Happy Birthday, United States Air Force!

Today, in 1947, our United States Air Force (USAF) was created (through the National Security Act of 1947).

The USAF is the aerial warfare service branch of the United States military and one of the seven American branches of armed forces. It is the youngest branch, but also one of the most technologically advanced in the world.

The Air Force is a military service within the Department of the Air Force, one of three departments within the Department of Defense. The USAF is headed by a civilian Secretary of the Air Force, who is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

In general the United States Air Force shall include aviation forces both combat and service not otherwise assigned. It shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations. The Air Force shall be responsible for the preparation of the air forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Air Force to meet the needs of war. -National Security Act, 1947.

The purpose of the USAF is to preserve the peace and security, and provide for the defense, of the United States, the Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions, and any areas occupied by the United States; to support national policy; to implement national objectives; to overcome any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States. -§8062 of Title 10 U.S. Code

The stated mission of the USAF today is to "fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace." That's right, cyberspace as well.

The USAF takes great pride in its creativity, air shows, technology and engineering, science, and holds events regularly around the country.

One of the USAF's most exciting and coolest interests is its science! It works with lasers, micro air vehicles, g-forces, remotely piloted aircraft, GPS and satellites, supersonic and other forces in flights, and more. In addition, the Air Force Research Laboratory is constantly discovering and developing new war-fighting technologies for our air, space, and cyberspace forces.

The USAF doesn't also work for our great country; it also serves mankind. It helps assist in humanitarian crises via air deliveries, fire response, goodwill, and more.

The United States Air Force may be less than 70 years old, but it has accomplished quite a bit in its time.  

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AIR FORCE!

The Guardians of Humanity

Human rights are commonly understood to be inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because he or she is a human being.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.

"All victims of human rights abuses should be able to look to the Human Rights Council as a forum and a springboard for action." -Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, 12 March 2007, Opening of the 4th Human Rights Council Session

Apparently, the UN has decided that the topic of human rights is important. Sadly, this is as good as it gets. 

Here's a closer, cursory look at the 47 wonderful and humane State members of this "Human Rights Council."

The Worst Offenders

Sierra Leone, a country who went through a horrific civil war from 1991 to 2002, leaving 50,000 dead, over one million displaced, using large quantities of child soldiers. The Revolutionary United Front committed horrendous abuses, including rapes, limb amputation, and more. In 1999, the UN brokered a peace deal, but even that came under serious scrutiny because it gave amnesty to the rebel forces for their grotesque human rights violations.

Congo, another member of the HR Council, went through a civil war as well. More than 5-6 million people died since the civil war began in 1998 (nearly half the dead younger than 5 years old). If that weren't bad enough, UN peacekeepers themselves weren't interested in doing the job their name implied. Three years ago, there were mass rapes taking place in Congo just up the road from those "peacekeepers." Nothing was done. Why didn't that qualify as violations of human rights? We'll discuss that later. Another good question: Why is this extremely guilty country on the UN Human Rights Council? Sorry. I can't help you with that one.

Uganda, another of the 47 members, is the home of the Lord's Resistance Army and the infamous Joseph Kony. The LRA's "ranks are filled with boys who have been brainwashed to burn down huts and pound newborn babies to death in wooden mortars, as if they were grinding grain" (according to Jeffrey Gettleman, The Perfect Weapon for the Meanest Wars, New York Times, 29 April 2007). How pleasantly appropriate for the UN Human Rights Council.

In the Ivory Coast, yet another member, the 2010 presidential election led to the 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis and the Second Ivorian Civil War. International organizations reported numerous human rights violations on both sides. In the first civil war, in 2002, child soldiers were used, often forcibly, by both sides.

Libya, a vacation destination in Northern Africa, saw such terrible human rights violations that their rights as a member of the UN Human Rights Council were suspended from March 2011 - November 2011. It was so bad that Libya's own UN delegation urged the UN to kick them out. Makes me wonder; if Libya's own delegation hadn't done so, the UN likely would never have done anything at all because...

Switzerland, one of our illustrious 47, has nominated Jean Ziegler, co-founder of the "Moammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize," for the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, to represent the Western group (election scheduled for September 27, 2013). He has publicly endorsed such infamous a**holes as Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Colonel Mengistu, and other repressive rulers. Impressive, especially because we, in the West, always consider Switzerland as one of the 'good guys.' If you want to take action and oppose this election (as well you should), you can complete the form on this page. Perhaps someone will listen.

