Letter to the Editor

The cost of contraception

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

We stand at the crossroads of consequence: the confluence of social paths that intersect individual behavior and human freedom.

Upon the narrow road walks the moral conscience, unflinching witness to the transcendent principles of the Natural Law -- the VERITAS of Creation that defends the good, protects human life, and sustains ordered liberty.

On the opposing path hobbles the incorrigible spirit -- that diabolical accuser, well traveled in carnal pursuits: He who, to flee his own reflection, corrupts innocence; who, to ensnare the prideful, vanquishes conscience and perverts reason; who, to capture the slothful, despises sacrifice; and who, to imprison the sensual, pursues pleasure. We see the spoiler of nations: Self worship.

The collapse of culture, the shifting of personal responsibility to the state, financial ruin and enslavement -- all naturally follow. Normalizing behavioral aberrations begets the bane of humanity -- Utopia -- that remorseless murdering thief of true human liberty.

Sexual pleasure is a gift from God, balanced with the responsibility incurred by the union He ordained. What more expedient path to corrupt man than to destroy the most precious gift -- life?

Human sexuality is ordered to the good of man. Men and Women are created having the conception of new life as their natural end. By virtue of all components the system is designed to produce offspring. We are more than penis and vagina! Thus a male possesses testicles and sperm; a female, ovaries, eggs and uterus.

Life is the objective reason for sex -- not the other way around; its pleasure is subordinate to this first purpose. Contraception inverts and defeats this end -- substituting pleasure for the promise of new life. Thus its practice is intrinsically disordered. The evil of contraception is that it devalues life; and once pursued it can never satiate the resultant hedonistic impulse that ultimately destroys life, physically and spiritually.

Contraception, the most cunning assault on the Natural Order, eventually undermines the common good. This rebellion against God's design results in unlimited cultural perversions. Once the intended natural end is divorced from the procreative act, no argument exists to define human sexuality or to defend life. Sexuality degenerates into selfish "acts of friction."

Participant and outcome are irrelevant: whether the action occurs alone, between spouses or the unmarried, between individuals of the opposite or same sex; between adult or parent and child; between siblings or children; between human and animal; or by petri dish -- it matters little, if at all. Abortion becomes but a latent act of contraception; homosexual sodomy, just another frictional "lifestyle." The individual and culture devolve by an insidious cruel indifference to the Natural Law; creating in its stead a disdain for moral conscience, right reason, innocence, personal responsibility, sacrifice, family, cultural unity, fiscal solvency -- and ultimately life.

Americans are now being coerced by an increasingly obnoxious belligerent federal power, hostile to moral conscience and liberty, to subsidize behavior; and to include these acts with accidents of natural risk -- instances for which insurance companies pool the financial resources of willing participants, so to minimize individual liability for those events beyond personal control: disasters, medical uncertainty and death. Forcing the American People to subsidize behavior -- and particularly that which defies the Natural Order -- will ultimately destroy our freedom and all that makes life worth living.

Bruce C. Desautels

Stratton, Nebraska

Comments
View 25 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • The Ennui created by selfish focus, much like a plague, heralds the demise of a Social Order, up to a total population of a species. Man is well on its way to that fruition of fact.

    Good article, Bruce, perhaps a bit more lofty than needed, but succinctly put.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 4:48 PM
  • I enjoy chewing gum simply because it tastes good. Now, I know things only taste good because God wanted me to provide my body with foods that will fuel my body. Problem is I burn more calories chewing the gum than I get from the gum. Therefore, I must be trying to circumvent God's divine plan for the role the pleasure of taste buds play in sustenance. Thanks for your logic on contraception because now I understand gum chewers are unholy heathens too.

    -- Posted by hometown1 on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 5:30 PM
  • For me being a woman who has bore a child in this world, you really need to shut it. For you thinking the taxpayers are going to pay for the contracepion for someone who already has health insurance who pays for their health insurance with their own money. So, no taxpayer isn't paying for anyones contracepion. And anyways you don't know nothing about contracepion, what and how it helps women. You know why you don't know, because you are a man. And if God didn't want women to be all smart, he would of made sure we had no brains. But he didn't, because he knew how men these days will act towards women. Why do men get free little blue pill the viagra through health insurance, but wait, so they can have a boner for like 4 hours and thats ok.

    -- Posted by AmberLea on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 6:33 PM
  • God did give us brains, and He wants us to use them. Unfortunately, we don't. We all give in to humanly desires, sometimes the consequences are good, other times, not good.

