Halloween costumes for old people: 6 surefire rules for dressing up



Let's face it: Halloween is only fun if you're a kid. If I had my way, I'd spend the evening at home with all the lights off and a pile of newspapers on the doorstep so nobody thinks there's any free candy to be had.

But I have children of my own, which means I've got to roam the streets with all the other middle-aged walking dead and their spawn. Now I can either do this in the time-honored dad uniform of jeans and quarter-zip sweater, or I can dispense with pretensions to dignity and wear a costume of my own. Years of experience has taught me that option number two is the only way to go.

Investing in a basic theatrical makeup kit can ensure that your costume is at least as frightening as the obsessive amounts of time and energy that clearly went into it.

Look, I hate dressing up for Halloween. It's not so much that I mind wearing a costume; it's the hassle of deciding upon one and then procuring the necessary pieces to make it happen. School just started and "the holidays" loom; who needs another decision to make?

But I've come to see it as my duty. You see, every adult standing around like a dork in their street clothes makes the occasion that much less Halloween-y. You get a critical mass of such wallflowers, and the night is ruined. So each year, a certain number of us must take it upon ourselves to do what other parents can't or won't.

I'm no hero. Or if I am, I'm a reluctant one. Every time Halloween comes around, I tell myself I'm going to sit this one out. But in the end, I always suit up. I like having a job to do. Over time, I've compiled a list of simple rules to help me do that job. Maybe they can be of use to you.

1. DON'T pick something you have to explain

Matt Himes

I threw this together at the last minute with an old dress shirt and and my son's debate trophy. The key is confidence. Walk around with an indifferent swagger, NOT as if you're pleading with people to guess who you are. They know who you are — and if they don't, that's their problem. The startled laughs and nods of appreciation that trailed in my wake as I moved through the crowd told me all I needed to know. Remember: A good Halloween costume is all punchline, no setup.

Here's an example of a costume that didn't work because I violated this rule:

Matt Himes

New York City, 2008 (that's my friend Robin as "Sarah Palin" next to me), and I'm dressed as ... what? An Islamic terrorist? Well, yes, but he's also an Obama supporter, as explained by the cover of "Rolling Jihad" taped to my chest. Instead of going with something timeless and elegant like "Jäger bomber" I've turned myself into a walking political cartoon (the ones that nobody gets). Do this, and you'll have people puzzling over your little commentary (or threatening to beat the s**t out of you on the F train) all night.

2. DO team up with your kids while you still can

Matt Himes

That kid in the striped shirt? He's 12 now. This year, he's going as a disgusting zombie and hanging out with his boys. But once upon a time, we were best friends, just like the duo we portray in this picture. Enjoy it while it lasts: At a certain point, childhood ends, and Hobbes has to step aside.

Here's an even older one with my daughter. She's applying to college this year as I quietly sob into my laptop.

Matt Himes

RELATED: 'Carrie' and the monster who raised me

Sunset Boulevard/Getty Images

3. DON'T prioritize 'originality' over recognizability

Matt Himes

You may pride yourself on your refined taste in music, art, and movies, but Halloween is not a time to show it off. Nothing kills a costume concept like the desire to be "original." I thought I had a brilliant idea for my wife a few years back: Stevie Nicks. Not too mainstream or obvious but oh so clever and niche. And who doesn't love Stevie Nicks? A better question to ask would have been who recognizes Steve Nicks? Nobody who saw the above ensemble (right) did, that's for sure. I thought this look would hit like the opening arpeggiated synth bass line of "Stand Back," but my ego wrote a check my eye for scarf-and-hat coordination couldn't cash.

Unlike Stevie's Prince-inspired 1983 banger, "Bohemian Rhapsody" is not a song I ever need to listen to again. But like I said, when it comes to costumes, it helps to go for the big hits.

Matt Himes

Do I like Queen? They're OK. I'd rather listen to Steely Dan, but Donald Fagen isn't going to make for much of a costume, now is he? So Freddie Mercury it is. He's like Donald Trump: You may not like him, but there's no mistaking his signature style.

Not a huge "grunge" fan, but the same thinking guided my choice to be Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain. In this case, it helped that I, too, have fair skin and hair. Also this particular image is well-known enough that you can type in "Kurt Cobain sunglasses," for example, and the internet knows exactly what you're talking about.

Matt Himes

Admittedly, Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen is a bit of a "deep cut," but anyone who didn't get it just assumed we were generic punks — itself a valid costume. Although sharp-eyed readers will notice that I nailed the details.

Matt Himes

4. DO get way too into it

Let's zoom out on that Stevie Nicks photo:

Matt Himes

That "authentic Gene Simmons KISS demon" costume cost me something like $300; it had reviews from professional KISS cover band guys raving about how it gets "every last grommet" correct.

I also spent an hour and a half figuring out how to do my own face paint, hunched over the bathroom sink while watching Simmons himself demonstrate on his daughter.

