After garnering a slew of comments on my recent blog post about the Duggars, I thought I’d take the time to respond to a few of these people.

Janice says: …It doesn’t appear that they are having kids any faster than they did before they were in front of cameras. I do hope that they stop and think of their other children after this scare, they need their mother…

They may not be having kids any faster than before, but then again by the time they started filming documentaries, Michelle Duggar was already in her late 30’s with 15 kids. I second the hope that they see this scare as a sign to stop having children. I don’t think God wants all of these children to be without a mom.

Jennifer says: …I seriously doubt they continued to have kids just because of a TV show…

Okay, so what is the real reason?

SGW555 says: The Duggars have a zillion children because they subscribe to the Quiverfull Movement, which is basically about repopulating the US with white, Christian ’soldiers’. It’s all wrapped up in ‘children are blessings’ nonsense, but essentially it’s about having as many babies as possible so that Christianity remains dominant.

Maybe you are right. Maybe this is not about money, but rather more about fame. The more famous they get, the more they spread their message of, “have as many Christian kids as possible.” Still, I think the money does play some part in their thinking; how could it not? If they didn’t want or need the money to help support all those kids, it would seem almost cruel that they put their family through such media scrutiny. I would guess it is a combination of both motives.

Mary says: …With that in mind many people are thinking in terms of when does having more children become less about the health and welfare of the children and a huge loving family, and more about having a obsessive desire to add to the clan…

Yeah, I would say having more than 10 children could be considered a compulsion or maybe a symptom of Narcissism.

Kelly says:…Well, before this world became so liberal and went to the “if it feels good, do it” mentality, families like these were the norm…And people always supported there president, no matter whether they agreed or not…

Funny, I think the Duggars seem to be the main subscribers of the “if it feels good, do it” mentality with little care for the consequences of having so many children. And since when was blind patriotism a good thing?

Dale Snynder says: The author is a true douchebag with zero understanding of the Family or the show… The Duggars were expecting their 15th kid and were building their current house BEFORE TLC came knocking…You are a total douchebag for insinuating people from Arkansas and/or Christians who believe in family are odd.

People can be brutal. State one opinion and you are the jerk of the universe. Glad to see you know the Duggars on such a close personal level, Dale.Seriously, though, you might want to check your facts. The Duggars built their home in 2006, after they had already starred in one documentary special and made numerous television appearances. TLC made a special about them moving into their new house and helped supply it with goods as well. And then you have to call me a douchebag again. Come on, Dale, surely you can think of another insult to throw. And no, I do not think Christians who believe in family are odd. People who have 19 children are odd.

Dawn says: Why should you all be entitled to your negative opinions and these people aren’t entitled to make decisions for their family without someone having something to say about it? Kind of weird don’t you think?

Maybe if they didn’t want people commenting on their family decision, they wouldn’t PUT THEMSELVES ON TV every week.

Raequel says: …It appears that you are poor, wretched, and blind. You would love the freedom they have in Christ, but envy has eaten you up…Why would someone on the outside looking in be so concerned with the welfare of their lives in such a negative capacity when you have not been appointed as their Nanny, maid, financial provider, pastor, friend, etc…After all, God so loved the world, (that would include you), that He gave His only son that whosoever believe in Him shall not perish. You are perishing my friend.

I was writing an opinion article about stars of a television show for entertainment purposes. Calm down, people. You are getting on my case about drawing conclusions about the Duggars, but I believe you just told me I am a bad person and facing internal damnation based on one bit of writing.

Eric says: To other commenters… I would encourage you to not be so harsh. Some of your words are very unlike the spirit of the Duggards and do your view more harm than good…

Got to agree with you there, Eric. The Duggars seem like much nicer people than their fans who have been posting on this article.

Kitcat says: …For the idiots who deem the Duggars “abusive”…I invite you to spend a day in a pediatric ER and see REAL abuse…

That is a great point and I want to clarify that I do not believe the Duggars are abusive or even remotely on that path. My main point is that I think their family size combined with having their lives dissected on television could have adverse consequences on the children.

…Our planet simply cannot sustain the growing population of increasingly greedy and resource-hungry humans. Having child after child without regard for the Common Good is, in itself, immoral in my opinion. I truly wish more people would realize this and stop selfishly having child after child for what I see as purely their own self interest…

Glad to see the communists/hippies chime in on the subject. Point taken and rejected.