In the Philippines, children are recruited by rebel forces (MILF, ASG, NPA, acronyms explained below), but it is also reported that the government (Armed Forces of the Philippines) uses them in paramilitary units. It is known, even by the UN, that the rebel forces and the government subjects these kids to the most brutal violence, including killings, maimings, rapes, and other sexual assaults and human rights issues:

"There is a United Nations Security Council Report in 23 April 2010 that says that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF, yes, MILF), Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), New People's Army (NPA), and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) are among the groups around the world that recruit and use children. In the report, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) is not mentioned as a human rights violator.

In a separate corroborating report, the State Department of the United States of America also had a 2009 Human Rights Report and it has never mentioned MNLF as a violator.

On 28 October 2011, the Philippine Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo admitted that some members of the Abu Sayyaf are related to members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and even government officials."

I'm sure I could go into more detail about the 47 member States and their impressive human rights history, but that would turn this blog into a novel (as if it isn't approaching that already). There's no need. The two questions remain the same: 

1) Why are the aforementioned countries members of the UN Human Rights Council? 

2) Why is the UN only now looking into Syria for its human rights violations, especially when both sides (government and rebel forces) have been accused of gross, systematic, and wide-scale violations of human rights?

For as smart and clever as I am, I cannot explain or shed light into the thought processes of the UN. Perhaps they felt there were just too many offenders to have a truly humanitarian Human Rights Council. Or maybe, as I believe, they just don't give a crap and so remain intentionally blindly ignorant. As such, I'll stick to Question #2. 

Why Syria? Why now?

Russia

Russia has never stopped being a communist country (though now I suppose it might qualify as pseudo-communist), and with our crazy ex-KGB Vladimir Putin in charge, he wants to become a super power again. He has gotten our attention and wants to remind us that he's a Someone we should all be worried about. We need to remember that he is no one's friend, least of all the U.S. or Israel's.

Putin has been angling for the power card for a while now. From 2000-2010 Russia sold $1.5 billion (with a "B") worth of weaponry to its ally Syria, making Damascus its 7th largest client. During the Syrian civil war, Russia threatened to veto any sanctions against the Syrian government (yes, they do have veto power) and continued to supply them with arms.

Some may argue that Russia is concerned about an Syrian overthrow further destabilizing the region which may then affect them, but it's more realistic to remember that Syria is in the heart of the Middle East and Russia has had four decades supporting the Assad regime. Further, Putin's tactics seem to be succeeding. Obama has capitulated and is letting Putin run the show. Somehow, we are supposed to trust that Russia, who has a long-term relationship with Syria and supplied them with billions of dollars in weapons, will finally force their customer to dispose of the weapons they just purchased because of the September 14, 2013 Framework For Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons.

Chemical weapons

Other countries, as mentioned above, have horrendous human rights violations (note that I only mentioned member States, not countries who have had violations but aren't currently Human Rights Council members), but they haven't been threatened with invasion and attack by the US or UN. This is because the violations in those countries were done the 'old-fashioned' way, so to speak (say, with machetes and such). The murders and attacks were not considered as brutal or cruel as those conducted by chemical weapons, which can be considered a weapon of mass destruction (though in a separate class from biological weapons, nuclear weapons, or radiological weapons). 

We aren't talking about your run-of-the-mill mass murder... Chemical weapons are so brutal to the human body that the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), held in 1993, made a legally binding worldwide ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors, and international law has prohibited them since 1899, under the Hague Convention: Article 23.

98% of the world has signed, if not ratified, the CWC. Conveniently, Syria was one of only seven states in the world who weren't a signatory (until they were forced to several days ago), though it was a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons (but is silent about production, storage, or transfer of them-- I guess they didn't have lawyers back then).

Racism

For as far as we have come in this world, I believe that the UN and others feel, though won't admit, that Blacks are less human/humane than others. That's why there was, and still is, a delay in doing anything of significance in the African countries where human rights violations and atrocities are being committed daily. Some may claim that we only go into Arab countries because it's an oil issue, but diamonds, timber, and chocolate, all vital goods that the US and the world need/want, are all produced in Africa.