Overkill? You bet. But sometimes you have to take one for the team. Plus now I have an heirloom-quality codpiece to pass down to my children and grandchildren.

Matt Himes

Investing in a basic theatrical makeup kit can ensure that your costume is at least as frightening as the obsessive amounts of time and energy that clearly went into it:

Matt Himes

5. DON'T overshadow your wife

When the Gene Simmons idea got ahold of me, I was planning to do something to go along with my wife's Stevie Nicks. Tom Petty? I can't remember, but the result would no doubt have been uninspiring. I'm glad I made the choice I did, but I do regret leaving her in the lurch. While there's no rule that says couples have to coordinate costumes, I did have a responsibility to make sure she was properly sorted before getting myself ready. It's like in those airline safety videos when the oxygen masks drop.

My showboating tendency is still kind of an issue in this Boy George/Cyndi Lauper combo, but I like to think I did right by her — and the "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" songstress.

Matt Himes

And the year we showed up as these two, I think she got the better part of the deal (that mask was hot):

Matt Himes

Some people say my wife's clenched fist and rigid posture is a sign of distress; I just a see a woman grateful to submit to her husband's God-given role as Halloween creative director:

Matt Himes

When you marry a marine biologist's daughter:

Matt Himes

One year, I had an idea of being a head louse. Didn't quite come off (see rule 1 above) ...

Matt Himes

... but I did get this photo of my wife as a school nurse that I will treasure until my dying day:

Matt Himes

6. DO strut your stuff

As the father of two daughters, I'll be the first to say that Halloween costumes have gotten way too revealing. But that doesn't mean all nudity is gratuitous; sometimes the "role" calls for a little sex appeal.

Matt Himes

You're not going to have this lithe, youthful body forever — if you've got it, flaunt it! That said, keep in mind that you will be around children and old people. When my wife wanted to leave the house in this "sexy squirrel" getup, I had to put my foot down. Some looks need to stay in the strip club.

Matt Himes

Happy Halloween to you and yours.

'Carrie' and the monster who raised me



The devil and his minions have haunted me all my life.

As far back as I can remember, I've been visited by the unquiet dead, the hungry ghosts, and even Old Scratch himself in my dreams. Perhaps these nighttime visitations were spiritual attacks, perhaps they were the predictable manifestation of the violence and instability of my upbringing.

Like Piper Laurie in 'Carrie,' my mother forced me to kneel while she stood above me bellowing. 'Humble yourself before me!' she shrieked. 'GodDAMN you, humble yourself!'

Maybe they were both; maybe the kind of moral derangement that afflicted my parents was a kind of demonic possession.

The devil I know

I'm not sure I believe in God, but I'm getting closer to believing in the devil. That's a confused position, admittedly, but that's what you get from a guy who believed as a child until it was punished out of him and then spent too many years as an obnoxious "new atheist" adult.

Whatever the answer may be, I've been terrified and fascinated by the supernatural, the uncanny, and the grotesque all my life. The kinds of spooky stories that gripped me were the type you find in Victorian English ghost story anthologies. Authors like E.F. Benson, M.R. James, and Elizabeth Gaskell.

If you like these too, no one reads them better than English podcaster Tony Walker. His "Classic Ghost Stories Podcast" is one of the few I find so good that I voluntarily pay for it. This is no amateur sideshow; Walker's narration is professional grade. Why he's not rich reading books for Audible, I'll never know.

Weeping and wailing women in veils who glide down hallways. Rain-bedraggled brides hitchhiking on the side of the road who disappear from their ride's passenger seat as he drives past Resurrection Cemetery. Fingerprints that appear on the windows of automobiles that cross the railroad tracks where a locomotive hit a school bus long ago killing the children on board. Their spirit fingers gently push your car along to make sure you don't meet their sad and untimely fate.

In search of ... belief

Like many kids of the 1970s and 1980s, I grew up watching shows like the cryptid/aliens/spook-filled "In Search Of," narrated by Leonard Nimoy. My library card was full many times over with every book on Bigfoot, extra-sensory perception, telekinesis, poltergeists, and the Bermuda Triangle.

Have you heard about the moving coffins of Barbados? That's top-quality spine tingles. As the story goes, a wealthy family living on the Caribbean island built a family vault in the cemetery. Every time a member died, the crypt was opened to accept a new coffin. And every time the crypt was opened, the coffins that were already there were tossed about helter-skelter.

Maybe it was flood waters. Except that there was no evidence of water incursion. Maybe pranksters did it. But the family sealed the stone door and sprinkled sand on the floor, and there was never a footprint betraying a (living) human presence.

For a proper classic haunting, you can't beat the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall. Nearly everyone with a passing familiarity with the spirit world of 20th-century popular culture has seen the photograph of this long dead woman, a translucent, begowned figure descending the grand staircase of the palatial home in Norfolk, England, built during the reign of James I in 1620.

