politics

I've been thinking about this lately—especially after the uproar having to do with the Georgetown student and Rush Limbaugh—but why haven't more people questioned the fact that the HHS mandate only provides free birth control, and not a hundred and one other drugs that are, in fact, much more helpful to the saving of lives? The Crescat, in fact, is also thinking about this (why free birth control...).

Birth control, let's face it, can be helpful for one of two goals:

1. Sexual relationships without 'consequences' (or, to put not too fine a point on it, women being able to have sex without pregnancy as a result).
2. Limiting the expansion of the human population (eugenics).

Either one of these two goals is not something I want my tax dollars supporting. Besides the fact that I'm morally opposed to all forms of artificial birth control, I'm also opposed to paying for other people's sexual gratification, and I'm extremely opposed to population control.

Why, if we're going to take millions or billions of dollars of people's money and use it for free drugs, does this money not go to insulin, to healthy diet programs, to subsidization of healthy foods (veggies, fruits, etc.), or to cancer treatments? Actual lives would be saved through these kinds of measures. If we're going to become a socialist society (at least in terms of healthcare), we should start funding more essential drugs, and not drugs that encourage promiscuity and population control...

What do you think?

See also: Obama's HHS 'Concession' No Concession at All

A few years ago, I remember a certain dispute over a restaurant coming into the city of Florissant (where I lived until I was 18). This restaurant (which shall not be named, but is known for busty waitresses and 'irreverence') wanted to have a location in the City of Florissant, but was voted down for moral concerns by the city council at the time.

Regardless of whether or not I supported this restaurant (I did not, and voiced my own concerns at a council meeting), I was highly alarmed by a statement one of the council members made in reference to my concerns: "I cannot legislate morality!"

The problem is, you can... and in fact, every single law that our society (and every society) is built opon is law built upon morality. So, maybe what this council member meant to say is "You can only legislate morality—yours or mine!" (that would be more truthful).

A speech given by Archbishop Chaput at the University of Notre Dame this week prompted the memory I recalled above:

"There is no such thing as morally neutral legislation or morally neutral public policy," he said. "Every law is the public expression of what somebody thinks we ought to do. The question that matters is this: Which moral convictions of which somebodies are going to shape our country's political and cultural future?" (Source).

Let's take, for example, the law that states you must obey posted speed limits. This law is meant to make driving safer for everyone on the roads. Without it, someone might be going too fast, relative to the cars around him, and could end up hitting another car, causing harm to another person and himself. Our society believes, then, that individual freedom to choose a speed at which to drive is not as important as saving another person from potential harm. On a basic level, what the speed limit says is: "Persons should not be harmed."

Therefore, limiting the speed of travel on US roadways is moral legislation.

Take any law, anywhere, and on a basic level, you'll discover a moral belief that is being protected: "Natural resources should be protected," in reference to any law dealing with conservation. "Every company should have a chance at success," in reference to anti-monopoly laws.

As Archbishop Chaput states, then,

"If you and I as citizens don't do the shaping, then somebody else will. That is the nature of a democracy. A healthy democracy depends upon people of conviction working hard to advance their ideas in the public square respectfully and peacefully, but vigorously and without apologies."

So why, then, are Catholics so ridiculously apt to give up all their convictions and beliefs in order to be 'politically correct'? Why do we give up our belief that marriage is sacred, and should be between one man and one woman, simply because someone else doesn't share that belief? Why do we allow abortion to continue, out of compassion for women, even if we say abortion is wrong?

Maybe it's because we don't believe what we say we believe.

"We act on what we really believe," Archbishop Chaput said. "If we don't act on our beliefs, then we don't really believe them."

If you're going to call yourself Catholic, do so bravely and without any reservation. Jesus died on a cross rather than repent for who he was or what he taught. He led by example, and we're called to do the same. Know your faith, live it, believe it, and spread it! When you vote, don't compromise your beliefs.

[Update: Looks like the results are in, and my mom came in 2nd. Congratulations to Tom Schneider, who won this year's election!].

Today is the day for the Florissant, MO mayoral election, and it's quite a day! I started off at the polls helping my mom's campaign (Geerling for Mayor) at 6:00 a.m., when it was about 35°F, but it's since warmed up to a toasty 60°F with a slight breeze!

It seems there has been lackluster voter turnout so far, but hopefully that was just due to the frigid weather... I think this will contribute, though, to a very close race! We're going to watch the results closely at the election night party later today.

I'm extremely proud of my Mom and her campaign—she's been professional, honest, and communicative throughout. Through frequent Facebook updates, website updates, and a few postcards in a mailing campaign, her campaign has kept in touch very well with volunteers and voters—especially considering the entire campaign is volunteer-based.

(As an aside:) Drupal for the election website was a perfect fit—early on, we needed to iterate and incorporate frequent design/structural changes, and as the election wore on, the ability to update the site often, and do things like accept secure contributions online, receive feedback, keep a calendar, and map out yardsign and poll locations was invaluable.

Please pray for whomever wins this campaign—that person will definitely have a lot of influence on Florissant's future! (I hope it's my mom!).

If you live in Florissant, and haven't voted yet, please do—for Susan Geerling!

Just a heads up, and a shout out to those living in Florissant (Flo-town, as it's endearingly called by those not in it, but cool enough to admit they were born there): my mother, Susan Geerling, is running for mayor of the city of Florissant!