No. As unpopular and controversial as this may be to put in writing, I sadly believe that the crux of the matter is that the UN, European, and Arab countries feel that Africans are more tribal than organized and that, therefore, African countries are merely glorified tribes. 
UN logic is that the Black Africans will continue to kill each other so there is no reason for the UN to go in and interfere unless it becomes so excessively brutal that they can literally no longer ignore it (e.g. against Liberia for the blood diamonds or Sudan, where it took the UN and International Criminal Court 16 years to step in, and immeasurable numbers of Darfuris are still suffering even today).

Though the Arabs are also of darker skin, they are viewed to be slightly more civilized than the Africans, and therefore, able to be manipulated (since that's what the UN tries to do anyway).

Israel

Israel isn't truly a reason but I wanted to address it since some might assume otherwise. Other than American news sources making the claim, there is no documentation proving that Israel actually asked for US assistance. In fact, Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to Washington, emphasized that Israel was not pressuring or even recommending that the US engage militarily in Syria.

"Israel and the United States are sovereign countries, and whether it’s with Syria or Iran, each country has the right to determine how best to act and defend itself,” Oren said. “I think it’s important to point out that Israel has a different red line than the United States.

Prime Minister [Binyamin] Netanyahu has stated that Israel’s red line is any attempt by Syria to transfer chemical or other game-changing weapons to Hezbollah. That is our red line, and we stand by it.” 

-Sam Sokol, Michael Wilner; "Steinitz: Israel Didn't Ask For US Help in Syria." Jerusalem Post, 4/28/2013.

Additionally, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz asserted that Israel never asked the US to take military action in Syria, "never asked and never encouraged the US to take military action." Id.

In that same article, Steinitz was quoted as saying that he has had to deal with categorically untrue statements from American outlets such as the NY Times and NBC News that Israel was encouraging action.

Conclusion

It's really too bad that the Human Rights Council is a joke (not surprising, though, since it is a outshoot of the UN). 

It permits the very same human rights violators to be the watchdogs over other human rights violator countries, does a less-than-stellar job of watching over the countries who everyone knows is murdering and torturing its own citizens, and picks and chooses who it's going to "help" next.

It sets no bar for respectful countries to surpass (or even reach) and even allows so-called Western countries to make proposals that are laughable, at best.

Logic dictates that we wait it out and see how well the UN (or rather, Russia and the US) does with Syria. Then again, I haven't really been impressed with the UN's past track record, who they trust, or who they enlist as guardians of humanity.

Unfortunately, with this type of organization in charge, there's no reason to hope that the situation in Syria will turn out positively.

Proper Focus is Key

It’s been a rough week for Americans.

Unfortunately, when a tragedy occurs (especially one that involves children), we want to do something to prevent it from happening again. Americans are fixers. This time is no different, but we have wrongly identified the problem that needs to be solved. It doesn’t help that the media sensationalizes the murderer, and it doesn’t help that we haven’t been focusing on the victims, or on the mental health aspect of these instances.

All states have laws in place that make it unlawful for certain individuals to acquire and possess guns. The laws in Connecticut, for example, state that a person must be twenty-one years of age to possess a handgun; that it is unlawful to possess a handgun by a person who has been convicted of a felony; convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes illegal possession of a controlled substance, negligent homicide, third degree assault, first degree reckless endangerment, second degree unlawful restraint, rioting, or second degree stalking; discharged from custody within the preceding 20 years after acquittal by reason of mental disease or defect; confined by court order for mental illness within the preceding 12 months; subject to a restraining or protective order involving physical force; or an illegal alien. It is unlawful to possess any other firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony.

Each state has comparable laws in place, but they do not affect how criminals and bad guys obtain their weapons, and never will. Perhaps those laws have to be harsher, but punishing law-abiding citizens and preventing them from obtaining guns so that they may defend themselves and loved ones is simply not the solution.

Instead of arguing about our country’s problems, debating what they might be, and using the deaths of small innocent children to push through restrictive laws, we should be focusing on finding a solution, both for schools and other public areas.

Teachers have always had a challenging job. Not only do they have to educate our children, but they are also responsible for keeping them safe. Principals and superintendants have the most pressure and the most children to watch over. One small town in Texas, Harrold, has found a solution.

Since it’s so small, the nearest sheriff’s office is thirty minutes away, much too long if something evil happens. They don’t have the money for a security guard either.

