You are doing good public service by giving Dr. Carl Mumpower so much column space to expand upon his philosophy. I previously saw only bits and pieces, from news quotes or from his frequent letters to editors, where his comments were usually brief and snide. The expanded coverage gives better insight into his conservative beliefs. For example, that a primary purpose for employee benefits was to underwrite family procreation.
I don't remember signing the procreation pledge at my job in order for my wife to receive benefits, but I now worry that they will want their money back, because I worked there for 35 years without fathering any children. Please assure me that procreation wasn't mandatory. I'm thinking that the world has seen far too much of that already.
My assumption that people doing equal work should receive equal pay and benefits is due — in part — to documentation stating that all men are endowed with equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's been a pretty tough slog to get blacks and females included under the title of "men," but even the Supreme Court seems to have accepted that it should be interpreted to include all law-abiding people.
Dr. Mumpower also appears concerned that employee benefits for gays will cause an unnatural increase in their population, which would otherwise become extinct. I'm no geneticist, but I'm pretty sure that this is not a heritable [trait]. It is one, however, that has been persistent enough to survive evolution in every living species. It will probably also survive Mumpower's attempt to withhold taxpayer funds from those who possess it. Such eugenic tomfoolery has been attempted before, and it has never worked out well.
Please continue to illuminate the Jesse Helms-esque beliefs of Carl Mumpower, because I think that they need to be known. And if he stays busy writing newspaper columns, then he won't be doing other things that cause me more concern.
— Glen Reese
Asheville
I appreciate Dr. Mum even if I don’t often agree with his approach.
I wonder if Mr. Mumpower ever stopped in consideration and asked himself, “Am I crazy? I might just be crazy”. I’ve asked that in myself. Any reasonably sane person would. It’s those that don’t ever give themselves a sanity check that worry me. And Mumpower isn’t the only one I wonder about. One of my favorite bumper stickers: Don’t believe everything you think.
The object to life is get outta here with a smidge of sanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w
Nice ploy, MountainX; instead of getting a thoughtful, serious conservative intellectual to give some real counterweight to your opinion pages (as The New York Times did with William Safire and now does with David Brooks), you invite Carl Mumpower to rant and vent, thus discrediting the notion that conservatives might have anything to offer. Clever.
The problem with sanity checks is that you can’t use an insane society to check personal sanity against. Survivalist skills like a walkabout might be useful, but social references do not help when societies have far less sanity references than individuals.
I see Mumpower went blatantly pronatalist in his column, which is exactly the wrong opposition approach. The right approach is the economic conservative approach that eliminating all family benefits would be just as fair to gays, fair to single and childless employees as well, and would save a great deal of tax money immediately. What is least acceptable is doing nothing.
The last time I checked, homosexuals still come from heterosexuals … the good DR should remember this from med school (if he actually went) …