Tee hee.

I hope, at the very least, they’re sent off to spend the rest of their desert tropical lives in a gulag in Siberia. Barefoot.

There is no other way. Three kids is a commitment of lifestyle sacrifice. I should know, I have three with the fourth imminent.

And I am lucky to have a wife (whose college degree in education is still being paid for) who stays at home, homeschooling our oldest boy (8), minding the daughter (6) before and after her parochial school day, and also looking after our formerly-youngest son (4) when he’s not going to his pre-school/daycare two days a week.

Between the cub scouts, brownies, homeschooling, “homemaking”, baseball, and other myriad responsibilities, we would both laugh at the naive idea of her staying at home being a “fun” walk in the park. It’s real work, and it’s more than a job, because you can’t leave it at 5pm.

That necessarily makes us a one-income household. Luckily, my income is enough to live a decent lifestyle, although I am not in the six digits per year.

I’m not sure what the answer is, although my opinion on the topic was the enabling factor, I think. I had told her all along that I wanted her to be a stay-at-home mother. It was not in the cards at first. She had a bachelor’s degree in education and was a teacher… for one year. Then “we” were unexpectedly expecting our second child, and that’s when she decided to hang it up and give it a try.

That one year when we had two incomes was nice. We had a nice lifestyle, what with only one child.

One child means little lifestyle changes. Two means lifestyle changes, but you still have a lot of options.

With three, you have no choice but to commit to the family life. Not to mention moving to “zone defense” with the kids.

I think the lifestyle change and the man’s opinion probably has the most to do with it. Men have to be willing to sacrifice their interests.

That’s really the unfortunate thing about the so-called “advancement of women.” Men used to be expected to sacrifice for their women, and that has now been removed.

Oh sure, there will always be women who want more for themselves, but I really do think they are in the very small minority. My experience has seemed to show that there are a great many women out there who, if their husbands were willing to give it all up for the family, and would treat them with respect, would be glad to give up their “professional” careers and be that stay at home wife.

Will they be that stay at home wife and bear three or more children?

Well now, that’s another problem.

Large families used to be considered “blessed.” Now, they are considered bizarre. One child is probably ideal. Two is fine (the boy & girl combo). Three is suspicious and will elicit the “playful” name-calling, unless you downplay your own family size. Four or more will result in a soft form of ostracization, unless you’re Catholic. It will come from both the left (overpopulation or feminization crowd) and the right (too many mouths to feed, probably sucking from the government tit, what are you, Catholic/Mormon?).

I hear far more negative comments (even if playful joking) on my family size than I do positive ones. That will have to change, along with the never-ending assault on “families” in general (e.g. constant bombardment of liberal sex + contraception, abortion, divorce, tolerance of gay lifestyles).

Here’s a good start at an idea I’ve been thinking about recently. Rework the social security structure so that your money, instead of going into some amorphous pot, directly benefits your elderly parents/grandparents and other closely attached elderly family members.

That kind of change will encourage larger families. The more children you have, the more you will have to take care of you.

Actually, that is the half-joking philosophy my wife and I have. If we have a lot of children, perhaps the odds are good that one or two will take care of us in our old age, now that 401ks can’t be relied upon.

@ 47 – Sam Hall:

> 1) Cut taxes – a lot

There’s nothing left to cut, except for social security and medicare/medicaid. My income is not far from six figures per annum, and I pay less than $5000/year in federal income tax. And that’s only with the standard deduction (because we rent).

After you subtract out the exemptions for children and apply the child tax credit, the income tax is quite low.

We live in Texas, which is income tax free, so property tax is really the next big bucket we have to worry about. But since that funds the local school district (whose services we sadly do not use), I don’t see a lot of necessary reform coming anytime soon. Nor do I see any meaningful social security or medicare/medicaid reform coming anytime soon, either.

> 2) Stop all college aid programs

This would produce a noticeable effect, I think.

Actually, the whole myth that “everybody should go to college” just needs to be stopped, pure and simple. Real apprenticeships need to be re-introduced and the trades need to be celebrated. There is a prominent implied idea that people who don’t go to college will be worthless ditch-diggers or will be somehow permanently stunted.

I hate that idea.

Steeple, I doubt if anyone here is afraid of anything that might come of the USN blowing away the occasional pirate. Few people in Washington, DC would agree. World opinion, and all that. Therein lies our problem.

Re: children, is the problem that Americans need to have more children, or that the children they have need to be more self-sufficient, resourceful, energetic — in short, well grounded in the virtues of Western civilization? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I believe we would get more of the type of kids we’d like to see if we could somehow take back their education from the teachers’ unions and those who consider themselves “educators” rather than “teachers.”

Individual couples can have children, raise them properly, and be socially and politically active in imploring their neighbors and friends to do the same. There’s not an easy answer, though Sam Hall’s suggestions are good. Being free is hard work, people. This time the face of tyranny looks a little different, that’s all.

1) Cut taxes – a lot
2) Stop all college aid programs.

This isn’t all, but these two things would help a lot.

This is part of the civilization that specializes tasks, rather then the individualist that learns how to do lots of skills since he is Harry homeowner.

Self-defense has gained a lot of support or has whiskey and others ignored the 30 states state that has CCW laws and the rush last year for castle doctrine.

Americans love to fight, our criminal class does it all the time it is part of our violent psychology. Our military just channel the desire to fight into a disciplined force. But the military is a small portion of males that grow up and want to fight and win. Paint ball is very popular among those who like to fight and win and it is safe also.

According to Dave Hardy http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/04/gun_and_ammo_sa.php and

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/22/usa-buys-enough-guns-in-3-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/

IN the last 3 months of 2008 enough handguns and long arms were bought per NICS checks to arm the Chinese and Indian armies combined.

The hottest item bought is the military style rifle (AR15) and similar long arms.

So does that show that men and women are ready to lie down and be victims? No it shows that people are getting ready for whatever may happen.

I have friends who sail around the world and when they were last in the Caribbean and were having drinks with other sailors. The French and others said my friend was not in danger from robbery since all knew Americans carried guns aboard ship. My friend did indeed have a shotgun aboard. American believes in having a gun, as protection is second nature. The 16 year old who circumnavigated around the world from California had made a sat call t his parent since he thought a pirate was attacking him and he had his pistol in the dark cabin with him. That was a 26 year old alone and knew he should have a gun aboard.

If it was not for the merchant companies prohibiting arms. Americans would have at least personal arms on board.

There has been a world wide effort to eliminate the ability to have small arms and the shippers bought into that especially since they are afraid of mutiny.

The success in protecting the ship and passengers will encourage other cruise lines to do the same thing and hire security in case of danger.

The USN is suggesting that shippers stop asking them to send navy ships and instead increase their speed and instigated watches, which used to be standard sailors duties.

Now the USN and Petraeus is saying the shippers need to have arms board and shoot back. It really is a simple concept.

Pirates will have a motivation that now they have a danger beyond storms in attacking a ship.

Think of this, six young men with guns felt they could control a liner with crew and 1500 passengers. They could only think of that if they were trained by the cowardice of crews and the ransoms that shippers paid.

Simple cause and effect. They learned it was very profitable and no resistance from their victims. Now they have a new business model and the pirates cost have increased.

Now if only the shippers would stop being so cheap and get security details or traine the crew in arms and defense then we would not have to spend millions to send navy ships to chase after pirates. It is no US shipping that is primarily targeted but other countries. Why should everyone expect the USN to save them? They are only obligated to US flagged ships like the Maresk and Capt. Phillips.