Late Bloomer: the aged accomplishments of Ben Franklin
This is a snarky little graphic I made for MCFL, for the back page of the newspaper. It's pretty plain, in that the message is pretty simple yet, I hope, profound-- that the depression of everyday life ought to be put in the context of the great things to come. Let me know what you think.
Theo Purington gives his history as his girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes, after getting advice on campus at Boston College from the nursing staff. Many colleges counsel young women into abortion as a 'solution' to pregnancy, not realizing that they're causing them to only compound their problems. A baby is never the 'problem' to solve, and in the most recent issue of the MCFL News you can read about another local university's resources and help offered to female students in such situations.
I made a handout, below, for use in pro-life outreach efforts to young adults at risk of abortion. It's designed to be printed on black and white, cut twice and creating three little flyers for use on public streets to be put on cars, handed out one-by-one.
Ed Burke of the Logos Institute, which I had never heard of until today or at least do not recall, wrote a critique of the March for Life that a friend sent to me recently. I found his observations to be very perfunctory and pedestrian. The March doesn't need a reinvention as much as it needs an evolution. I wrote and sketched out, at a previous pro-life position, an outline as to what that could be, if anyone was so curious I would be happy to share it if you want to email me for it. Of note, the friend who forwarded it claimed that some were trying to change and update the March, and others have made similar efforts in the past. Personally I have a difficult time attending only because it all seems like so much wasted opportunity.
Here's the bulk of the email:
The inherent idea behind the march can be put into question, but any teenager attending probably has the same thoughts. No, the real question is how to take this momentum that has at least 150k each year coming to the march, and more effectively use it.
Burke hits on part of that by mentioning the past use of lobbying to influence the legislators. However, any PoliSci 301 course can tell you that the difference between access-based and controversial-confrontational lobbying means that the latter won't work with issues that are 'divisive' - it's the grassroots, the candidate recruitment, the actual muscle behind the movement that has to make these clowns feel the heat so they'll find the light.
And sadly that heat is left to be brought by NRLC affiliates who are aged, tired, worn and too often complacent in old methods, tactics and history. Nellie Gray, God bless her, is who I had in mind when I wrote that sentence even though she's not NRLC.
Ways in which you could grab the march and use it for grassroots purposes:
1. training (already done by a few other groups) - too often the training is too academic though. People lose sight of the ways in which they can save a life, the actual way in which individual people make a difference. I find a lot of the NRLC crowd (I feel like I'm writing in way way way too big overgeneralizations here) who have this attitude of "we can do it, trust us, if only everyone did there'd be no abortion" and not tolerating alternative methods. We need a pro-life big tent, dare I say it, we need unity though perhaps not a unity flag.
The training ought to be: "here's how to make yourself useful for a CPC; here's how to run for office from scratch; here's how to convert anyone; here's how to shut down a clinic" and related topics -- make people believe they can make a real difference and jettison all the feel good stuff like pro-life t-shirts and the billion methods that don't save any lives. 2. activation/radicalization: set goals for people who attend, encourage results and not thinking the right thoughts 3. capturing the data: Rod Martin tried doing this with LifeHQ, with Sean O'Hare. God bless them both, that's something the March should have done in an organized fashion for the past decade at least. I heard they both got threatened by the March organizers. They should collect this data, work to measure and turn out more and more people each year with reliable numbers and not just the WAG's that they typically use, and then share that data with any and all groups within the respective state where the person is from.