    Contraception does have a place for those who place sexual pleasure over responsibility. It is there for those who place worldly desires over raising a child.

    Contraception is cheap and affordable. It is also the responsibility of those using it to pay for it. And I agree, Viagra and meds similar to it, should never be covered by health insurance.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 7:33 AM
  • On the Senate floor on Thursday -- as his proposal was facing a narrow defeat -- Blunt said "this issue will not go away unless the administration decides to take it away by giving people of faith these First Amendment protections."

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky claimed to be speaking for the nation's Founders: "It was precisely because of the danger of a government intrusion into religion like this one that they left us the First Amendment in the first place, so that we could always point to it and say no government -- no government -- no president has that right. Religious institutions are free to decide what they believe, and the government must respect their right to do so."

    The Blunt amendment also tapped into the "hate-government" message of the Tea Party, that "guv-mint" shouldn't be imposing regulations that impinge on "liberty," either for individuals or the states. But these propaganda themes rely on a revisionist founding narrative of the United States, pretending that the Founders opposed a strong central government and wanted a system of states' rights and unrestrained personal liberty.

    This narrative -- pushed by Tea Partiers and libertarians -- always skips from the Declaration of Independence of 1776 to the U.S. Constitution of 1787, while ignoring the key government document in between, the Articles of Confederation, which was in force from 1777 to 1787. The Articles represent an inconvenient truth for the Right since they created a system of a weak central government with independent states holding almost all the cards.

    Key Founders, such as Virginians George Washington and James Madison, regarded the Articles as unworkable and dangerous to the nation's survival. They decided to reshuffle the deck. So, in 1787, operating under a mandate to propose amendments to the Articles, Washington, Madison and others engineered what amounted to a coup against the old system. In secret meetings in Philadelphia, they jettisoned the Articles and their weak central government in favor of the Constitution and a strong central government.

    Madison, the Constitution's chief architect, was also the author of the Commerce Clause, which bestowed on the central government the important power to regulate interstate commerce, which many framers recognized as necessary for building an effective economy to compete with rivals in Europe and elsewhere.

    Today's Right leaves out or distorts this important chapter because it undercuts the message that is sent out to the Tea Partiers -- that they are standing with the Founders by opposing a strong central government. This propaganda has proved to be a very effective way to deceive ill-informed Americans about what the true purpose of the Constitution was.

    The Founders also spoke and wrote frequently about the necessity of trading off some liberty for a functioning society. Contrary to the Right's founding myth, the Founders were not absolutists for liberty (beyond the obvious fact that many were slaveowners); they had read the works of political philosophers who recognized that civilization required some constraints on individual actions.

    The Founders also were mostly practical men who wanted a vibrant and successful nation -- recognizing that only such a country could protect the independence that had just been won at a high price in blood and treasure. To make the Founders into caricatures of religious zealotry, who would place the dogma of any religion over the decisions of individual citizens, is a further distortion of what the leading framers were thinking at the time.

    Some of Madison's key allies in the fight for the Constitution and later enactment of the Bill of Rights were Virginian Baptists who believed fiercely in the separation of church and state. Thus, the First Amendment begins by prohibiting establishment of an official religion before barring interference in religious practices. Nothing in the First Amendment says churches are exempt from civil law or that the government must help them impose their doctrines on citizens.

    So, what is this coordinated attack on the federal government really all about? Clearly, the Right does not truly care about Americans having freedom of conscience on religious matters. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing all these attacks on women's access to contraception and abortion services. The Right has no compunction against intruding on the religious beliefs of those women.

    http://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/01/confusion-over-the-first-amendment/

    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 7:45 AM
  • *

    And with that, Ladies and Gentlemen...you have the biggest truckload of the finest horse made fertilizer that old Geezer can manufacture.

    There is no "attack" on contraception by the "Right". Geezer, get some O2 and breathe.

    The first this came up was the GOP Primary debate on January 7, when moderator George Stephanopolous (sic) prodded candidate Romney about whether or not he believed States had the right to deny women access to contraception. Romney basically replied that the question was ridiculous and that no states are engaged in denying contraception to women.

    Fast forward to Geezers sacred cow, aka, President Obama; mandating churches to provide products and services to female employees which may or may not conflict with the views of said church. Two problems with this: The President doesn't enjoy the power to mandate any American to purchase any product; for themselves or others. He just doesn't have that authority. Two - The fact that this was a mandate against church bodies is a simple violation of the Constitution. Whether you agree with the mandate or not, it is against the law. The President then tried to backpedal and merely mandated that insurance companies would be required to provide these products/services. Another use of power that he does not have.

