Two Moments in Annapolis Reveal a Deeper
Cultural Drift

The iconic lakerman (that would be me) views the world through 87 year old lenses, and would note that when he married the first Mrs. Lakerman (now deceased) in 1962, a comment such as the one in question would have been viewed as a complment to someone about his good choice of wife. It would not have been an actual offer of infidelity. It sounds stupid, but I view it as less nasty than the writer did.

I am far from a traditional moralist. I tend to read life through a libertarian lense. However, I also recognize that what makes me free as an individual could also compromise society and environment which I live. For example, if where to choose not to kill a die to defend my country, I cannot expect others to. That placed is me in direct personal risk. I honor with tremendous gratitude the men and women of our forces for that reason. Likewise, if society raises children as savages, I must live among them, which is fair neither to the children nor me. It is biologically, historically, and societally important that children have fathers, and for male children it is essential. Without that, they invade our world as barbarians, as Hannah Arendt once said brilliantly. It is also abundantly clear, the children need two parents in a stable committed relationship. Part of this is simply practical. A single parent child is halfway to an orphanage. But more important, children struggle every single day to learn about the chaotic and unfamiliar world all around them. Families provide a safe place and context in which to do that. If the family becomes unsafe or chaotic, everything the child needs to learn to do and become is disrupted. The free and easy sexual gratification of selfish individual impulses pales beside these two realities. For this reason, anything that denigrates the importance of fathers and the stability and Fidelity of families, is a direct threat to our civilization.

Apologies for second post, but I do want to raise one area of disagreement with the author of the article. The shift in values towards unrestrained amoralism in matters of sexual behavior and marital relations began a lot earlier than the author thinks. Go back and watch the musical "High Society" 1956 again. It's a brilliant musical with terrific songs by Cole Porter, wonderful performance is by the cast, the musical genius of Louis Armstrong, and the best duet between the two most important singers of the 20th century (Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra) It's also morally bankrupt: It's about a young woman's so-called selfish refusal to accept her let her father's serial marital infidelity, and the triviality of marriage, and marital commitments, in that context. Because it's the 1950s, the movie dances around what's actually being said and done with phrases like "easy virtue." But the message is clear: harsh judgment about marital infidelity is unfair and unsophisticated. That was erosion, even back then. Now we're in total collapse of the moral wall that separates civilized marital and societal relations from utter and unrestrained barbarism.

I really needed to read the thread before I post two such long and pretentious things. Just to make sure there's no confusion, I posted my replies before reading the genuinely iconic Lakerman's reply #1 above, and in no way disagree with it. He's right. I also think Senator Cramer's comment itself is harmless and kind of funny. In my fight for traditional family values, I would prefer not to fight or die on humorless hills.

I couldn't find any reference to a Ben Cramer. There is a Ben Kramer state senate for Maryland....looks white. What a trashy, low class piece of garbage....but then, he's a Dem, so I repeat myself.