I ran across some old notes, about a planned Leadership Conference for pro-life campus leaders. My files have become somewhat of a repository of half-good old ideas that never went anywhere. That fact is quite frustrating. Here's the rough outline I had:
Leadership Conference and Training -over the summer in DC -name after a major donor -exclusive to 15-20 hand-picked students, probably have to ask 60 in order to get 20 to commit -train on education, rhetoric, skills, debating, recruitment -one day with meetings with people from across the movement -offer a quick training session on adoption/how to counsel women into keeping their children aimed towards younger women, to enable college students to speak the right language so as to facilitate adoption
Pro-life injustices, and its opportunity for outreach
Walter Hoye has been jailed in California for standing on a sidewalk with an unpopular message. His 'crime' was talking to people, even the San Francisco Chronicle can't cover up the obvious in their story. Because of the content of his speech, because of what he was saying and what his personal principles are, he was jailed. This all leads one to the question of: does this offer an opportunity for group and activist development in churches. And I would have to say, probably not. Hoye's actions seem outside the range of normal church activities. Few churches, and virtually no Catholic churches, evangelize anymore or are used to such actions and activities. Using this as a catalyst seems stuck because our people are so unused to the tactic of taking any action outside simple prayer. They forget that prayer ought to rightfully lead to action. Prayer sanctifies as it leads one to move. That connection seems lost, so perhaps this incident can help us reach out to a different set of people: for example the "spiritual" moderates who would be offended by a pastor being jailed but are perhaps not of a particular denomination. I don't know, perhaps I'm overthinking this.
I hate seeming cynical or that I'm tearing ideas down, but it is damn frustrating to watch people get worked up over the 'red envelope' campaign. I know people have the best of intentions, but the return email I got for an announcement of the campaign was from Lindsay@republicanprofessionals.net - and so it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that this is a truly 'grassroots' enterprise as claimed here.
In fact, reviewing the FAQ, listen to this paragraph:
This movement is a true grass roots phenomenon. There is no entity behind this project other than the thousands of men, women and children that have volunteered their time, money, and effort to be involved. The Red Envelope Project has spread largely through emails and word of mouth. I believe that many have been moved by the Holy Spirit to do this. It has crossed all denominational lines, and has brought together the efforts of Roman Catholics and Protestants in our common value for life and the blood of Christ. Churches, schools, CCD classes, youth groups, religious communities, and small groups have joined in this effort.
This is ridiculous. Of course some group is behind it, otherwise it wouldn't be as organized. I don't mind that a group is behind it, I just don't want to be lied to about what's going on about it. AUL did a great FOCA campaign, there are several Students for Life of America projects that they occasionally announce - they're all good things, but claiming that it's spontaneous generation just irks me for some reason. Not the least of which is that I suspect this very very very passive activity, mailing an envelope, will ultimately be thrown away by the White House and will just build some mailing list for a pro-life group. And, as one working for a pro-life group, I understand the need for these kind of things, I just wish they'd be tied to effective action rather than ineffective action.
When Social Scientists Lie: Covering up Abortion Reductions
A group "Catholics in Alliance" has joined a variety of pro-Obama enablers to argue that 'social justice' issues are the strongest ways to reduce the incidence of abortion in America. In general, as a broad abstraction, they may be correct. More directly, and more provable, however, is that sensible pro-life state-level restrictions have had an effect on reducing the abortion rate in the country. This is timely because President-elect Obama has promised to make FOCA (The Freedom of Choice Act) his first action upon seizing the Presidency. FOCA will overturn every state-level abortion restriction in the country. Therefore, this issue of what has truly caused the real reductions in abortion is a very charged one. Joseph Wright attempts to critique Prof. Michael New's studies showing that state-level laws work. Wright fails miserably, and Dr. New easily dissect Wright's sloppiness and shoddy reasoning. At some point one has to acknowledge that these are not reasonable and rational differences, they are not preferences, rather they are the systemic and deliberate misconstructions of those who seek to increase the number of abortions in the country by enabling a man who will remove everything that has successfully reduced abortion. Because they fight with words makes them no less evil.
Representing some of my past frustrations in getting people to make serious investments rather than donating chump change, I made the following graphic. Email me and let me know what you think. Here is the .JPG file and also the Photoshop .PSD file if you care to change or improve the image.