According to two photographers who were documenting the inside of the estate in 1936, as they were setting up a shot, they looked up at the stairs in astonishment. A veiled specter was float-walking silently down the stair treads, and they had just enough time to open the shutter on their plate camera and capture the most famous ghost photograph of all time.

Was she the shade of Lady Dorothy Walpole? Lady Walpole was said to have been immured in a room in Raynham Hall for the rest of her life at the hands of her husband, Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend, who was angered by her unfaithful dalliances.

Or was this just the first and best example of trick-ghost photography, a double-exposed photographic plate? In the early days of photography, the public was not wise to the trickery available to a skilled image-maker. Long before Photoshop and AI, the public believed the camera never lies.

I want to believe. There's something magnetic, romantic, and almost erotic about the possibility that a curtain separates us from the realm of the dead and that it thins at certain times, like now. As a child, I delighted in being scared so badly I didn't dare turn off the flashlight under the covers I used for my clandestine and very-much-not-allowed post-bedtime reading.

Joy interrupted

Yet the possibility of an ethereal realm where the dead who refuse to acknowledge their condition "live," a plane where real devil cavorts are not merely fun and games. If that plane exists, and if it's populated by any of the henchmen attributed to Satan, then the other side is very serious business indeed. I'm not so sure I want to believe, in that case, but I'm also not so sure that I don't.

When I was 8 years old, my family took a rare trip to a sit-down restaurant on Christmas Eve. We were poor, and a night out at Demicelli's Italian Restaurant was so special that Christmas would have been joyful even if we didn't get a single present. As we walked toward Placentia Boulevard in Fullerton, California, I looked at the night sky and saw the brightest star I'd ever seen.

"Mommy, look!" I said, tugging at my mother's sleeve. I pulled on her cigarette hand, which annoyed her. "It's the star of Jesus, Mommy. It's the star that guided the Wise Men to the baby Jesus!"

It was wondrous. It made me feel light-headed with a joy I'd never felt.

My mother made a derisive sniggering noise as she blew out smoke. "Oh, no it isn't, Josh," she mocked. "It's just a star. Probably Venus."

My face went red with embarrassment, and I stayed quiet the rest of the night. I felt stupid. Unsophisticated. Dumb. Childlike. Naive. And substandard. This was a problem that repeated itself over the years. My mother was the resentful "victim" type, and she was at war with God.

I convinced her to take us to the Presbyterian church where I'd been (to her reluctance, as she recalled it) baptized as an infant for Christmas Eve services in 1986. Mother spent the walk home railing about those "Goddamned hypocritical Christians! Where were they for this single mother when I needed a little help to put food on the table?"

I can't repeat the rest of what she said in a respectable publication.

Maternal monster

It wasn't until my 40s that I realized why I had been captivated to the point of obsession with certain dark characters in disturbing films like 1976's "Carrie." This was an adaptation of Stephen King's debut novel of the same name, a book that still ranks among his finest work. It's only nominally about a teen girl with telekinesis, the psychic ability to move objects with her mind. The story is really about a frightened girl who grew up with a maternal monster.

If you've seen the movie, you remember Piper Laurie's almost kabuki performance as Margaret White, a religious fanatic tormented by her own sense of failure and sin. Seeing herself as a fallen woman who fornicated with a man, she uses extreme interpretations of scripture to berate and subjugate the result of that union, her daughter, Carrie. Just as Margaret believes she can never be forgiven, she can never forgive her daughter for being born, for embodying her mother's sin in too-real flesh.

So she screams at Carrie, beats her, forces her to confess sins the girl has never committed (they were Margaret's sins), and worst of all, locks her in a "prayer closet." The scene that terrified me the most was the vignette in the dining room when Margaret forces Carrie to her knees as she intones about how God had loosed the raven on the world, and the raven was called sin.

"Say it, woman! Say it!" Margaret screams. "Eve was weak. Eve was weak!"

She drags Carrie to the prayer closet, a black cloak whirling about her like the wings of the raven, and babbles insanely while her daughter screams for mercy. Lighting a candle in the dark, Carrie looks up to a figure of St. Sebastian on the wall, a grotesque effigy with agonized eyes reflecting the pain of his arrow wounds.

Fascinated by fear

Margaret White obviously had a severe condition called Borderline Personality Disorder, which also afflicted my mother. While my mother was not a religious fanatic, she treated me the way Margaret White treats Carrie. Just as in the movie's dining room scene, my mother forced me to kneel while she stood above me bellowing. "Humble yourself before me!" she shrieked. "GodDAMN you, humble yourself!"

My mother did not want what she claimed she wanted: respect and filial piety. She wanted to be worshiped. My mother created herself God in her own image.

So I prayed to God to be delivered from my mother's prison, but I never got an answer, or one I recognized. I was more certain that the world was full of angry entities, though, and to say I felt haunted wouldn't go far enough.