    Then Geezer gets on a rail about the Right doesn't car about Americans freedom and rights...ad nauseum. Seriously, Geezer? Which group on the Right is trying to strike down religious freedom? Which group on the right is forcing people to act contrary to their conscience?

    Your link is a joke. One quote "Yet, today we're being told by the Right that religious liberty is boundless and that any moral or religious objection by an employer against giving an employee some specific health benefit trumps the employee's right to get that medical service." I've yet to hear anybody on the right bring THAT up, let alone use it as a platform. Hardly objective.

    Another quote: "The Founders also spoke and wrote frequently about the necessity of trading off some liberty for a functioning society." Honestly - which "Founders" "frequently" wrote about this...and if it was so incremental to our ability to function; praytell, why did it not make it into the founding documents?

    You're really reaching, Geezer. The President has no positive platform from which to run his re-election...so he and his band of useful idiots have to manufacture adversity, division and polarization on every issue they can.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:22 PM
  • *

    RE, hometown1:

    The tongue serves three natural purposes -- to form speech, to assist in chewing, and to provide the sense of taste ... those three are its natural functions, the "end use" for which it was created. If you enjoy chewing gum, great... Now, how does your argument counter anything I have stated about the natural "end use" for which the REPRODUCTIVE system was created? But I suppose you might try using your ***** to chew gum? Maybe you know of woman who has that ability with her ******? All you did was to prove my point, albeit by use of a non-sequitur.

    RE, AmberLea:

    I might answer you, if you would only make sense. My guess is I hit the target, and you just cannot handle the truth. You have no idea how to actually address the issues raised or the point I made. Keep trying ... I enjoy a good laugh.

    RE, Geezer:

    Thanks for the usual pile of subterfuge. You also have no logical rebuttal -- and perhaps this is because, in the last measure, one cannot refute the truth.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 8:26 PM
  • Great article, Bruce!! Lucid thought, clearly writen, logically presented.

    Doesn't get any better.

    -- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 9:48 PM
  • Mickel

    No, Jan. 7 was not the first time this came up. See the following clip at 17:50 or so. This was from Oct. 2011 - three months before the Jan. 7 debate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7WfIZh690&feature=player_embedded

    -- Posted by Geezer on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:25 PM
  • "But I suppose you might try using your ***** to chew gum? Maybe you know of woman who has that ability with her ******?"

    Hometown's response was analogous to your letter using your same logic. It draws the absurdity of your reasoning into question.

    If you think he was implying the above quote, then we can quickly dismiss much of anything you have to say.

    To elaborate, if you apply the same level of comprehension to what you are writing, we may as well read the comics.

    -- Posted by bberry on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 8:01 AM
  • Bruce

    Barry Goldwater, former US Senator (R-AZ), said on Sep. 15, 1981 in a US Senate speech:

    "By maintaining the separation of church and state the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars... Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state? The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives... We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."

    -- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 8:11 AM
  • I'm afraid I don't know enough about the situation to go into lengthy discussion, so I'm just going to ask for a webpage to the religion that requires its followers to acquire their contraception medication through the insurance provided by an organization with a differing religious viewpoint. Otherwise, I don't see how wanting contraception to not be a mandatory medication for insurance providers to provide is infringing on freedom of conscience or religious beliefs.

    As for the gum thing, I get the logic behind the analogy. However, the Bible has verses outlining God's divine plan for sex. (Where contraception fits into this, I couldn't say off-hand.) I don't think it has verses outlining a divine plan for chewing on things that don't provide nourishment, or something to that effect. I'm certainly welcome to being proven wrong, though.

    -- Posted by bjo on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:24 AM
  • Actually, it just occurred to me that the Oompa Loompas and Willy Wonka regard chewing gum as a carnal sin. This really has no relevance to the conversation; I just felt like sharing that. I'm personally scared to think of the idea of the Oompa Loompas singing a song about contraception, though.

    -- Posted by bjo on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:27 AM
  • *

    Geezer - Are you referring to the part, in this 44 minute video, about where Rick Santorum is talking about his personal beliefs? So?

    Mr. Santorum has stated that he would not legislate national policy to uniquely follow his own personal beliefs. Can you find an instance where he has done the contrary?