I thought this article by Jill Stanek pretty well summed things up. There has to be a major reconsideration on pro-life strategy in this country. The fabled court strategy for the last 10-20 years has just exploded, and there is nothing in its place.
In cleaning up some electronic files, I found an old image that was once very important to me. While working at a very tough job under a very tough manager, I had a lot of doubt and a lot of frustration that I couldn't vent anywhere. I felt like nothing was going right in terms of my career, relationships, finances, etc. And then I ran across this image of a little girl holding apples. And it made me think that someday, it was certainly possible that I would have a daughter like her. So I printed out the image of that girl and kept it within sight, and all my troubles would evaporate. It helps that it's a beautiful image. I think it's by the wonderful Frenchman William Bouguereau. As difficult as the world may be, the joys found in family and one another can erase the troubles quite easily.
One last chance for a positive Bush legacy: Olympics
The President has done many things wrong, including squandering his political capital in exchange for zero serious policy reforms. Though I consider myself pro-Iraq-war, I concede that there are serious problems with the invasion that are now clear in hindsight. And Bush's democracy talk, clearly Wilsonian, is a dangerous precedent to establish as official policy. However, as a nation built on values and unquestionable human rights, without even engaging deeper topics of democracy and the proper forms of government, while Bush is in China for the Olympics I think it would be a transformational moment in the narrative of the Bush legacy were he to clearly, publicly, and resolutely condemn the inhumane Chinese Human Rights abuses in front of the entire world community. Since China's acceptance of the games was predicated on this silly notion that it would somehow imbue them with a better government, and not just provide an international acceptance of a superpower built on slave labor and totalitarianism, it ought to behoove the President to tell the Emperor they have no clothes, and give a memorable, inspirational, declaratory and deafening exposition of the crimes of the Chinese in front of the world community: the madness of the Great Leap Forward, the barbarism of the one-child policy and the many twisted ways in which births and families are regulated, the persecution of dissidents and the ridiculous judicial system. Granted it's bad form to criticize a man in his own house, but it is equally as bad to not criticize a murderer when your silence connotes acceptance of the murders. Bush ought to deliver a serious condemnation of the ChiComs, in front of everyone, in front of them, and let the chips fall where they may. This, it should be noted, might require the layoffs of everyone in the State Department to prevent a bureaucratic revolt, but it'd be worth it.
I've been reading this fabulous article about Humanae Vitae's proven prophecies by Mary Eberstadt in the latest issue of First Things, kindly mailed to me by local pro-life warrior Charles Coudert. The article well summarizes the many ridiculous arguments thrown against Humanae Vitae when it was released in 1968, and shows how the many predictions involving the breakdown of the family through infidelity, single-parenting and the degradation of women has led us to this point in society where the family is under constant attack. Fundamentally changing the relationship of men and women, and the sexual relationship, has wide societal impacts that few are willing to admit, this article is stunning in its claims and impacts.
Eberstadt references an article by Lori Gottlieb in the Atlantic called "Marry Him!", which I'm printing out and about to read. Look at this paragraph by Eberstadt in regards to the Gottlieb article:
Gottlieb writes as one who played by all the feminist rules, only to realize too late that she’d been had. Beneath the zippy language, the article runs on an engine of mourning. Admitting how much she covets the husbands of her friends, if only for the wistful relief of having someone else help with the childcare, Gottlieb advises: “Those of us who choose not to settle in hopes of finding a soul mate later are almost like teenagers who believe they’re invulnerable to dying in a drunk-driving accident. We lose sight of our mortality. We forget that we, too, will age and become less alluring. And even if some men do find us engaging, and they’re ready to have a family, they’ll likely decide to marry someone younger with whom they can have their own biological children. Which is all the more reason to settle before settling is no longer an option.”
Yikes! The mental and psychological issues going on are downright scary. How did we get to this point, where everyone's unhappy? We see a simple little pill as liberating us to live in the moment, not realizing that we have an entire life of unhappiness, loneliness and emptiness awaiting us if we don't fully live with one another, full love into one another, and save sex for a marriage where the two flesh become one.