That which terrorizes also fascinates. Over my life, I've tasted and re-tasted the fear through movies like "Carrie" and "Mommie Dearest." Fictional versions of my real-life horror were a poison candy; they hurt so good, like the compulsion to thrust the tongue repeatedly into a canker sore that won't heal.

I still don't know what I believe about God, the soul, heaven, or hell.

I knew what I saw

No Halloween story would be complete without a personal anecdote of an encounter with the unexplained. This is the first time I've told this story to anyone, let alone in print. Like I do myself, you may doubt me. I admit that I was halfway to drunk when it happened. But in the moment, I knew what I saw and heard, I knew I was only buzzed on three beers, not falling-down drunk. I wasn't hallucinating pink elephants or anything else.

It was 1992. I was 18 years old and sharing an apartment with my best friend, Lisa. It was movie night in the living room, and it was my turn to fetch fresh Molson Goldens from the refrigerator. I put the sweating bottles on a round cocktail tray with a rubber no-slip bottom I'd brought home from the restaurant I worked at.

I was a skilled waiter who could hold a tray with four entrees and several cocktails without spilling. And though I'd had a few beers, I was not drunk. In the hallway as I was about to enter the living room, one of the standing beer bottles on the tray violently flipped over to the horizontal with a thud. It wasn't the kind of soft thud that happens when something tips over. It was a THUD, as if someone had thrown the bottle into the tray.

Remember, it was a rubberized tray. It was actually difficult for a glass on such a tray to slide, let alone tip over. I had not tilted the tray; I was not weaving drunkenly as I walked. The other beer bottle didn't tip over. The two mugs on the same tray didn't move. More, the same thing happened a few minutes later in the living room. My (replaced) beer bottle on the side table, three feet from reach, loudly tipped over on a perfectly level table and made a loud rap.

I remember so clearly stopping still as the blood drained from my head. Did I really just see what I thought I saw? I did. And I felt it, too.

In that moment in the hall, I said this in my head: "What you just saw and heard really happened. You're not drunk, and you're not hallucinating. But no one will believe you, and over time, you will not believe you either. Your memory will soften, and you will convince yourself that you were drunk and that you somehow caused these bottles to tip over in apparent defiance of the laws of physics and friction."

That's exactly what happened. As I tell you this story, I doubt myself. At the same time, I remember the warning I spoke to myself in my head about doubt there, in the moment, and I know I wasn't crazy.

Happy Halloween.

One-Quarter Of Young Americans Cut Off Their Parents And Call It ‘Boundaries’

Few of us can see that the choices we are making at 30 may well lead to spending Christmas alone at 60.

Why I ditched my phone for a camcorder



Like you, I take my phone everywhere. I check my email, I scroll X, I call my wife and ask her if there's anything she needs me to pick up on my way home.

And I take photos and videos. Of everything. The lake, the gulls, the mountains, the houses, the flowers, the woods, my son, my daughter, my wife, my life. Every video in my phone is less than 30 seconds, and most aren’t more than 10.

Who would have thought that the iPhone would essentially eliminate what we used to call 'home movies'?

A little clip of a deer behind the house. A shot of a kid cracking a wiffle ball or running the bases. My phone is full of these short little bursts.

That’s something different about our era. My parents didn’t take hundreds of five-second clips of my brother, sister, and me. They took long, 10-minute videos with a camcorder. Remember those?

Focus on the family

They’d record these long videos at birthday parties, in the car on family trips, or at my uncle’s cabin. A whole inning of Little League, the soft lull of conversation between Mom and Dad in the background. My mom would ask us questions, interviewing us kids like little adults for what felt like eternity, the zoom moving in and out as we reluctantly answered her questions.

Those old family videos feel so much slower and so much less frantic. I don’t know what it is exactly, but in the short ones on our iPhones, it feels like life is happening in a disjointed fashion. Or like people are performing. Or like everything is sped up 20%. I suppose it’s because we don’t get a sense for the scene or the place. We have no context. All we have is an eight-second clip and a question, years later, about where that was.

On the old videos, mom and dad would narrate in a kind of family documentarian way, as if curating historical footage for future reference. “So it’s August 17, 1996, and we are visiting Grandma at the cabin. It’s about 85 degrees, and this is the last trip of the summer. How’s everybody doing? What did you think, kids? Are you having fun?” Stuff like that.

Mom and dad would walk around the house with the camera, coming upon a kid in the bedroom reading or playing, film the kid from a distance, zooming in on fingers or eyes, the camera shaking.

They’d find my grandparents at the table and joke about a few things. My dad would zoom in on my mom getting dinner ready in the kitchen, the soft hum of the tape heard on the mic. My mom would frame a long shot of my dad, outside, smoking his pipe, reading.