Instead, the school board voted to let teachers bring guns to school. Their teachers aren’t just anyone. They have master’s degrees, are older, have extensive training, and their guns are hidden. Normally, Texas law bans guns in school unless the school has given written authorization. In 2007, Harrold’s school board voted unanimously to allow employees to carry weapons. After obtaining their state concealed-weapons permit, each employee who wants to carry a weapon must be approved by the school board based on his or her personality and reaction to a crisis. This is a strict standard, and it continues. Employees must also undergo training in crisis intervention and hostage situations and must use bullets that minimize the risk of ricochet (similar to the ones used by air marshals on planes).

Harrold, Texas is not alone. Superintendant David Thweatt stated that there are other Texas schools that allow teachers to carry weapons, but would not reveal their locations due to negative publicity.

The Texas solution is a smart one. It allows the teachers and administrators to protect their students and provides them with training so that they may do so. Most parents would do anything to protect their children, and want to be able to trust other adults to do the same. They want responsible and trained individuals to be watchdogs for their little loved ones.

It is important for administrators and principals to be able to protect their wards. Principals and vice-principals should be encouraged to go a step further and either carry weapons (and undergo training) or persuade interested teachers to do the same. Superintendants should be looking into similar solutions for their districts.

Rep. Mark McCullough of Oklahoma is working on a bill that would allow teachers and administrators to receive firearm training through the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training.

Richard Fairburn[1] suggested another solution, which can complement the above policy. While there simply aren’t sufficient policemen or military personnel to provide each school system with an armed guard, there is a no-cost solution available: Minutemen, defined as “an organization of citizens with limited military training who are available for emergency service, usually for local defense.” According to Fairburn, Minutemen must be exempted from every geographic restriction placed on those who currently carry concealed weapons since virtually every mass killing in recent history has occurred in a “gun-free zone.”

Fairburn lists three different categories of Minutemen: (1) former law enforcement officers; (2) retired military personnel; and (3) honest, armed citizens. This opens it up to hundreds of thousands of volunteers who would selflessly give their time (and lives) to serve and protect our next generation – and would do so at a moment’s notice.

These proposals will not deter opponents of the Second Amendment or eliminate fear. People still have doubts that more armed people, even trained ones, will equal more injuries and deaths. However, doubts can be eliminated, or at least seriously reduced, with extensive training and responsible guards.

It’s sad that it has come to this, and nothing is guaranteed, but it’s better to be prepared and trained than it is to be ignorant and fearful. Let’s protect our little ones and our public with more than just hopes and wishes. Let’s teach them that we love them and care for their safety. Let’s find and utilize reliable solutions first, so that we can then have breathing room to address the real problems and not the guns.

---

[1] Richard Fairburn has more than 30 years of law enforcement experience in both Illinois and Wyoming, working patrol, investigations and administrative assignments. Richard has also served as a Criminal Intelligence Analyst and as the Section Chief of a major academy’s Firearms Training Unit and Critical Incident training program. He has a B.S. in Law Enforcement Administration from Western Illinois University and was the Valedictorian of his recruit class at the Illinois State Police Academy. He has published more than 100 feature articles and two books: Police Rifles and Building a Better Gunfighter.

The Hell of D-Day

Yesterday was June 6, 2012, the 68-year anniversary of D-Day, the day during the Second World War where Allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France. General Dwight D. Eisenhower called the operation a crusade in which "we will accept nothing less than full victory." More than 5,000 ships and 13,000 aircraft supported the invasion. While casualties were high (and the number is still disputed), more than 100,000 soldiers began the march across Europe to defeat Hitler.

You are about to embark upon the great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. -General Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Normandy landings, nicknamed Operation Neptune, commenced on Tuesday, June 6, 1944. The landings took place along a 50-mile stretch of the Normandy coast divided into five sectors: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword. Operation Neptune ended on June 30, 1944, and by that time, the Allies established a firm foothold in Normandy.


Overall, the 2nd Army contingent (which invaded Sword Beach, Gold Beach, and Juno Beach) consisted of 83,115 troops (61,715 British). The First Army contingent (which invaded Omaha and Utah Beaches) totalled approximately 73,000 men, including 15,600 from the airborne divisions.


The German defenses used an interlocking firing style, had large bunkers, including intricate concrete ones containing machine guns and large-caliber weapons. Their defense integrated the cliffs and hills overlooking the beaches, and these defenses were all built and refined over a four year period.