All I can say is that I'm jealous. Think about how special each kid will be, and what a unique life they'll have within that family: there will surely be artists, athletes, scholars, and probably some who enter the religious life from within this big, huge, enormous, and wonderful family. What I like, as well, is that they're likely not rich, but not poor either. The argument against bigger families usually comes down to 'resources' or 'college' or silly things like that. Considering that I heard on the radio this morning that a prestigious local college is now around $50k a year, I'd much rather trade a few children forced to suffer the inhumane state schools paid for with their own loans rather than save up so my precious little single snowflake can end up at somewhere elite.
The first abortion-free state: South Dakota, now for some new goals
Planned Parenthood in South Dakota has recently shut down due to a vigorous informed consent law, so there is plenty of good news. However, this is not the end of the battle, and pro-life and pro-family advocates ought to take things even further and start restricting and regulating all sorts of vice out of town, as these things go together. The pro-life warriors ought to start identifying ways to regulate sex shops, strip clubs and pornography out of their state as well. Kick out the support legs that produce the crises the Planned Parenthood attempts to solve, not to mention reform the government school's sex-ed classes so they don't teach perversion, as they do in Massachusetts. Our goals should never end at what could be such a transient success, and the folks I worked with in 2006, namely the Unruhs, certainly have the fire in their bellies to keep that revolution marching.
The Gerard Health Foundation announced that they'll be dispersing $600,000 in pro-life awards in January. This is a great thing for the pro-life movement, and I see this same mentality found at groups like the Phillips Foundation and their Ronald Reagan scholarships or the Sam Adams Alliance and their activism prizes, and the others who have wealth and are rewarding good behavior. They think like a businessman, a donor, who proverbially "puts their money where their mouth is." But too often they lose sight that these people, these individuals, are rarely chosen for their results but rather for their image/brand/appearance. Look at the winners of the Reagan Scholarships this year, of which I wrote one recommendation letter I should add, and perhaps its a reflection of my own lack of information or of the type of biography that they're writing, but none seem accomplished as an activist. They are good people who are leading good lives, but they are not changing society and changing the world. There's a place for scholarships to reward the good, but I'd say that there ought to be some scholarship that rewards the bold. I respect the sidewalk counselor who saves a child, I respect the Student Government official that brings in a Pregnancy Resource Forum even though the only result are ideas, I respect an action with a result, a real measurable result that changes the world. I respect an organization that makes a system to achieve results, which I think is always stronger than one person who thinks the right way and markets themselves well. Let's focus on results and not so much the needs of individuals.
The Reagan scholarship and these new Pro-life awards risk only functioning to reward those who are well-connected and who game the system the right way. Neither characteristic is typical of an effective activist. Color me bitter, but I suppose it derives somewhat from the fact that the one activism event they identified, that of the Planned Parenthood racism project, was misattributed away from my friend James O'Keefe who actually made the calls, cut the videos and took the action, or that it was in concept an idea that James and I alone fleshed out, wrote out and planned out, but all the credit has gone to an individual, Lila Rose, who served primarily as the public face for the operation. I offer these facts not because I want any credit for this, but as an example to show how these sorts of awards that seek to function as replacements for action can come up short. They problem is that because the types of activists out there who really change the world are not the ones busy having lunch with the right foundations, or who have Michelle Malkin's private email address, they are the ones who are out there doing and often, suffering, for their actions. This is not to disparage Lila, whom I consider very intelligent, motivated and committed to pro-life affairs. Rather, this is to say that we only know what we know, and I wonder whether the pro-life movement even has the right judges for this kind of incentive, much less the right nominators, and I hope the right activists. I really admire Ray Ruddy, and I respect his continued massive investments in the pro-life movement, but I'm unsure that this is the right way to help out the pro-life activists around there. There are so few, and most are so ineffective, that there needs to be a creativity revolution within the movement first to start ginning up these activists, there needs to be training and leaders leading by example. I'd be afraid that this will likely end up rewarding those who know how to best market themselves. And this is not Ray's fault, this is the fault of a movement bereft of creativity, devoid of inspirational leadership, and floundering to find a way how to achieve results when they often don't even realize they're looking for results.