Video vérité

Those long shots on the camcorders were slices of life as it really was. Watching the videos, you feel the time and place and even the real — or more real — behaviors of the people on the screen. Walking slowly with Mom or Dad around the house stirs memories of bedrooms, bathrooms, hallways, and living rooms in ways the short little iPhone clips can’t.

Realizing this, I bought an old camcorder. I found a Sony Handycam DCR-SR62 on eBay for 50 bucks and a battery on Amazon for 12.

It's old-school but not too old-school. The most annoying thing about the old camcorders was the hassle of bringing analog footage into the digital age. If you want to transfer tape onto computer, it takes a long time. If you have a two-hour video, it takes two hours to get it on the computer.

What's nice about the Sony Handycam model I bought is that there are no tapes or disks. All video is stored on an internal hard drive, which can then be transferred to your computer just as easily as you transfer photos from any digital camera. Essentially, you get the best of both worlds: digital transfer speed and long-form family video.

RELATED: Forget streaming — I just want my Blockbuster Video back

James Laynse/Getty Images

Real to reels

In theory, we should be able to record 10-minute slice-of-life videos on our iPhones. But we don’t. The format of the technology pushes us in a different direction. Consuming reels on Instagram nudges our tastes toward short-form portrait and away from long-form landscape.

The technology we use shapes the way we live. That’s obvious, of course, but it’s a realization that seems to be continually rediscovered, or revealed, in ways that we never could have anticipated. Who would have thought that the iPhone would essentially eliminate what we used to call "home movies"?

I took my Sony Handycam to the beach at the end of the summer. I filmed my kids eating string cheese and sharing a can of sparkling water. I zoomed in on sailboats in the distance, walked up and down the beach recording the kids running in front of me, and interviewed them just like my mom interviewed us.

“So it’s September 30, 2025, and we are at beach. How’s the food? Can you believe we are swimming in September? Did you guys jump in the water? What do we think, was it cold? What was your favorite thing we did this summer?”

Why You’re A Bad Parent If You Don’t Spank Your Kids

Critics of spanking make arguments based on the wrong foundation: they judge punishment by results rather than by its role in justice.

Birth rates are falling — and the experts still don't get it



When considering the issues of low birth rates and population decline, it's essential to differentiate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-natalist.

While both have concluded that people around the world should have more children, their reasoning is almost diametrically opposed to each other.

Defining terms

Pro-lifers, often informed by Christian morality, believe in the dignity and value of each human life. They value the virtues of the nuclear family, believing it brings out the best in parents and their children. Their commitment to life and family means they vigorously oppose all forms of abortion and, by extension, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate parenting, and divorce.

In the pro-life view, lower birth rates are largely the result of cultural and moral decadence, which can be reversed only through a full reformation of social values and institutions.

By contrast, pro-natalists tend to be strict utilitarians, arguing for more children for primarily economic and political reasons. They worry about the public pensions going unsupported, schools emptying, and whole political systems collapsing due to depopulation. They fear a technological regression, a contraction in the markets, and even a revival of provincialism (or de-globalization) in a world with fewer people.

Unlike pro-lifers, they have no problems with employing artificial means of reproduction, legalizing abortion, and allowing any adult, regardless of background, to adopt and raise children for whatever reasons. In the minds of most pro-natalists, depopulation can be averted through twisting the right dials of social policy and letting go of the traditional expectations around parenting.

'No future is more likely than that people worldwide choose to have too few children to replace their own generation.'

Put more crudely, pro-lifers tend to be conservative and pro-natalists tend to be non-conservatives (which would include libertarians and moderates in addition to progressives).

Then, of course, there are the anti-natalists (usually on the political and cultural left), who believe overpopulation is a problem and oppose having more children. They believe a lower population will improve the environment and the quality of the life for those lucky enough to be alive.

'After the Spike'

Understanding these distinctions is key to understanding the latest best-selling book on depopulation, "After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People" by economists Dean Spears and Michael Geruso. This is a book by pro-natalists written explicitly for anti-natalists.

As such, the two writers end up spending more time on what they are not arguing (i.e., pro-life claims about morality and culture) than what they are actually arguing (i.e., the pro-natalist concerns about depopulation).

Not only does this approach shut out a large group of potentially sympathetic readers wanting to know more about the issue, but it also fatally undermines their main argument for stabilizing the population. Even though they use the language of anti-natalists and speak to their concerns, it’s doubtful they would even persuade the target audience since their claims are so qualified and open.

However, this is not necessarily the fault Spears and Geruso, but the presuppositions of utilitarianism itself, which prove to be wholly inadequate for addressing the challenge of depopulation.

Math over meaning

These problems begin early in the book. As the book’s title suggests, the writers mainly frame depopulation as a simple math problem. They explain how the world population will peak or “spike” in the coming decades and then swiftly drop over the course of a few generations right afterward.

Their “big claim” in the first two chapters is expressed in clinical terms: “No future is more likely than that people worldwide choose to have too few children to replace their own generation. Over the long run, this would cause population decline.”

