2008 -- The Year of the Breeder!

Seriously, we're taking over.

Hey Boomers, we're the future, and -- frankly -- we're your only hope for getting Social Security. It's called Math ... and it's a stern taskmaster. In fact, we Breeders are your only hope for getting anything you want, so ... you know ... you might be nice to us, if you know what I mean.

All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Thus declareth The Point's father of five...

Comments

[Dave the Swede]

Amen!

From the Point's father of four.

[joel]

Hear hear!

From a random commenter and father of five and counting...

[Leann]

This post was cool enough but you had to throw in "All Your Base Are Belong To Us"? Made my day.

[Jason Bruce]

The Palin children have cool names too:
Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig
Very unique, I like it.

[Allen]

Heh. Yeah, Leann, I kind of see that "Base" line as being among the better Cool Gen Xer litmus tests out there. You CLEARLY passed!

Meanwhile, Dave le Swede *always* has my finest regards.

And allow me a monstrous shout-out to fellow Level 5 Breeder Joel. Nicely done Joel. Someday, you, Dave and I - along with other Breeders and all our offspring - will march into Malibu and simply claim the properties of the rich and famous as our own via unfettered (if, er, "constitutionally challenged") democracy.

[joel]

Well, in the spirit of full disclosure, I must point out that I can only take biological credit for three of them. The rest were "grafted in", as it were, from across the pond. :)

[Andy]

...And soon-to-be grandmother of one. The timing is a bit awkward, however.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

I think we'd probably all agree that the timing is never right for an unwed teenage pregnancy. But Palin's daughter is taking responsibility and, like her mother before her, choosing life. Let's keep the family in our prayers at this difficult time.

[LeeQuod]

I think it will be interesting for both political parties. After all, Obama has called for families - including Palin's - to be off-limits during the campaign. So would those who want him to be Commander-in-Chief begin ignoring his directives even before he's elected? And what would that portend?

[Andy]

I have nothing but concern for Bristol, especially since her husband-to-be declares himself to be a "f---in' redneck" on his MySpace page. (Find the story on Huffington Post.) I'm also glad for her that she lives in a time where the stigma against out-of-wedlock pregnancy is pretty much gone. (How many times have I read folks on the right decrying the loss of that cultural tradition?)

What this goes to far more is the whole abstinence-only sex-ed drive of the religious right. If one of it's most vocal proponents can't make it work, I think selling it to the rest of us will prove problematic. And that's an argument about policy, not about Bristol.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Let me get this straight: If we teach kids that sex before marriage is fine, then they WON'T get pregnant?

[Andy]

Gina: No matter what we teach, there will be some teenage pregnancy. It's a canard to say the comprehensive sex-ed teaches that pre-marital sex is "fine." The goal should be to use whatever methods work with the most young people to achieve the goal of lower pregnancy rates. In this very public (sadly) case, the abstinence-only approach was an obvious failure.

[joel]

*Shrug* makes sense to me, Gina. I let my kids play with matches whenever they want, and my house is still standing. And that whole talking to strangers thing? Never made sense to me. Kids are gonna meet people, right? And I won't even go into locking up firearms and alcohol and poisons and whatever else. Sheesh, people are so uptight these days. I mean, kids are gonna get into trouble anyway, so what's the point in trying to keep them in some kind of arbitrary bubble?

(yes, I'm JOKING. please don't anyone call CPS on me...)

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Karen Hall's headline on this matter cannot be beaten.

http://somehavehats.typepad.com/some_have_hats/2008/09/this-just-in-ab.html

Andy, could I ask, how familiar are you with the details of comprehensive sex education in this country?

[CLH]

To go back to the really important issue Jason brought up -- I'm sorry, but "Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig"? No, not cool. Same way that Dagger Stallion was not cool. I might concede Piper, but other than that...

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Andy, good news! Your worries are over.

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2008/09/palin-the-young.html#comment-128781434

[LeeQuod]

Andy wrote: "I have nothing but concern for Bristol,".

So I'm confused; why'd you bring up her situation in a public forum, then? Isn't she better served by being *out* of the public eye, as Obama's girls are?

Signed,
-Puzzled at PDX

[LeeQuod]

OK, Andy, my apologies: my last "Puzzled" comment was intended not for you, but to goad someone (no one in particular, but I hoped labrialumn would respond) into flaming about 1 Timothy 3:4-5 for us.

Seems to me it's the (GOP? Heh!) elephant in the room that no one's acknowledging.

And after a brief visceral exchange, and possibly a mild editorial rebuke, we could proceed to reasoned discourse on the issue. In particular, we could discuss the differences (if any) in standards Christians should have for secular vs. religious leadership.

Again, my apologies for using you as a foil.

[Allen]

Dagger Stallion = massive cool.

And I'm with Jason on the Palin names.

[Andy]

LeeQuod: Color me oblivious on the whole foil thing. Anyway, on the secular v. religious leadership thing, I really don't care how you organize your churches. It's when you insist on extending that structure into secular institutions like the military, the schools and the government that I get twitchy.

[Steve (SBK)]

Good topic focusing LeeQuod...
Interesting how some Christians abstain from the 'secular' realm altogether (I'm thinking along the lines here of Anabaptists), while others seem to mainly focus on that.

I think the best leaders are consistent leaders, but consistent leaders don't necessarily have consistent 'followers', whatever the 'category'.

Andy, I think that a good case can be made for the idea that the military, schools and government all have non-secular foundations. That is, it depends on how 'secular' is defined: just not overtly religious or having only temporal consequences. I believe that each institution is influenced by very specific morals. Is it simply that you believe these morals are in opposition to those in the church or do the church structures (?) offend you? (Just curious, thanks).

[LeeQuod]

Andy wrote: "It's when you insist on extending that structure into secular institutions like the military, the schools and the government that I get twitchy."

Andy, I've watched churches pull their influence from they hospitals they founded. The result in all cases has been the fall of principles and vision, and the rise of legalism and survival of the fittest (both among the employees, and, often, among the patients as well). Pragmatism makes a very poor substitute for enthusiasm. (I'll leave it to you to look up the etymology of "enthusiasm".)

I think by "structure" you mean "influence", since there hasn't been just one "structure" for churches for at least 500 years. But imagine for a moment what would happen if every person in any of those institutions (the military, schools, and the government) felt that they were accountable to Someone who knows everything, goes everywhere, and can do anything. So no one could ever get away with anything. Now, contrast that with its opposite, the prevailing system, where you just need to not get caught before you die.

Personally, I think we can't ever hire enough "police" to enforce all the accountability we need. I think accountability must come from within - enforced from above. Oh, sure; it can be created temporarily in some organizations... but it can't be maintained from one generation to the next, much less for hundreds of years, merely through pragmatism and education.

And without accountability, how long do you think those structures will last?