Everyone wants to end abortion, but apparently, no one can think of good ways how. I realize the Life Awards will hopefully flesh out those ideas, maybe my critique is more that they'll have the talent to truly pick out the gold from the pyrite and financially enable pro-life revolution rather than subsidizing pro-life ineffectiveness. For my two cents I would say that an effective way to structure the rewards is through anonymous nominations, akin to the Nobel prizes, rather than through asking organizational leaders who will likely only be nominating themselves. Reward the action, not the individual. And first and foremost, invest more than $600k in training pro-life activists how to win the prizes in the first place.
If anyone would like to donate such a sum to me, I'd be honored to radicalize a few hundred people to undertake effective activism.
A priest in Canada has renounced his "Order of Canada" award because this year it is being given to a noted abortionist. This priest did so knowing that some past, frivolous, criminal charges would come up against him. Here is a man of courage, a man unmoved by consequence to do what is right. Canada has no shortage of courageous men willing to challenge the slaughter of the innocents, David Little has declared that his tax-paying days are over as long as the government finances the death of little ones. Rarely does one note Canadian activism, much less pro-life activism, but here are two strong examples of truth and justice over lies. The left has infected major institutions and managed to wreck everything virtuous and true, and these men are willing to stand up. May they be an inspiration to more people, myself included.
This article on LifeNews shows that the Obama Presidency will be a dark one indeed, with an almost immediate repeal of all the laws and regulations pro-lifers have worked so hard to pass in what's become known as the 'incrementalist' strategy in a post-Casey environment. If this happens, the pro-life camp will place blame in two main directions. The first group, the National Right to Life crowd (whom I affectionately like to call "National Right to Lose" for the political and campaign acumen), will say that the pro-life absolutists split the pro-life vote, confused pro-life voters and made the perfect the enemy of the good. The other crowd will point right back at the other, this crowd led predominantly by American Life League (which to be fair to NRLC, you could call "National Right to Not Know What You're Doing") and say that all those years permitting abortions and not agitating for an outright ban caused this massive defeat in the first place. It's an interesting, and ultimately, tautological proposition-- we'll never know the answer either way. However the NRLC crowd needs to be less arrogant, and the ALL crowd needs to be more accomodating, and if they work together maybe they could actually win some battles, some Senate races, or some things that matter. There are many things one can say about the pro-life movement, but political solvency is never one of them. And having met a few campaign hacks, I've never met one that respected or feared the pro-life vote or movement. That's gotta change if we're ever going to get serious about saving babies. This thinking was part of the plan I wrote for Students for Life of America to expand the movement of college pro-lifers through a field program and serious office, which they've done quite well with after I left. But theirs is a small, but critical, part of a countermovement that needs a radical transformation and renaissance. The major donors who finance pro-life activity feel tapped out, besieged, and frustrated by their previous gifts, but if Obama wins and the battles turn to the states-- a new degree of commitment will be needed from the young, from those at non-profits, and most especially from those who have the capacity to make the magic happen.
Meanwhile, Satan over at the ACLU, oh I meant Nadine Strossen whom I sometimes confuse for the dark lord, has been raising $335 million to put into red states so that when Obama wins, the ACLU can continue its jihad against all things good. I barely need to mention that, as well, if Universal Healthcare brings about subsidized socialized abortions, we'll see a dramatic increase in the abortion rate. The pro-life movement is about to pay dearly for its relationship with Bush which gave them a great deal of access but a complete lack of results, and its decision to keep using the same political tactics.