Somehow proving this “big claim” takes up nearly a fifth of the whole book. Perhaps they do not want to be confused with Bible-thumping pro-lifers who lack their credentials and supposedly rarely bother with hard numbers. That said, pro-lifers would not deny the claim that depopulation is imminent — birth rates are below replacement, so yes, deaths will outnumber births and result in depopulation — but the anti-natalist crowd evidently struggles to accept this basic fact.

If so, this popular denial might be an interesting potential factor in depopulation to explore further, but the writers never go there. Instead, they review the usual anti-natalist arguments made in favor of depopulation: It’s better for the planet; it’s better for women; and it’s better for conserving resources.

In most cases, debunking these claims is as simple as looking at available social science data. It turns out that the world is cleaner, more equitable, and in less danger of running out of natural resources now with a larger population than it was in the recent past with a smaller population.

RELATED: Trump's baby bonus won't work — but we already know the real solution

Kukurund/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Again, this point is fairly easy to grasp, but not if a person casts human beings as irredeemable parasites. Spears and Geruso thus spend much of their time showing that human beings can generate new ideas and do useful things. Yes, a person represents another mouth to feed, but he or she also represents another set of hands who can produce food or anything else.

This means that humanity can clean up their messes, come up with systems that better support women and minorities, and find better ways to extract and use natural resources.

It follows that without these extra people, many innovations would never materialize, social progress would likely stagnate or go backward, and there would be too few workers to support today’s high standard of living. To illustrate how bad conditions could become, the writers bring up the fact that “small towns hardly ever have a great Ethiopian place and a great Indian place and a great Korean place. But big cities often do.”

If the prospect of ghost towns, lonely elderly people dying in squalor, and a full-scale devolution into a pre-industrial age fails to raise any alarms, then maybe the loss of one’s favorite greasy spoon will do it.

Values without roots

Although Dean and Geruso carefully avoid moral questions throughout the book — it's taken for granted that abortion is good, modern feminism has zero downsides, and human-caused climate change is a critical matter — they make their one moral claim in favor of having children in the most generic tautology they can muster: “More good is better.”

In other words, a bigger overall population means a bigger number of worthwhile lives. But what makes a life worthwhile? True to utilitarian philosophy, it's all about material comforts and basic necessities.

For those who argue that this makes an insufficient distinction about the moral worth (or worthlessness) of each life and the surrounding context in which a life is lived, they will have to settle for the writers’ quantifications and graphs.

Once Spears and Geruso establish that people are good and that depopulation is bad, they move on to possible solutions. Unfortunately, nothing seems to work. Compelling people to have children (as Romania did under Nicolae Ceausescu) or offering money and additional maternity leave (as the Swedish government has done) have done little to fix the sliding birth rates.

The main problem seems to be that women will have fewer children if the opportunity costs of parenting are too high. As the writers declare in their inimitable prosaic style, “Spending time on parenting means giving up something. Because the world has improved around us, that ‘something’ is better than it used to be.” When men and women find fulfillment in their careers and self-indulgence, they have less interest in sacrificing this for the sake of having children.

While this assertion aligns with their value-neutral utilitarian premises, Spears and Caruso are completely uninterested in countries that still have high birth rates, like those in sub-Saharan Africa.

'Change needs vision and values and commitments before detailed plans matter at all.'

Would it offend their readers to suggest that these countries have high birth rates because there are relatively few opportunity costs that exist because these countries are less developed? Is there something to be said about traditional gender roles and the high regard given to parenthood and children in these cultures? What about the religious practices of these places?

For unspecified reasons, these obvious questions about population trends are scrupulously ignored.

Where science fails

Instead, the writers insist that there is no solution to the depopulation bomb set to go off after the spike: “No one has such a solution. The challenge is still too new.” For the time being, people need to be made aware of the difficulties that await them and consider ways they can organize and effect change.

In other words, it’s a weak ending to a weak argument in favor of a weak position. But even this could be forgiven if the book overall were interesting, but it isn’t. By avoiding moral questions, ignoring cultural factors, and rejecting all speculation, "After the Spike" is boring, basic, and dry.

Still, Spears and Geruso perform an important service by demonstrating the limits of pro-natalism. While it's perfectly reasonable to be worried about the global birth dearth and to try to use the scientific method to fix this problem, the formation of families and communities is a fundamentally human matter that largely transcends the scope of the sciences.

Although graphs can illustrate the superficial reality of declining populations, it will take the humanities disciplines to understand and effectively address this reality on a deeper level. Moreover, it will require letting go of progressive priorities and returning to certain beliefs and practices that made parenthood in the past more appealing than it is now.

This may be hard pill for pro-natalists to swallow, but as Spears and Geruso themselves conclude, “Change needs vision and values and commitments before detailed plans matter at all.”

This "vision and values” just happen to be pro-life — not pro-natalist.