    When I said this whole thing started on January 7...I was referring to the obvious liberal "rope-a-dope" using the issue of contraception as the bait.

    One more point on your aforementioned web-link. The "Consortium" author, and you...both did a copy and paste from Wikipedia with your Articles of Confederation reference. Did either of you credit your source? Do you even know what the Articles of Confederation were? Do you even know why the Articles of Confederation were considered "weak"? Do you know why it was necessary to draft and ratify a new Constitution? I suspect that neither you nor the Consortium author, know. I suspect that he used the information in a manner that suited his article; and I suspect that you fell madly in love with the idea of conservative "come-uppance" and went on your little copy and paste rant.

    The issue is whether or not the government has the power to mandate a church to provide (purchase/buy/pay for) a product or service for people that is contrary to their beliefs. The answer is "no".

    -- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 1:03 PM
  • *

    Geezer - re: Your Goldwater excerpt.

    The church is not dictating anything to the government, in terms of policy or otherwise.

    I'm wondering why you aren't crying "separation of church and state" when it comes to the government mandating policy to the church?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 1:07 PM
  • I love fishing. Maybe as much as I like sex. I feel fishing is very good to my mental health and overall stability. Can we please mandate insurance buy me a new Ranger Bass boat. If you say no I will claim you are trying to deny all fishermen their natural right to fish.

    -- Posted by James Arp on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 1:13 PM
  • Bruce,

    According to your "end use" argument, the "end use" for the pleasure provided by taste buds would only exist to enjoy the consumption of food to add calories to fuel our body but gum contradicts this "natural order". Much the same as the "end use" for the pleasure of sex is procreation but circumvented by the evil prophylactics.

    Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Elisabeth... oh and Mary, all had kids despite being barren. If God wants somebody to get pregnant, they will become pregnant. If he can work his will through defying the restraints of the human body, I think he can make it past a thin piece of latex, tiny pill or anything else man can throw in the way, if it's His will. Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?

    -- Posted by hometown1 on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 1:21 PM
  • I always wanted the government to stay out of my pocket and out of my bedroom. I think you guys worry too much about what others are doing in their private lives..

    -- Posted by npwinder on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 5:15 PM
  • Mr. Winder, I just consider this to be training for a luxurious career as a member of the paparazzi. Now there's a job that would be fun to get paid for.

    -- Posted by bjo on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 9:49 PM
  • *

    RE: bbery, hometown1, et al:

    OK, so let's try logic again ...

    The tongue is used to push food down the gullet to the esophagus, where it is sent to the stomach for digestion (actually, the process of digestion starts in the mouth by the action of teeth and saliva) Now that is the primary purpose of the tongue. The faculty of taste is there to give an indication of sweet, sour, salty, bitter, etc ... a sensation that is perhaps pleasurable or perhaps not. But taste is still secondary to that function the tongue must complete for the body to receive nourishment.

    Now, let's make a comparison: Many, I will presume have received some form of dental procedure at some point in their lives. In one instance, the dentist may use a "rubber dam" inserted in the back of the mouth, behind the tongue, so to prevent the escape of foreign material, created during the drilling-filling procedure, from passing down the patient's throat. This, in effect, blocks the tongue from initiating the swallowing reflex. It defeats the tongues purpose ... although you may still, save for the effect of Novocaine, have taste sensation.

    The same thing occurs with contraception ... the sperm - a foreign body - is prevented from passing through the vaginal canal and reaching the egg, or - as in the case of the Pill - the fertilized egg is prevented from implanting itself in the uterine wall (that is abortion). And thus "pregnancy" is prevented or else defeated.

    Now suppose we apply this logic to the tongue? Suppose that every time you eat, so to prevent from gaining weight, you were to use the dental "prophylactic" - the rubber dam - to keep food from being pushed down your gullet by the tongue? You will still have the sense of taste; i.e.: "pleasure" - but the natural objective of eating will be defeated. In this case, if practiced with regularity, you will either suffer from malnutrition or else starve to death -- but you STILL get to experience pleasure WITHOUT the objective natural consequence of eating.

    Taken further, "to the extreme" would be bulimia, where the participant induces vomiting so to defeat the objective purpose of the digestive system. They still experience the "pleasure of eating," but they destroy the benefit and natural outcome, resulting in anorexia, malnourishment ... and likely death (See" Karen Carpenter).

    So, this is an example of what I am arguing -- the perversion of the natural use, and defeat of the objective outcome, of a normal bodily process ... in this case, the creation of new life.

