Chris Jepson: Life and death

I am intrigued by questions not asked. Example: How many poor children does America require? What’s the “right” number of kids we should expect our “poor” to produce? If you’re already on public assistance, for example, how many more children should you bring into that existence? If, as some argue, all life is precious under all circumstances, then there should be no societal expectation that quality of life (for the entire nation) be a consideration when reproducing.

My father had an expression that went like this, “Who died and made you pope?” Or king, or emperor, or potentate. It was a reality check if someone (frequently me) was getting a bit too prescriptive, too sure of his/her advice. With that caveat, if I were a 21st century enlightened despot, I would attempt to decrease poverty in America by encouraging the already impoverished from having “any” children they cannot themselves support. I would require (to the best that social policy could encourage) that adults act responsibly with their fertility. I would reward (pay) women to not have more children born in poverty. I would underwrite vasectomies and tubal ligations. I would make birth control as ubiquitous as M&M’s.

The most efficacious anti-poverty program would be to stanch the flow of those “raised” in such circumstances. I do not understand how anyone could object to reducing poverty in America by reducing the actual number of those born in/into poverty. There is a direct and undeniable correlation, a generational connection between the poor having poor children who in turn have…

Statistically speaking, one literally begets the other. It’s an unfortunate circle of poverty that we would wisely (as a culture) interrupt.

Give us your thoughts on how you would more effectively (than my recommendation) combat generational poverty in America.

Onto another subject that puzzles me: If, as has been argued since 9-11, America is ‘at War with Terrorism’ – such that we have doubled our military and security budgets – who exactly is the enemy? Why is it that we will invade and occupy whole nations? Who attempts to murder Americans and wreak havoc on the United States? I am not interested in “their” justifications (valid or not) in this specific column, just who is it that has America in its cross hairs.

During WWII, how many Japanese did American immigration officials approve to move to the United States? We mistakenly interned Japanese Americans, a mistake that we subsequently (and quite justifiably) apologized for. But how many actual Japanese were approved for immigration? I think you know the number.

So, if we are indeed at war and we are able to discern a “profile” of our antagonist, does it make sense to allow the continued immigration of that profiled group?

Again, are we at war? And is there a specific “profiled” enemy, antagonists we’ve discerned who possess common characteristics? If we have, should we continue to allow a pool of immigrants who have some of those “basic” characteristics to come to America? Or, should we take a time-out, an immigration hiatus until the issues we have with “that” enemy are resolved and we no longer are murdering one another (at war).

The objection(s) will be that you are holding an entire “group” hostage to the follies of a few. But isn’t that always the nature of war? Unreasonable? Thoughts?

Jepson is a 27-year resident of Central Florida. He’s fiscally conservative, socially liberal, likes art and embraces diversity of opinion. Reach him at [email protected]