The family that showed America what moral clarity looks like



Charlie Kirk’s alleged murderer came from somewhere. We all do.

Since the “In the beginning” times, our species has wrestled with the fundamental logic — and perceived unfairness — of holding parents responsible for the sins of their children. Or the other way around. In the Old Testament book of Ezekiel, the prophet makes this explicit:

The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt, nor will a father suffer the punishment for the son’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20)

Yet, we mortals struggle with this idea. It’s a matter of self-preservation. The unifying idea is that we must bear some responsibility for the behavior of our own kids. Our kids are reflections of us because we put our stamp on them. Functional societies have a justifiable fear of the ripple effects of other people’s bad parenting.

What this family confronted deserves to be noticed, praised, and modeled.

Healthy families are civilization’s frontline schoolhouse of needed humans — producers of good men, women, and citizens. Bad parents can easily replicate themselves and often do. It is a rare and beautiful testament to the enduring nature of the good to see exceptions to the rule.

The inverse happens, too. I have met many good parents of bad kids — a bad seed that grows up to be a bad adult. Or a good kid who leaves the home for school, falls in with the wrong crowd, and rejects root and branch the ways of his family.

Modern parents know that at some point, we must let our offspring venture into a hard and secular world outside the home threshold, a world that undermines good parenting at every turn. A school system that inverts the established, time-tested ways for purposes of political indoctrination. A culture that has lost any sense of moral and natural limits. An algorithmic media that is set on setting people into warring tribes with desensitized, brutish ways.

Good soil, infected fruit

Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin was born and raised in Southwestern Utah — Mormon territory. He was the son of a mother and father who raised their kids in the Mormon way, which produces exemplary fruits that are missionaries to the world. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — its formal name — instills family loyalty, stewardship, tolerance, sobriety, hard work, and sharing. Members tithe. They contribute. They are impressive people.

Even Matt Stone and Trey Parker, with their “Dumb, Dumb, Dumb” view of the Mormon religion (which is a cutout for all organized religion), recognized that Mormons have strong families and raise very good kids. The whole “Book of Mormon” craze began with a 2003 “South Park” episode featuring an impressive Mormon high school kid. His ending soliloquy put it best:

Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that.

The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice, and helping people.

I don’t know about you, but I admire the old-school way the accused killer’s father brought his son — his own flesh and blood — to face justice.

Would you have done the same?

The family saw the fruit of their loins on video surveillance in a national all-points bulletin. The family reached out to their own. Father and grandfather. They talked him into coming home. Once he was home, they convinced him to turn himself in for the crime — and to stanch the dishonor that he had done to his family’s name.

Would Luigi Mangione’s wealthy and well-connected Maryland family have done the same if they recognized his distinctive eyebrows? “Come home, son,” followed by, “You must turn yourself in to the authorities and be held accountable.” There’s no evidence they did anything of the kind. If they had, would Luigi have complied? I doubt it.

Fathers and mothers of America: Do you think you and yours could do similarly? To ask that question is not to answer it easily.

This Utah family has a quiet dignity to it. Their creed was not an assassin’s creed. Their kid is certainly a lost young man. He took a path outside of his family’s way, but his family retained a line of communication and influence over their prodigal son. They lost their son to dark, demonic forces, but appealed to the light remaining in him and brought him home and to justice.

What this family confronted deserves to be noticed, praised, and modeled. Our country was given clarity in real time. We very rarely get that. This young man did not come in lawyered up and with his phone locked and encrypted.

RELATED: Here's what we know about Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk

Photo by Office of the Governor of Utah via Getty Images

A reeling nation did not have to suffer the indignity of mushroom management, where “We the People” are kept in the legalese dark and fed legalese doggerel.

Every family that has successfully raised a good kid to adulthood knows how hard it is in our present educational, cultural, and social media bathhouses.

A family in need of prayer

A family can hold a line, and a kid can transgress it. Once upon a time, the family had educational and cultural support systems that checked transgression and bolstered parents and kids. Kids heard a shared common and civilized creed in and outside the house. That cord has been cut for a while, and our families and nation are suffering at scale because of it.

This family summoned their prodigal son home. While we rightfully think of their son as a moral monster, they still had a familial claim and power over him. And with it, they brought him home and then to justice.

This family gave another grieving family and a nation the closure it needed. We owe them our thanks and compassion for displaying moral courage when it counted. The sins of their son are not theirs. They ought to be seen by the nation as neighbors in good standing. They need and deserve our parental prayers.

Under present grooming circumstances, there but for the grace of God go all of us.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

No, ‘Chosen Families’ Are Not Better Than Biological Or Nuclear Ones

The danger of the 'chosen family' trend is not that it elevates profound friendships, but that it cheapens or even demonizes true familial relationships.