Carle says: ..And, for those who think they are so wonderful because they are debt free – keep in mind they make a lot of $$$ off the TV show and also claim their home as a church so they don’t have to pay taxes…

If this is true, that is pretty weird and cultish.

Brandon says: You know, I agree with Zach. What’s disgusting to me is the fact that he wrote an opinion, and then got vilified for it because 90% of the people reading the article can’t seem to do what he’s doing (which would be thinking for ones’ self). It’s a freakin’ OP-ED piece people, learn to take an opinion as that: AN OPINION!..

For further reference, all that I have written is my opinion intended for your entertainment. I have no ill will towards the Duggar family and wish them well.

Humans ruin everything. Today at work, I chatted with a not-uneducated coworker about some of the major theories of society. She could not believe some prominent media figure suggest capitalism does not work.

She is a conservative, and that is fine. Though I do not agree with most of her views, one can generally find a base principle or other similar characteristic in opposing viewpoints. Though she may not have agreed (she may have), she at least remained civil when I suggested the capitalism is just one idea that does not work because the human race is involved.

Capitalism is a good idea. Let the people run the show, and the free market will regulate itself. If a company sells worthless goods, people will shop elsewhere. If a store has overpriced items, consumers will go to another store. These concepts and others will lead to reliable and cheap products. These ideas work in a fair society.

Unfortunately, humans are anything but fair. Let’s say a company does sell worthless goods. Maybe they are toxic. Maybe they fall apart. What if, due to volume of sales and cheap manufacturing, this company has more money than the competition to promote its products. What if it has the power to run smaller businesses out of town?

The argument may be that it’s not possible for a company like this to thrive. It would not be if things were fair, but again, they are not. Take a woman shopping for clothes. The nice clothes, made by workers who are paid and treated properly, and whose fabrics and threads are of high quality, naturally cost a lot of money. This woman, unfortunately, works for a company that does not pay her well, even though she works very hard. On top of that, she has been sick lately and has to pay high medical bills (that capitalism did not do a very good job of regulating). Though she is a worker, and though she wants the nicer clothes, her situation is not dictated by what she wants but rather what she can afford. Through really no choice of her own, she perpetuates the cycle of abused employees and cheap products. Take this woman times hundreds of millions of people on the planet and capitalism clearly begins to benefit a certain group.

That is just one example of how a less-than-ideal business can thrive in a free market. The market is not based on what is best for consumers, but what is best for business. Therein lies the flaw. Businesses, run by humans, can corrupt the system by controlling the variables that dictate behavior. If the above woman’s employer paid her what she truly earned, she could afford more expensive clothes, and the store exploiting cheap labor and products would have to up its ante to compete. Instead, the cheap store usually wins out with sheer volume merely because it can run the other shops out of business.

True capitalism assumes there are standards by which businesses work. Perhaps in the beginning, this was the case. In 2009, that is no longer the case. Mass media makes possible countless ways of advertising. Again, the company with the most money, which is often not the best company for the people, has the most ability to promote itself.

Fortunately, our system is not true capitalism. We have regulation. Though we have become a fine print society, at least companies are forced to tell the truth in some twisted form. Unfortunately, we do not have enough regulation. This is why companies can continue to exploit workers and consumers.

That is the other part of capitalism: the consumer. Why feel sorry for the consumer? It is up to him/her to control the market. The people working for companies that do not pay well must deserve the substandard pay. To the contrary, those earning high salaries, through school, hard work, or other ways, earn their pay. It is the common psychological principle that good traits are credited internally (I work hard, therefore I make a lot of money), and bad traits are external (He does not make a lot of money, therefore he must not work hard).

When this mindset is added to the other capitalistic equations, you end up with a society that does not care for one another. Instead of improving the plights of others, maybe with higher pay, more nutritious foods, etc., the lesser groups are viewed as inferior. The become tools to further individual growth. This explains how so few in a society can grow so wealthy while the masses get progressively poorer.

When all is said and done, a capitalistic society is supposed to create wealth for some. If fairness were incorporated completely, we would not see the levels of wealth and poverty we see today. The salaries of company owners would be limited because of fair pay to employees who run the company. But, somehow, we do not see that capitalism is not a fair idea, and we have allowed many dishonest companies and people to take advantage of others, resulting in the growing disparity between the rich and the poor.

Humans ruin capitalism for two reasons: greed and ignorance. One group uses whatever tools it can to gain more. The other group does not realize the power of itself and begins to listen to the viewpoints that ultimately benefit the class in power. How else could a worker with two jobs vote for candidates that vote against a wage increase?