The most commonly known aspect of the attack was the invasion of Omaha Beach, but the entire attack by the Allies was "a never surpassed masterpiece of planning." There was an invasion fleet drawn from eight different navies (out of the 2,468 major landing vessels in the two task forces, only 346 were American) and there were 195,700 naval personnel involved. Operation Neptune addressed German naval threats, air surveillance, and provided supporting fire for the land forces (to suppress shore defenses and to break up enemy concentrations). There were airborne operations which were used to seize key objectives, to ease the egress of amphibious forces off the beaches, and to neutralize German coastal defense batteries and more quickly expand the area of the beachhead.


Juno Beach
The Canadian forces that landed on Juno Beach faced two heavy batteries of 155mm guns and 9 medium batteries of 75mm guns, as well as machine gun nests, pillboxes, other concrete fortifications, and a seawall twice the height of the one at Omaha Beach.


The first wave suffered 50% casualties, the second highest of the five D-Day beachheads.


By the end of D-Day, 30,000 Canadians had been successfully landed, and the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division had penetrated further into France than any other Allied force.


Gold Beach
25,000 men landed and the casualties were quite heavy, but the 50th Northumbrian Infantry Division overcame these difficulties and advanced almost to the outskirts of Bayeux by the end of the day. With the exception of the above Canadians, no division came closer to its objectives than the 50th.


Omaha Beach
Omaha Beach was the most heavily fortified beach, with high bluffs defended by funneled mortars, machine guns, and artillery, and the pre-landing aerial and naval bombardment of the bunkers proved to be ineffective. They had difficulties in navigation, causing heavy casualties in tanks, infantry, and engineers. Of the 16 tanks that landed, only two survived the landing. 

Within ten minutes of the ramps being lowered, [the leading] company had become inert, leaderless and almost incapable action. Every officer and sergeant had been killed or wounded... It had become a struggle for survival and rescue.

American casualties at Omaha on D-Day numbered around 5,000 out of 50,000, most in the first few hours, while the Germans suffered 1,200 killed, wounded, or missing.


Pointe du Hoc
The massive concrete cliff-top gun emplacement was the target of the 2nd Ranger Battalion, and their task was to scale the 30 meter cliffs under the cover of night in order to attack and destroy the German coastal defense guns, which were thought to command the Omaha and Utah landing areas. The Rangers were eventually successful and captured the fortifications, but then had to fight for two days to hold the location, losing more than 60% of their men.


Utah Beach
Casualties on this beach (the westernmost landing zone) were the lightest of any beach, with 197 lost out of 23,000 troops that landed. This was due primarily to a current that pushed their landing craft to the southeast, to Victor sector, a light defended German location. By early afternoon, the 4th Infantry Division had succeeded in linking up with elements of the 101st.


Revised estimates of deaths are 4,414 Allied dead (2,499 American and 1,915 other Allied dead). But these numbers do not tell the story of the hell these soldiers went through in order to defeat Hitler and Nazi Germany.

What I thought were piles of cordwood I later learned were the bodies of 2500 men, killed by withering fire from the Nazi gun emplacements built into the cliff. -Tracy Sugarman

And I heard this shell coming in. And I knew, although I had never heard one before, I knew what it was. And I rolled over on my side and it exploded, and I jumped up to run for a fox hole. And I didn't know that Germans shot more than one shell at a time, and there was another one right behind it that was covered up from the sound of the first one going off. And when that one exploded, it jarred me real, real bad, and I was completely numb all over. I could not feel anything. And I jumped into the fox hole and I looked down, and the back of my hand was all covered with blood. And I couldn't -- since I couldn't feel anything, I had to feel my hand to see where I had been hit, but I couldn't feel any place where it was torn or anything. And I tried to realize that maybe I brushed my hand against my leg, and I felt that leg and I was all right. And then I saw that the blood was running off my nose, then that really scared me because I didn't know how much of my face was gone. But I got out of it pretty good. Very, very lucky. -William Jennings Arnett

Even the soldiers who escaped physical harm came home with mental and emotional scars. Their families and loved ones suffered with them. For being the greatest generation and saving the world from Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, please take the time to thank a vet (or their family for making the sacrifice). As the days march on, fewer of our WWII vets remain. Take the time to learn about our heroes and what they went through. It's the least we can do.




For more information on this historic WWII Operation, please check out the following sites:

• The American Experience: D-Day
• WWII Memories: D-Day
• Library of Congress: Memories of D-Day
• Normandy Landings
• Army: D-Day
• US Army: D-Day Resources

What's wrong with having children?

