to be family oriented have more children doesn't necessarily mean that those who choose to have two kids instead of four are proportionately less likely to be conservative. Go to Kansas, I'm sure you'll find many people with 2 kids who are conservative. Go to Massachusetts and I'm sure you'll find many people with lots of kids who are true blue liberals.

JMHO.
Posted by 2b 2006-03-14 18:21||   2006-03-14 18:21|| Front Page Top

#6 Go to Massachusetts and I'm sure you'll find many people with lots of kids who are true blue liberals.

I doubt it.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-14 18:26||   2006-03-14 18:26|| Front Page Top

#7 one last thought. If the majority of families today have 2 kids. Then that means that there are fewer families that have more or less than that number . So if, for the sake of making my point.. if 100X more people have 2 kids than those who have 4 kids or no kids... and the values of those who have just 2 children (nationwide, not just in Seattle) overall tend to be conservative (or liberal) then that would have far more of an impact than just comparing that larger than average families tend to be more conservative than smaller than average families.

I don't have time to clarify my point - so i hope it's clear enough.
Posted by 2b 2006-03-14 18:32||   2006-03-14 18:32|| Front Page Top

#8 Actually, Boston is, along with San Francisco, one of the most childless large cities in North America, IIRC. This in spite of a large Irish Catholic population.
Posted by no mo uro 2006-03-14 18:34||   2006-03-14 18:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Roe effect - read Taranto and Best of teh Web
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-03-14 19:07||   2006-03-14 19:07|| Front Page Top

#10 good point, no mor

I don't understand this baby in arms race. I grasp the importance demographics. But it that is the plan to solve the problem of Muslims inability to adapt to western values - God help us all.
Posted by 2b 2006-03-14 19:08||   2006-03-14 19:08|| Front Page Top

#11 no welfare reward for extra kids is part of teh answer to avoid the Islamization - Europe is a cash cow for Islamic breeders
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-03-14 19:12||   2006-03-14 19:12|| Front Page Top

#12 I think you've come much closer to the heart of the problem Frank. Current welfare actually provide incentives for those least capable of providing for their children to produce the more children. Like feral cats that you feed - it's a nice gesture for awhile - until there are gazillions of them running around and feeding them becomes an impossibility.
Posted by 2b 2006-03-14 19:22||   2006-03-14 19:22|| Front Page Top

#13 We did welfare reform near a decade ago and it worked. There is very little subsidy for unwed mothers, at least in the U. S.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-14 19:56||   2006-03-14 19:56|| Front Page Top

#14 Bumper sticker to liberals:

"Save the Planet - Don't Make More Little Liberals!"

BwahHaHa. Excellent....Another Rovian mind trick
has found its intended victims.
Posted by Ulaigum Ebbereck6419 2006-03-14 21:54||   2006-03-14 21:54|| Front Page Top

#15 Liberalism and feminism are telling econ-vital/competitive males that Government and Women don't need them them for anything, that women no longer need nor care for men to compete over them, and protect them, let alone to spend their wealth on females and any children females may have, be it men's seed or by others. Surprise, surprise, in the long-run birthrates go down becuz many men no longer "feel the need" to chase women, let alone romance and have sex with them.
"You don't need or want us Men, so why should we accept you wojmen's and the State's demand to support you. Its what you and the State said you both wanted both realitically and as the future ideal utopian state of Mankind and all Humanity. IT T'AINT MY FAULT NOR MEN'S FAULT YOU WOMEN AND THE STATE DON'T HAVE THE $$$ TO BACK UP YOUR OWN DEMANDS, AND DON'T CLAIM THAT ITS MEN WHOM ABSOLUTELY MISTOOK AND MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR MESSAGE. YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED - NOW YOU DON'T WANT IT, AND ITS MINE AND MEN'S FAULT! NO WAY, JOSE"!?.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-03-14 22:49||   2006-03-14 22:49|| Front Page Top

#16 There might be a middle way there, Joe. ;-)
Posted by lotp 2006-03-14 23:30||   2006-03-14 23:30|| Front Page Top

10:50 mmurray821
23:59 Snuns Thromp1484
23:58 JosephMendiola
23:49 phil_b
23:44 Snuns Thromp1484
23:41 DMFD
23:36 trailing wife
23:30 lotp
23:28 DMFD
23:27 Angump Slomosing6697
23:19 Formerly Dan
23:16 3dc
23:11 Inspector Clueso
22:49 JosephMendiola
22:34 BH
22:26 Frank G
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:24 Frank G
22:18 Frank G
22:13 Frank G
22:13 Frank G
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:54 Ulaigum Ebbereck6419
21:51 JosephMendiola
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com