What is the answer? Time has all but proven that western ideas do not work. Communism is another great idea. Individuals work for a collective good. Like other systems, this always results in a certain power structure. Power corrupts, and soon you have a class of people taking advantage of another class.

Religion is but another good idea gone wrong at the hands of humans. Instead of being used to increase the quality of life, certain humans use it as justification to hurt others. Religion, money, and nationality are the three main causes of war in history.

It seems there is no answer, but there is: regulation. Call it socialism, call it whatever you want. With an independent body to govern greed and force honesty, a society can create a natural series of checks and balances. If the body is failing, it can be replaced through election. Sound familiar? Vaguely, but it is not the American system, which is controlled not by everyday people, but by special interest.

Again, call it socialism, but there is another name for a truly independent government that looks out for all and not just a few: fair.

The liberals have done it again. We’ve offended those poor, persecuted right-wingers. This time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the recent outbursts at health care-related town meetings “un-American.”

First of all, what a stupid thing to say. What, exactly, is un-American? Not all bad is un-American. The United States has a very seedy history. Slavery, oppression of women and minorities, all of the nonsense wars we’ve fought just to name a few. To call an interruption “un-American” is to put the blinders on and pretend that everything “American” is good. Sorry, lady. Wake up and smell the people you govern. We smell freshly of soap, but only because some third-world child slaves away in a sweatshop for pennies a day so we can have cheap clothes.

Then there is the reaction. Typical. Overdone. Just as each Christmas the right pretends they are being persecuted when someone uses “X-mas” or “Happy Holidays” instead of Christmas, the right now claims that Pelosi has crossed the line. Nevermind that the right-wing talking heads say the same thing, often times much worse, when the left makes a reasonable attack. A few years ago, O’Reilly called left-wing protestors Nazis. What they were doing paled in comparison to what is going on right now.

Therein lies the problem here. The right is not being reasonable. It is reasonable to ask questions to gather more information. It is unreasonable to disrupt a meeting just because you disagree. The right offers no proof of any harm from Obama’s proposed health care, just propaganda heard on right-wing radio and television. As per usual, the truth goes out the window with this group, and we are left with nothing more than a bunch of angry, hateful bottom-feeders who vote against their own interest because they eat every word out of talk-radio’s mouth. Who can argue against someone who pulls facts out of the air, gets angry when confronted, and always ends up yelling?

Congressman Henry Waxman was recently on The Daily Show. Jon Stewart made fun of our government, and instead of agreeing with Stewart and showing anger that such a joke could ever be made, Waxman offered some weak rebuttal. Another problem: Congressmen and women who either cannot see the problem or do not have the courage to be adamant about fixing it. Where is the outrage when these clowns invade these meetings or spew their nonsense? Fire a little anger back occasionally. Oh well, it’s not like our health care is on the line or anything.

Just tonight, I watched three guests on Lou Dobbs’ show discuss Pelosi’s comments. At the top, each agreed that her “un-American” comment was un-American in and of itself. Finally, what must have been the brightest in the bunch said he agreed with her comments. Dobbs stuttered a response as if he could not believe someone just admitted on record that he agreed with Pelosi. He asks the man if he really agrees. The man puts the comment back in context and says yes, the behavior very specifically defined by Pelosi is “un-American” and stupid. They went to commercial before Dobbs could say anything else, but it was clear he thought he nailed the guy. The only thing he did was make himself and anyone who agrees with him on this point look terribly sad and naïve.

I used to think “We the people” deserved a better government than the one we have elected. I have since come to disagree with my earlier thinking. A people who cannot separate fact from lousy, emotion-driven fiction does not deserve a working health care system. A people who vote for the same money-hungry politicians who lie to them every chance they get does not deserve a government that works for them.

A few years back, I saw George Carlin on CNN, and realized his dark-humor was not just an act. Carlin unabashedly dismissed all the things I held dear at the time, namely government and humanity. He made a living making humorous the corruption and hypocrisy associated with America and humans in general, but on CNN that day, he made it evident that he really believed those things. At the time, I wondered how anyone could be so cynical. Now I know. Hearing the rhetoric coming from the right since Obama’s election, and seeing so many people believe it has devastated my outlook on humanity.

A girl I recently tried to date said I took things too seriously. Too seriously? Oh honey. We can never be together. No reasonable person could ever take any of this seriously.