The Deficient American
Deborah Venable
09/04/09
Suppose
we take a page from the Science
Czar's
book and extend its instructive qualities to the process of describing an
American. Let’s zero in on one passage
in the 1973 book, he co-authored, "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions"
with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. John
Holdren,
director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, (the
Science Czar) and his cohorts had this to say:
"To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the
first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete
human being than a blueprint is a building," they wrote. "The fetus,
given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential
early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food
during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a
human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual
will be deficient in some respect."
(Emphasis mine.)
Now
remember, we are proselytizing to a certain extent from faith to science to
define human in the first place. (I
always thought that the only thing two humans could reproduce was human, but
definitions must remain fluid I guess.)
So, interchanging the words fetus and human, with the more specific,
American, we can see that according to the learned authors of the above
paragraph, “essential elements” are necessary for Americans to “develop” or
they will inevitably be “deficient in some respect.” The nourishing food is a no-brainer of course, but who’s to say
what constitutes “essential early socializing experiences”?
Having
studied construction drafting and drawn up a few blueprints, I can tell you
that buildings don’t get built without them, and that every other aspect of the
building becoming a building is almost solely dependent on that blueprint. Deficiencies only result when blueprints are
deviated from - the theory being that all the calculations are checked and
rechecked before they are ever drawn into the blueprint. The science of building supercedes the art
in preventing deficiencies – not the other way around. It really does not matter how artistic one
is, then, if attention is not paid to the details of scientific calculation on
the blueprint, the building will have deficiencies.
I
only pursued that last train of thought to set up this one. The analogy used by the esteemed
aforementioned czar and his fellow authors is more than a little flawed. An unborn child is indeed a complete human
being because all the scientific calculations have been completed at the moment
of conception. The unborn child will
not grow into anything else but a human being – (just as the building will not
suddenly become a tree!)
But
this is why we must pull away from this comparison of buildings and blueprints
to human reproduction. Buildings and
blueprints are owned entities. Humans,
(especially in Constitutionally protected America) are not. If “essentially early socializing
experiences” are withheld “during the crucial early years after birth” (and
remember we are referring specifically to Americans now) we would, according to
the flawed logic of the czar, end up with a deficient American, would we
not?
What
would constitute these socializing experiences I wonder? I always have to worry when people talk of
“socializing” experiences. Do they mean
interactive relationships or do they mean politically correct
brainwashing? Assuming the latter,
let’s suppose that our deficient American was born into a family of
individualist patriots who believe that government has no role to play in their
individual choices for things like education and religion. This pre-human American doesn’t have a prayer
to grow beyond his deficiencies no matter how strong his interactive
relationships with his family members and others around him are. Not in the opinion of Czar Holdren and his
ilk, for it is obvious they do not believe in individualism.
Why
do so many continue to placate this administration and its abominable lack of
logic? So many of these people they
have placed in unimaginable positions of power have proven over and over again
that THEY are indeed the deficient Americans.
Their early socializing experiences were obviously socialist and
communist in nature, which is a clear deviation from “essential” American
experiences.
So,
now, if I may be so bold as to assert a definition for a deficient American it
is this:
An otherwise “qualified” American citizen who had withheld in the early years after birth those “essential early socializing experiences” and thus the necessary “nourishment” of individualist history and culture that would have insured a well-rounded and healthy respect for the country he calls home, or those who advanced beyond the “early years” to a point of losing the aforementioned “experiences (through such events as systematic brainwashing) would be considered “deficient” according to textbook terms from such academic giants as John Holdren and company.
Anybody
have any problem with that?