This article is written at the risk of insulting some of my closest friends, but since they know me well, they know that it is not meant as an insult or as a passed judgment. It is a curiosity on my part, something I do not understand but want to. Despite my lack of understanding, I have and will always accept an individual's personal choices (as I would hope people accept mine). Please understand... Having kids is a heavy choice, and if you don't want them, I respect your choice and perhaps it's better that you not have them if you don't want them... I'm just trying to understand.

I know of three amazing (married) couples who are fantastic people, individually and as a couple. They are strong, intelligent, patient, talented people who would put their lives on the line for me (and some do, in the military) if it were necessary. I consider them some of my closest friends, people who make the world a better and safer place. We are better off because they are in our generation, and yet, these are people who have decided to not have children. It makes me wonder what kind of awesomeness I/we are missing out on. I don't understand this logic.

There are so many individuals in this world who should not be procreating, and yet, not only have kids, but have a plethora of them. Seriously. You probably know some of them. Why then do the smart, industrious citizens choose to deprive the world of their next generation of goodness?

It reminds me of the movie Idiocracy, an admittedly stupid movie, but one that makes a good point. If the dumb people keep having children and the intelligent, well-educated people have one (or fewer), we will quickly be outnumbered by the idiots. Where will the world be? Where is the world now?

Perhaps it is a regional issue. At first thought, I feel that midwesterners tend to have more children than New Yorkers or Californians. My voluntarily childless friends, however, are from Michigan. This US News article found that more women in the Western United States are having children (Utah, California, and Nevada being the highest). There goes that theory.

Perhaps it is the cost of children. The same article mentions that the birth rate declined with the economic downturn. Granted, kids are expensive. Diapers, food, and schooling are just some of the costs associated with having children. But they provide so many positives in life that I feel those outweigh the negatives or difficulties of having them. Additionally, there are so many other things in life on which we throw money away, why shouldn't we use the money as an investment in the next generation and in the planet? Speaking of the planet...

Perhaps it is a matter of being too scared of the world to bring children into it. True enough, the planet, the economics, and the politics strike fear into our hearts. Countries getting the nuclear bomb, clashes between nations, drug and alcohol issues, bullies... from the local to the international, there is plenty to keep us on our toes. But if you do a good job raising your kids, making sure you keep them aware of the good, the bad, and the ugly about society, they can make a difference. They can shine a light and a beacon in this otherwise dark world, a light that we all desperately need.

Religion does play a role in families having children (think Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Mormons), as does ethnicity. Hispanics and African-Americans are having the most children. Perhaps they (as well as the religious) understand the value of children more than the rest of us?

The scariest (inverse) correlation is the one that involves education and fertility. The more education, the fewer children. Period.

The US News article explains.

Likewise, education and fertility are inversely related; more educated populations tend to delay childbearing in favor of school. For example, for many highly educated people, the ages of 18 to 22 are devoted to college, not starting a family. "Highly educated people, they get out of college, they have jobs, and then they have families. So the timing is being pushed. ... They're likely to have children at later ages," says Qian, meaning a smaller window for having children and therefore potentially smaller families. The Northeast tends to have more college- and advanced-degree holders than the rest of the country, which may also account for lower fertility rates in many northeastern cities.

Think about that. What that means is that our horror flick, Idiocracy, isn't that far off the mark.

I admit that I am somewhat guilty of this phenomenon. I am 34 years old, I have my B.A. in English, my J.D., and I have been practicing business and bankruptcy law for almost six years. The difference is that I never intended to delay getting married and having children. I have been looking for the right guy for me; it just took me a little longer to find him. With him, I want at least four kids (we'll see what nature and G-d have in mind for me). I figure that since I'm going to have cute, smart, and well-behaved children, I want to have as many as possible. My family, my neighborhood, my country, and the world will benefit.

Perhaps, above all else, that's the issue, at least for women. Education is so highly valued and demanded nowadays (and it is readily available to us) that we believe we have a smaller selection of qualified males from which to choose (I believe the "pussification of America" is also an issue, though I'll save that for another article). We don't want to settle and our careers are important to us. We want to make a mark in this world. Sadly, many women (and men) don't realize how children make us immortal, that we only have a certain amount of years with which to make our true mark.

Men and women alike want to make sure their progeny, should they have any, have a proper education, a proper upbringing, and think that they can only do this with one or two children. But again, this brings up the same question.... Why let your name die? Why deprive the world of your genes entirely?

Why have none?