    Now, again with regard to AmberLea's remarks ...

    1.) In the last paragraph of my letter I made it clear that I object to the government compelling one person to subsidize another person's behavior.

    2.) Amber writes of "viagra" ... OK, let's go there ... What is the purpose of Viagra, or any of its substitutes? To promote and sustain an erection in the male *****. Why? TO ALLOW FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE TO TAKE PLACE! Not to defeat the act, but to assist its completion. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of CONTRA-ception. Thus to make a comparison between Viagra and the Pill - or any other abotificent, is to turn logic on its head. The fact that Amber has conceived and bore children has not a thing to do with the moral, metaphysical and philosophical arguments against contraception.

    Hometown1, allow me to demonstrate your absurdity:

    You wrote --

    "Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Elisabeth... oh and Mary, all had kids despite being barren. If God wants somebody to get pregnant, they will become pregnant. If he can work his will through defying the restraints of the human body, I think he can make it past a thin piece of latex, tiny pill or anything else man can throw in the way, if it's His will. Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?"

    Really? So by your logic then, you should put a loaded pistol to your head and pull the trigger ... after all ... "If God wants somebody to get" their brains blown out, they will get their brains blown out! If not, then the loaded pistol will fail in its objective purpose. Oh, BTW, telling children that a latex condom will "prevent pregnancy" and "prevent the transmission of STDs" is akin to playing Russian Roulette with their lives.

    Now, regards to the Bible ... Mary was not "barren" ... She was and REMAINS a perpetual VIRGIN! Big difference there, chum. Only a willfully ignorant dolt could make the argument, that God's miracle of life, bestowed upon a supposedly "barren" woman, is a validation for contraception -- the willful despising and defeating of God's ordained plan! You prove the popular retort: "You cannot fix stupid."

    Fearful? of a society that holds so little regard for life at all its stages? Seriously, man ... pull your head out of the sand, and understand where the "culture of death" eventually leads. I have much faith in the fact that GOD IS NOT MOCKED -- we get the culture we strive to create -- a godless nation of murdering sociopaths, or a culture that honors, protects and nurtures all life at all its stages. You decide which world you desire to live in.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:13 PM
  • *

    P.S. Hometown1 and bberry ... Answer me this:

    Could you live on "chewing gum;" to wit: if you had no other "food," but only gum, then what is the logical outcome of your exercise? Obviously you must take in REAL food so to sustain life. If you were to practice gum chewing as the rule ... you would in effect be non-life affirming, and you would eventually die. This is exactly what the non life-affirming mindset of contraception is doing to our culture ... emaciating it both morally and physically.

    Have fun "chewing gum" ... Eventually it will loose "flavor -- like the woman who no longer sexually excites after "the conquest;" but, knowing the mentality expressed on this forum, the hedonist will just "unwrap" yet another "piece" and keep chewing ... while our nation sinks ever deeper into depravity. Like Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burned, some refuse to see our culture consumed by the unquenchable flames of hedonism. Hmm ... I wonder if Emperors Nero and Caligula chewed gum?

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:38 PM
  • The Holy Bible does not state Mary remain a perpetual virgin. It does state Jesus had many half brothers and sisters (Mark 6: 2-3), including James, author of the book in his names sake. A book that teaches of Christ-like living. The Bible also states that Joseph was a Godly man and Godly men take Godly women as wives, what are they instructed by God to do sexually? DO IT!

    If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, then all of Jesus' brothers and sister would have to been conceived by God. Making his brothers and sisters God as well.

    Other than that, we're in agreement.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Mar 10, 2012, at 6:49 AM
  • bruce

    constitutional law expert, thelogian, dentist, OBGYN. Is there anything he cant do? Is there anything he dosen't know?

    -- Posted by president obama on Sun, Mar 11, 2012, at 12:29 PM
  • Mickel

    There is one distinct difference between your comments and mine -- I always try to list my source. This provides readers such as you with the opportunity to explore that source if you so wish.

    Your comments about the author of the post from the Consortium News, Robert Parry, appear to be nothing but trivial attempts to discredit the man and his research skills. This is the same man that helped to uncover the Iran Contra stories in the 80's. Like it or not, the man is well respected for his journalism skills.