I believe—nay, I guarantee—she has the city's best interests in mind, and I will be helping her to become the next mayor of a city I'm proud to call my birthplace. Though many may fault her for being honest, genuine, and logical in her decision-making processes (as was evidenced time and time again during her work as Ward 1 Councilwoman), I think these are virtues. Virtues worthy of the office of mayor.

Check out her website—GeerlingForMayor.com*—as well as her presences on Facebook and Twitter!

I'm proud of you, Mom! I know you can weather the storm of the electoral race, and improve an even greater part of the great city of Florissant than you did in the turn of this century!

Today I read a post from the Guardian entitled "In Kansas City, school's out." This article fails to engage me on so many levels, and the saddest thing is that the journalist behind the article, Sasha Abramsky, fails, like pretty much all other journalists, to find and highlight the core problem of why school systems (most especially public school systems) are failing, or are, at least, in horrible shape financially, and in enrollment numbers.

"If there are lessons to be learned from Kansas City's dismal experiences, they are about the importance of holistic thinking: of looking for ways not just to desegregate schools but to preserve integrated, economically diverse urban cores; of providing middle-class families with reasons to continue using public services; of building up the notion of common community again so that the public sector flourishes rather than withers" (Source).

The glaring problem that is always overlooked, in this article, in most articles about failing schools, and in almost every conversation I've heard on the subject, is that nobody cares about the kids anymore.

I am, God-willing, going to become a parent in less than two years' time. I want my child(ren) to have the absolute best education, the best opportunities, and the strongest faith and most intelligent sensibilities possible. Does public school offer this for my child? In some districts, maybe. In my experience, three key issues are holding back many parents who, like me, want their children to become intelligent and holy:

• [Most] public schools are teaching children core values that are completely opposed to the core values of childhood: contraception, atheism (or pluralism), mundane facts without reasoning, etc.
• [Most] public schools are teaching more towards tests and gaining additional funding, and not towards giving children critical thinking abilities and the desire to continue their education throughout their lives.
• [All] public schools are not allowed to teach any religious values or faith... in fact, any references (even historical) to Christianity or Catholicism, in particular, are put down, unless they show the Church in a bad light (so it would seem, reading the news and hearing stories from friends).

Let's look at some of the advantages to a common private school:

• [Most] teachers are motivated more by love of teaching and helping children than by want of money.
• Schools are free to teach about faith, morals, etc., and [most] work very closely with parents to ensure each child's success in the school (especially since each child represents a large investment (from the parents)/income (for the school).
• [Most] private Catholic schools teach the values of open and honest sexuality, respect for human life, religious belief, and well-reasoned and multi-faceted factual information.

If public schools can give me some (not necessarily all) of these benefits, I will think a lot harder about putting my kids in them. The biggest reason that I wouldn't want to send my children to a private Catholic school is money. But, in my opinion, money is the least concern when it comes to helping my children have the best situation going forward into their own lives someday.

A Problem of Numbers

One more reason why many schools are failing, and numbers are dwindling, is our culture's contraceptive mentality. No longer is it the norm for a married couple to have 3-6 (or more) children. Heck, it's not even the norm for a couple to become married!

In the early and middle 20th century, schools were being built left and right (both public and private), because the population was on the rise; it wasn't abnormal for a private school to have two or three classes for each grade level. However, with the "sexual revolution" of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, children were pushed aside. Love was all about sex, and personal pleasure. Where do children fit in a contraceptive mentality?

People are now having one or two children, on average, and there are many areas in our country where the population is barely replacing itself. Is it any coincidence that the most liberal, 'utopian,' 'diverse,' and 'politically correct' cities have the lowest birth rates? Rural and suburban areas, where families are given pride of place, and safety is a higher priority than the "night scene," are the places most social liberals love to hate.

The truth is, in the long-term future, those who reproduce and cherish and love their children will be the ones who change the world—for better or worse. You want to make society full of "integrated, economically diverse urban cores"? Have a bunch of children, and instruct them in ways to go about doing this. Oh, wait—they would probably interfere with your ability to use my tax dollars to provide "middle-class families with reasons to continue using public services" and improve your "holistic thinking."

[As an aside: I hear a lot of arguments about our planet being overpopulated... but if those who say this had more children and helped their children became voices for change and environmental protection, then wouldn't that be more helpful to our planet than making fun of and ridiculing those who choose to have more children, thus making them less likely to even listen in the first place!]

Heralding Obama as a transformative figure in U.S. and international diplomacy, the committee said: "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." [Source: Washington Post]

...without regard to the moral good of the people, nor the eternal truths discoverable through human reason. [Note: I'm not speaking solely of our current president, or of any single individual... more so every person I have seen heralded as 'peaceful' and 'loving' lately... whatever happened to working for justice to bring about peace?]

That's why, (a) our world is on a collision course with complete moral and ethical decay ('enlightenment' is what worldly folk would call it), and (b) I vote for those who uphold fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, instead of for those who try to be people-pleasers. I elect leaders who would be willing to, even if the whole world were against them, do what is right and just rather than succumb to the pressure of the mob. This is what a leader is: someone who can take a stand, and someone who we choose (elect) to be strong and considerate in making decisions that affect us all.