How marriage and fatherhood call men to greatness



While we were in the throes of babies and toddlers, pregnancies and postpartums, my husband would often walk through the door after work with groceries, pour me wine, and hold the baby in one arm while he made dinner with the other. I remember on some days being too exhausted to reciprocate with much except an ardent feeling and expression of gratitude to him, for him. That image of him still stands in my mind as the image of heroic manliness.

Another good father and husband we know once said that when he arrives home, he says to himself, “It’s showtime.” It’s his way of reminding himself that the crux of his day belongs to the moment he comes home from work and crosses the threshold into home. Rather than collapse on a sofa with beer and TV and be done for the day, he intended instead to bring his greatest efforts to his home life. What these anecdotes exemplify is a proper ordering of work and home that translates into specific small acts of love that echo throughout the family.

For too long we’ve repeated the cultural lore in movies and media about the domineering and distant man and the oppressed and under-actualized woman.

The good of home

To say that home ought to have primacy over work for men and women is not to say work is unimportant or that we shouldn’t develop professional skills or seek to advance careers. A job doesn’t need to be seen strictly as a means to an end; it can be a good in itself insofar as it is ennobling and sanctifying, and care should be taken to ensure it be done well. But it is a subordinate good to the good of home. Home isn’t a mere launch pad for a man’s success in the world — rather his success in the world is for the sake of home.

If a man sees his work life as a parallel good, divorced from the good of home, the two disparate goods will tend to become rivalrous, for the family wants from the father what is the family's due: to have a significance in his eyes greater than that of his career.

It’s not difficult to see how these two goods become inverted. Twenty-first-century Americans look to career for so much: an identity, the expression of some core passion, a measure of success and worth, a measure of where we stand in relation to others. It’s a compelling part of life, and the cultural stoking of its importance has coincided with the modern attenuation of home life.

These ambient messages grease the slide for us all to descend into an exaggerated view of work at the expense of home. Compounding that is the unavoidable fact that jobs often include deadlines and pressure that can understandably (and sometimes justifiably) claim a more immediate urgency than that of home life. All of this creates a tendency to subvert home for work, even without an explicit intention to do so.

Domino effect

But there are good reasons to be wary of such a tendency. When men fail to privilege home above work, as expressed in how they live each day, it has a domino effect on the family, and therefore society, in several ways.

Firstly, the husband can grow to see his family as a burden getting in the way of his higher purpose, which is his career. He begins to see his principal identity as derived from work and his primary relationships that of employer and employee. Home then starts to adopt similar characteristics; his family may be subconsciously reduced to the equivalent of employees in his charge.

Secondly, the mother’s mission is trivialized. She begins to sense her own work at home is not their common life’s work but merely her burden to endure in service of a higher mission that is his alone and to which she has not acquiesced. If work is a separate and vying good from home, it’s more natural that she begins to want that separate good for herself even at the expense of home life, which now has diminished in value for her as well.

Thirdly, their unity of purpose dissolves. The often tedious work of home is elevating and ennobling when acknowledged by both husband and wife as a taking part in an extolled good, valuable in itself and for the sake of their ultimate end of beatitude. Without this unity of purpose, these duties seem merely menial and heavy — and merely menial and heavy work will quickly feel suffocating and oppressive for whoever shoulders it. Resentment calcifies like a tumor as husband and wife become competitors rather than allies.

RELATED: Rob Konrad: Former Dolphin who swam for his family

Eliot J. Schechter/Getty Images

Finally, there are repercussions for society that might be obvious but are worth spelling out. Sons will learn about manhood and daughters about their worth in the eyes of men in large part based upon the axis on which a father orients his life. Both will begin to understand God’s love through their father. Far less than their father’s job promotion, children will remember how he prioritized their mom and them in the small details that make up the composition of their childhood. It’s not the work of one evening or a trip to Disneyland, but it’s the quiet, persevering work of a lifetime. This work, cheerfully and generously done, will reverberate into society and future generations. The neglect of it will as well.

Ordinary love story

The stories we tell as a culture about the dynamics between husband and wife matter. When men and women are united in giving pre-eminence to home, the story can be one of families working in concert, with generosity and gratitude exchanged back and forth in a currency that multiplies with each and every exchange. It’s the story of ordinary people living their quiet shared purpose, a purpose that saturates their hearts and inclines their wills toward God and one another. This love story is transformative and extraordinary precisely because of the seemingly everyday subjects and acts that constitute its operations.

For too long we’ve repeated the cultural lore in movies and media about the domineering and distant man and the oppressed and under-actualized woman, both wanting to break from the tedium of middle-class values. The modern response to this story of dissatisfaction has been that we’ve valued home too much and at too great an expense. What this critique fails to see is that when home feels like a prison, it’s not because we’ve given it too much importance but because we’ve given it far too little.

This essay originally appeared in the Family Revival Substack.

Can Erika Kirk’s Influence Help Women To ‘Woman Up?’

As Erika Kirk takes the helm at Turning Point, many have suggested she could do for young women what her husband has done for young men.