    As for your statement of Mr. Parry not giving credit to WikiPedia for having nearly the same summation -- how do you know for a fact this happened? If you follow the sources for the Wiki article you will find out that their source for this information is a book written by Richard B. Morris, "The Forging of the Union". Mr. Morris was an American historian best known for his pioneering work in colonial American legal history and the early history of American labor. In later years, he shifted his research interests to the constitutional, diplomatic, and political history of the American Revolution and the making of the U.S. Constitution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Morris

    In 1976, following the general scholarly disappointment with the bicentennial of the American Revolution, Morris, then president of the American Historical Association, joined with James MacGregor Burns, then president of the American Political Science Association, to found Project '87--a joint effort to mark the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. Project '87 brought together historians, political scientists, and legal scholars and managed to salvage the Constitution's bicentennial as an occasion for the publication of groundbreaking new historical and legal scholarship on the Constitution and its origins. Morris's own contribution to the Bicentennial, and the culmination of his life's work as a historian, was "The Forging of the Union", 1781--1789, his 1987 volume for the New American Nation series that he coedited with his longtime friend and colleague Henry Steele Commager.

    Mr. Parry was already a well known journalist when all this happened. Maybe he had the opportunity to participate or be involved in the reporting of these new historical documents being presented for public review. Maybe Mr. Parry's opinion predates the Wiki opinion or his research led him to the same conclusion using different sources to the same information.

    Your line of questioning of my knowledge of The Articles of Confederation seems a little disingenuous as you have yet to expound with anything but questions. Regardless, I will try to reply to your question.

    I was fortunate as a young man to attend a high school that provided technical drawing as an elective course. My mother was an estimator for painting and building contractors and often I was commandeered to help her in the field and office. By the time I reached high school age I was already familiar with most of the drafting and design equipment used at that time. After an additional three years of mechanical drawing and advanced math in high school I was able to secure a position working in the design section of a local engineering company during my last year of high school -- I only had to attend the morning session and the afternoon session I was released on a work permit.

    In early spring the company I was working for was awarded a substantial contract with AT&T for the location and design of their microwave tower facilities from Brigham City, Utah to Globe, Arizona. I was offered a position on the Survey Crew for the summer and I gladly accepted the offer. Throughout that summer we worked in several states and spent a good bit of time at courthouses and government facilities performing legal document searches and retrieving historical survey records. This was my first experience with searching for historical documents required to perform a legal Land Survey -- little did I know at the time (1968) how this one task would eventually guide my career.

    As the summer came to an end my career choice changed from becoming a Civil Engineer to becoming a Land Surveyor. I continued working for the same company in the survey department through my college years and eventually became the go-to guy when historical research was required.

    In my last year of college I was approached by the U.S. Forest Service to be part of a team that traveled the western states performing Official Government Surveys on segregated lands. These lands were part of land grants associated with the expansion of the railroad system, remote Homestead Entry Surveys, and patented Mining Claims. I could not turn down an offer like that.

    Because of my experience in retrieving historical documents, I was assigned to work with a team of Professionals that included several well known historians specializing in the history and development of our country and the various survey laws and principals used to locate and describe surveyed lands under those laws. Many discussions were had concerning the birth of our countries survey system which had its founding prior to and during the years of the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. These included the Land Ordinance of 1785, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and the Homestead Act of 1862.

    I continued to work for the Forest Service until an opportunity to work on the surveying of the TransAlaskan Pipeline System and the associated Native Claims Settlement Act Surveys presented itself. In 1976 I became a licensed Professional Land Surveyor at the young age of 26, the youngest ever to attain professional registration status in my home state.

    Nearly every aspect of Land Surveying and many Construction Surveying Projects require significant historical records research. If tracking down and studying historical records is not something you enjoy doing, you should never consider pursuing Land Surveying as a career choice.

    Now it is your turn. Why don't you show me the same courtesy as I have shown you -- tell me how and when you became familiar with the Articles of Confederation and the laws that were enacted during that time frame?

    -- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Mar 11, 2012, at 1:51 PM
  • *

    Nice life story Geezer - I'm not sure that in your litany on life I heard where you understood my questions, and then answered them.

    How DID I find out how the "lazy" author of the Consortium (sure he's a professional, but you know...out there, somewhere is the WORST doctor on the planet...YOU can trust him if you want...the same you trust THIS guy...I choose not to.) article to which you link did a cut and paste job from Wikipedia? It's called research...something you tout but don't practice.

    Geezer - you post links...however, if the source is faulty, then how can we trust your source or YOUR judgement?

    We can't.

    So, once again...why you aren't crying "separation of church and state" when it comes to the government mandating policy to the church?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Sun, Mar 11, 2012, at 7:54 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: