The faulty logic of the abortion movement

I’m going to sidetrack a bit today from the bailout stuff, to gripe about “mommy lit.” 

Last winter, I ran across an ad for a publication called “Brain, Child–the Magazine for Thinking Mothers.”  Looking for something like this, and tired of all the fluff found in traditional “mom” publications, I decided to try it out for a year.  It’s not all bad–some of it is quite good.  It’s basically a selection of essays written by women across the country relating to such issues as simple as potty-training, to more complicated issues as being parents of adopted transracial children.  Of course, sometimes I agree and sometimes I do not, but that is true of any magazine.  But, I’ve generally found that such “intellectual” publications generally take a very cynical view, and feel that in order to be “intellectual,” one must blindly admit to being pro-abortion, no matter what.  It’s ironic to me, in that these “intellectual moms” writing for mothering and mom-centered magazines, seem to be at war with their unborn offspring.

Along this line, an article in the latest publication literally sickened me.  The article, titled “Somewhere Near the Bottom,” was written by a woman named Elana Sigall, and it detailed the series of events that led her to abort her third child.  The intro stated, “What are the ‘good’ reasons for having a baby?  What are the ’good’ reasons to have an abortion?”  At one point in the article, she almost rejoiced that the level of her Hcg (the pregnancy hormone) was abnormally high, because this would have ended her “dilemma”:  It would have meant a definite abortion, as high levels of Hcg “sometimes” indicate birth defects such as Down Syndrome.  I’m not joking:  it was that callous.  She lamented that she felt she was having to make a choice between “this new baby and me.”  If she had this baby, she would have nothing to show for turning forty “except three children in diapers and a one-night-a-week job.”  She ”agonized” for weeks over her decision.  She was happily married, and her husband, Michael, ”wanted the baby very, very much–” the only item under her “cons” list.  She went to the abortion clinic the first time, and they did the ultrasound, only pointed it away from her (a common practice; for the mother to see the baby almost always means she will not go through with the abortion.)  Michael could see the ultrasound, and she could see his tears as he looked at his small son or daughter.  She didn’t go through it at that point.

She debated for a long time.  She lamented the fact that her middle child would have to move in with the oldest, and that the new baby’s room would have holes in the wall from his stuff.  She went to the abortion clinic four times in all, and backed out the first three.  On the third visit, they are on the elevator, and Michael is crying.  Here is their conversation on the elevator:

“I just keep thinking about the baby.  But I know that I have to think of you.  That’s my priority.  You have to be there for Talia and for Julian.”

She said, “The baby has gotten off to such a bad start.”

He replied, “Really?  I was thinking just the opposite.  That baby’s a fighter.  Been here three times already and still around.  I love that baby.  I can’t wait to hold that baby.”

They leave, go out to dinner, and then it was decided that she go back, without Michael, as “she had to do it alone.” 

She goes through with the abortion.  They had to administer general anesthesia, because she was so far along.  She woke up sobbing uncontrollably.  She said, “The grief found me quickly.  I was one hundred percent sure I had done the wrong thing.  All of my reasons for feeling hesitant seemed trivial and surmountable, especially compared to these new horrible feelings. Once the pregnancy was over, I could conjure up again all of the reasons that I loved having children.  That was, in an odd way, a relief.”

Contrary to what one might think, she ends the essay by chastizing women who “shrink from acknowledging their own abortions.”  She quotes feminist political activist Barbara Ehrenreich:  “You can blame a lot of folks, from media bigwigs to bishops, if we lose our reproductive rights, but it’s the women who shrink from acknowledging their own abortions who really irk me…The freedoms that we exercise but do not acknowledge are easily taken away.”

In other words, let’s advocate and push on women a practice that truly harms them–both physically and psychologically–and then throw them under the bus when they are broken about it afterwards.  That doesn’t sound like genuine “feminist” concern for women.  It sounds like blind political ideology to me.  And incredibly evil. 

The whole essay indicated to me the faulty logic of the abortion movement; a movement that continually fails to acknowledge a great Truth: all life is precious, no matter what the circumstances.   To argue that “all babies deserve to be wanted” is to gloss over the fact that “all babies should deserve to be granted a chance at life,” and deserve to NOT be torn apart limb from limb in their mother’s womb.

Sigall concludes, “In the hierarchy of abortions, mine must be somewhere near the bottom–under women with no job and no education and no husband and no money and under women with the education and money and desire to find out that a fetus has birth defects.”  She goes on, (unbelievably), “But the right to choose cannot be measured against an objective set of ‘good reasons;’ we cannot embrace any argument that ranks some choices as less ’sketchy’ than others.  Would we rank the reasons for wanting children–what about ego satisfaction, loneliness, wealth transfer, extra help at home, boredom?”   In other words, for Sigall, there cannot ever be any solid moral ground when it comes to abortion.  Any reason is a good reason to have an abortion–no matter how trivial. 

The entire essay was made more horrific by the continued acknowledgment–by Sigall and her husband–that the “baby” was just that–a “baby.”  A living, breathing, separate, unique human being with its own soul apart theirs.  They were entirely aware of this:  it wasn’t just a “mass of tissue” to them, which somehow makes the idea behind the abortion movement a little more palatable.  If pro-abortion people truly thought that a baby was just a “mass of tissue,” then one could perhaps understand their point of view a bit more. (Not make it right, though.)  But technology has made it impossible for even the most pro-abortion among us to persist in this faulty belief.  And that’s what makes today’s abortion movement so utterly despicable.

In the afterword of the article, Sigall states that the essay is “a celebration of the children I have.  For me, it is a kind of love letter to them.  It is about how much I needed to want each of them, and how much I do.”  So, I suppose that it might also be called an anti-love letter to the child she aborted.  Apparently, for Sigall, the decision to end a child’s life in the womb should be solely dependent on the passing whims of the mother who carries that life–and nothing else.  Perhaps Sigall shouldn’t be surprised if, one day, her own children deem her as too much of an inconvenience to support in her old age, and to end her life in response to their own whims.   

I feel sorry for Sigall.  The child whose life she ended will haunt her for the rest of her “enlightened” life.

It’s a no!

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:   Yea: 205  Nay:  228

How did your representatives vote?  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

40% of Democrats voted against the EESA, 2/3 of Republicans voted against the EESA

Ticking time bomb

Thomas Sowell (my emphasis):

“Much of that mess [in the financial markets] is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions—members of Congress. Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions. Such institutions—exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers’ money—are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers. Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: ‘The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn’t when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late.’ The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to ‘privatizing profit and socializing risk,’ since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don’t work out… Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians’ political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them. This is certainly part of ‘the mess in Washington’ that Barack Obama talks about. But don’t expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama’s advisers.”

It is amazing to behold the verbal maneuvering that politicians (Democrats) are employing in order not to admit to the faulty reasoning behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, i.e., the Community Reinvestment Act.  It is simply affirmative action for the housing/mortgage industry.  Signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter, in 1993 Clinton “ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.^[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to target to groups to collect a fee from the banks.”  Affirmative action for the housing industry.

In 2005, President Bush sought stricter oversight for the F.M.s.: In related 2003 proposals, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed.^[11] The New York Times, calling Barney Frank “the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee,” quoted his opposition to the changes: “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable   housing.” [Are you sure you don't want to revise that statement, Mr. Frank?]  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. ^[13] The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats^[14].”   

Bush called for reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seventeen times in 2008 alone, which Democrats ignored every time.

The apparent culpability of Democrats in this mess is staggering, only to be surpassed by the complete silence on the part of the MSM in revealing it.  And it’s true:  If in fact, there was some Republican who was responsible in any way, there would have been hearings galore.  It is all we would be hearing about.  Why McCain doesn’t just nail the Democrats with this is beyond me.   

I’m beginning to agree more and more with dsgawrsh:  I don’t like this bailout at all, and I’d almost rather be destitute than not free, as she said in her earlier comment.  It all smacks of socialism.  All it is is a temporary fix, that really won’t “fix” anything because the market isn’t being allowed to work.  It’s more a short-term psychological fix.  If we are facing the second Great Depression, why didn’t this bailout plan pass last Monday?  The Democrats had the votes for it.  Why the delay?  Could it be that they want the Republicans to sign on with it, so that if it fails, then both parties go down with the ship?     

I don’t like Obama’s or McCain’s solution to this problem.  But, McCain did sponsor bill S.190, which would have put into check the F.M.s.  And Obama’s socialist bent on nearly everything scares me more.  After all, a big part of his role as “community organizer” was in securing these high-risk loans for people who were unable to pay for them, and in pressuring banks into supplying them.  Not exactly what one would call ”letting the market work.”               

 

Fun weekend, but alas, Monday

It was a fun and busy weekend around here, with a variety of visitors and events. 

Friday night, we went to the high school football game, and Linus got to play with cousins Grace and Noah, as they (and their parents, of course), were staying in Elgin for the weekend.  I was honored to serve as David’s cousin’s Confirmation sponsor on Saturday evening.  This was followed by supper in a restaurant minus kids.  This was a treat as well.  Sunday, my entire family was together, as my brother, Jon, came for a visit from Milwaukee.  David took the day “off”, and we were able to do a lot of front porch sittin’, and Jon had the chance to catch up with Linus and Eliza.  It was a great day!  He just left this morning.  The only bad part was that Mollie couldn’t be here with us, but we’re looking forward to a Christmas visit!

So now I’m just trying to catch my breath, so to speak, and get back into the weekday routine.  It definitely feels like a Monday today.  Luckily for me, I unloaded a bunch more apples on my mom and Jon, so that lessens the guilt a little bit.  Perhaps we’ll ride for a bit in the combine this afternoon, as it’s now rolling.

Republicanism vs. Conservatism

No doubt I’ve written about how Republicans and Conservatives are not necessarily the same thing.  At no time has this been more evident than right now, as many Republicans (and Democrats) are seeking to go on with the bailout.  This is making conservatives (a la me) cringe.  This article by Craig Shirley is a fairly good analysis of this phenomenon: 

http://townhall.com/columnists/CraigShirley/2008/09/25/bailout_boondoggle?page=full&comments=true  I don’t agree with everything he says, but a lot of it is true.

Yes, yes, of course I’m still supporting McCain, but not for his conservatism.  McCain has grown on me as I’ve watched and listened to him during this campaign, and he has my respect, but I don’t think many conservatives supported him in the primaries.  (I really liked Fred Thompson, but I digress…)  However, compared to Obama, McCain looks like Reagan, and he’ll get my vote this November.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that I identify as a conservative for mainly economic reasons.  When it comes to social issues, well, that’s easy.  Republicans have my vote, there.  I’m a conservative first, a Republican second.  When it comes down to it, a politician is still a politician, Democrat or Republican.  That’s the unfortunate truth. 

There has been conservative discontent with the direction the Republican party has been going for quite some time.  This was highlighted by the huge response by Sarah Palin’s nomination.  McCain got a huge boost from her–why?  Because she seems like a true conservative.  Suddenly, McCain gave conservatives every reason to vote FOR him, and not just against Obama.  It has been his smartest campaign move.  But I sincerely hope that he’ll just unleash her and let Palin be Palin.  We don’t suddenly want to see a McCainified Sarah. 

This whole economic crisis is causing anger and panic (rightly so), and I’m glad that Washington is acting quickly to do something about it, but I just don’t think a short-term fix for a problem that’s been brewing for awhile is the answer.  It seems like it will only serve to further grow government and start us in this direction that isn’t easy to reverse.  And does it bother anyone else that we’re giving control of this problem to the very people who caused it in the first place?  Shirley says in his article:

“The argument confronting the great middle class of America—who only stand to go into greater debt if this bailout is passed—is that yes, you have behaved responsibly, paid your mortgages on time. But unless you fork over $10,000 per household to those who should have never given 1.9 percent mortgages and those who should never have been granted 1.9 mortgages, we cannot guarantee you financial security. For most Americans, this bailout is little more than extortion, a 21st century ‘corrupt bargain.’ “ 

No, no, I don’t want a depression.  I just think that after this all blows up or over, hindsight will have many saying, “If only we hadn’t socialized the financial markets back in ’08!”

You know what they say about the road to hell…

I just read this article and found it blogworthy.  http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjkxZDJjMTViZDQ4NzhkMTRmNGRlZGNmZjgzMzhkZGU=&w=MA==  Dr. Frankenstein’s Wall Street by Victor Davis Hanson

My brain hurts.  I’ve been reading about “complex derivatives” like “collateralized debt obligations,” “credit default swaps,” “distressed securities,” and “conservatorship.”  My brain hurts.  It’s treacherous going.  No matter where one turns, there is no simple solution.  (Or is there?) 

So, what should we do?  Throw up our hands in utter despair?  Of course not.  I strive to be an optimist.  And now is no time for pessimism.  I found this article helpful, too, in understanding all of this:  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot24-2008sep24%2C0%2C96527.story  Don’t Sell America’s Economy Short

What is the answer?  Of course, we bloggers already know all the answers.  They’re all floating around up there in our heads, just waiting to be summoned and relayed via multiple synapses from our brains to our fingertips. 

The market always takes care of itself.  Unless messed with.  And we’re messing with it.  Like I’ve said before, something about nationalizing the financial markets really goes against the grain for me.  But here are a few thoughts that keep persisting in my head while I’d rather be just mind-numbingly scrubbing the shower: 

What we need is growth!  We need to take down the obstacles that prevent growth in this country.  (What are those obstacles?)  High taxes!  We need to stop penalizing profit and success.  If we would only eliminate corporate taxes and capital gains tax, even for a short period of time, we’d be booming in a year!  Our corporate tax rate is ridiculously high (35%).  No wonder corporations move overseas–even in countries with socialized economies the corporate tax rate is considerably lower than this.  I realize that it’s a knee-jerk reaction for some people (liberals) to just denounce corporations, but wait!  Think about it, first!  And the capital gains tax is at 15%.  If lowered, think of the increased incentive to invest in this economy.  All this bailout will do is further grow government.  If this bailout provides a sudden government windfall, does anyone actually think that we’ll see any of it?  Of course not.  Has any Congress ever said, “Wow, extra money!  Let’s cut back on spending and start cutting that deficit,” or “Hey!  Let’s cut back some unnecessary programs and concentrate on Social Security.” 

I’m getting all riled up, I know.  Deep breath.  Serenity now. 

This financial crisis is NOT a free market screw-up.  It’s a direct result of the crack-brained scheme of ”compassionate” Democrats to offer predatory loans to people who didn’t happen to have the actual money to ever pay them back, or who didn’t even have to fill out a profession on the loan form, or even have to state how much money they were making.  I’m all for people owning their own homes, but to offer someone who doesn’t have the money a risky loan for no reason other than “good intentions,” at the responsible taxpayer’s expense, is foolhardy and irresponsible.  (Gee, why don’t you tell us how you really feel?) 

No, I don’t have the answers.  Plenty of thoughts, hence the blog.  But no answers.  Thank God it’s not my responsibility to come up with them.  So, who do you trust?  I’m sticking with conservatism.

And by the way, McCain asked that the first presidential debate (scheduled for Friday) be postponed so that this crises may be dealt with.  Obama refused.  So,  while McCain has been in Washington trying to come up with a bipartisan solution to this crisis, Obama has been down in Florida hiding out, getting ready for this debate, apparently with himself.  McCain has, of course, been criticized by some for trying to  ”avoid” the debate.  Puh-leeze, people.  McCain has continually asked for Obama to take part in something like 20 townhall type debates, to which Obama has refused every time.  Even Bill Clinton, on Good Morning America this very morning, admitted that McCain isn’t afraid to debate Obama.  It appears quite the other way around.

A whole lot of nothing

This post will be short and sweet, as I’ve been over on The Female Problem page this morning. *If you arrived at this post from a childbirth related tag, go on over to The Female Problem page* 

I got up early and used my new apple peeler, corer, slicer (from Grandma Shirley) and put the apples into the crockpot for some more apple butter.  It’s so easy, makes the house smell wonderful, and makes me feel like I’ve accomplished…something.  Thanks, Ranell and Kate, for the recipe. 

I’m still suffereing from earaches.  Last night was the worst yet.  My right ear started hurting as well, and I started to feel kind of fevered and nauseous.  I liberally self-medicated, got a hot water bottle, and hit the sack, hoping that today would be better.  I’m going to give it one more day, then go to the doctor tomorrow if no improvement.  I’m starting to get as bad as my husband about going to the doctor.  I’ve really got my work cut out for me, I can see, with him in the future.  It will be a feat to get him to cooperate, I think, when he’s seventy. 

I finally succeeded in getting the kids’ clothes sorted yesterday, a task I’ve been putting off for weeks.  Any mom knows what a big job this can be, especially with a 0-3 year old, because they grow so fast.  I had to get out all the fall stuff, and pack away the summer and too small stuff.  Linus has started to level off a little bit, so he wasn’t as bad.  But Eliza…there are no repeats this year.  I have to thank my hand-me-down suppliers, here.  I don’t know what I’d do without them.

I don’t like this bailout one bit.  Not. One. Bit.  Hey, economic experts out there:  What would happen if we just reduced the capital gains tax and greatly reduced (or eliminated) corporate tax?  Wouldn’t that stimulate the economy more than anything?  Just wondering.  I feel like we’re marching closer and closer to socialism.  Obama-ites see no problem with this.  I, however, do.  (And yes, I realize that Bush, McCain, Palin and everyone else supports the bailout, too.)

Hell’s Bells, Sister!

Okay, I’ve been trying numerous ways to expunge from my soul the letter to the editor in our local paper, written by a probably well-intentioned, though seriously misled (and arguably certifiable) Catholic Sister.  David had to almost physically restrain me from running to the computer to type up a response.  I could have had a field day.  But, for David, this blog is bad enough.  A letter by his wife to the local paper chastizing a nun would just be too much. 

But, my local readers no doubt read the letter and feel my pain.  Not only does she make some really illogical points, based on nothing that is even in the ballpark of reason or fact, but she makes Catholics in general look bad.  (For those of you who haven’t heard that nasty little tidbit, I am now a Catholic.  Unabashedly, proudly, shamelessly Catholic.  Go ahead, start laying into me.  Trust me, I’m used to it by now.  But more about that, later.) 

Among other outrageous claims, she stated that Republicans politicize abortion to gain votes.  Sister, it’s my moral obligation to politicize abortion.  You’re damned right I’m going to politicize it, just the same as I would politicize the need to make murder illegal. 

Warning:  What I am about to post will make any Catholic Obama supporter cringe.  You might just want to stop right here to save yourself from this fate.  But, if your curiosity is piqued, by all means continue reading.  But don’t say I didn’t warn you. 

Here is a little article written by a priest, Fr. Corapi.  In light of all the recent gaffes by CINO (that’s Catholic In Name Only) Democratic politicians, and their public rebukes by all the Bishops and Cardinals, I think it’s growing increasingly difficult for Catholics who support pro-abortion candidates to rationalize their decision.  In any case, I don’t envy their position, because to continue in this direction in all seriousness should inevitably lead to an examination of why they’re Catholic, and if they can remain so.

In speaking with faithful Catholics all over the world for the past twenty years there is a consensus among them that the average Catholic doesn’t know much about their faith. Likewise there is an overwhelming consensus that if we did, the world would be a very different place. In the United States of America we have over sixty million Catholics. If these Catholic citizens knew their faith and then voted and lived their faith, this country would be incalculably better off. In turn, so would the entire world.

In the past few months leading up to what may prove to be the most crucial presidential election in this country’s history, it is outright frightening how many Catholics think they can vote for a pro-abortion candidate. As many of our good bishops have pointed out, under the current circumstances this is not possible. Abortion is the overridingly most important moral issue of our times, all others being important, but rendered irrelevant if the preeminent right—the right to life—is destroyed.

As Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon recently pointed out, clarifying the teaching of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops in their excellent pastoral letter “Faithful Citizenship,” a candidate or office holder is disqualified from receiving the vote of a Catholic in good conscience if they hold a pro-abortion position. In other words pro- choice candidates under the current set of circumstances are disqualified because of their pro-death political positions. We cannot vote for them. As the Bishops of Kansas recently asserted in their excellent voter’s guide, “Catholics would ‘commit moral evil’ by voting for a candidate who supports abortion and other intrinsically evil things. Voting is a moral act, and voting for pro-choice candidates is evil in itself. One becomes a collaborator in evil by so doing. No amount of rationalization can escape this logical and moral conclusion.

There was some confusion over this based on a statement made some time ago by Pope Benedict, who was speaking in general terms, saying that for a “proportionate reason” it would be possible to vote for such candidates. However, in the concrete situation we face, with a candidate who is pro-life, this would not be possible. No amount of “other reasons” would excuse voting for a pro-choice candidate. The Church clearly teaches that life begins at conception. As Pope John Paul II stated many times, “abortion is murder.” Following logically from this, if a single abortion is murder, then 48,000,000 (the approximate number of abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade) of them is genocide. What would be the “proportionate reason” supporting such an outrage? There is none.

Lack of understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches is grossly harmful to the individual Catholic and to society in general. It is for this reason that I have always tried to promote and teach the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is a sure norm for teaching the faith, as Pope John Paul II asserted in promulgating the Catechism. “Guarding the Deposit of Faith is the mission which the Lord entrusted to His Church,” are the first words of the Apostolic Constitution “Fidei Depositum.” These are the words the Holy Father used to introduce us to the Catechism.

For this reason we are making my series “The Teaching of Jesus Christ” more and more available through television, radio, and the lowest prices ever offered for DVD and CD versions. Ignorance of the Faith can prove fatal—for individuals and for nations. Learning our faith is the best investment we can make. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the very best way to do this.

May God bless you, each one, and may God bless America in this time of national crisis,

 Father John Corapi

Seriously, we’re killing our babies, here.  Brutally, horrifically, and in sickening numbers.  I realize that it’s easy to forget just how serious this is, given that Roe’s been around for three decades.  But don’t be lulled into apathy!  If you need to be reminded of how grotesque this practice is, and how it harms women who undergo abortion, go here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/.  (Warning:  graphic images.)

Barack Obama has stated a number of times that one of the first things he would do if elected is pass the Freedom of Choice Act, that would essentially codify abortion into law, and make it impossible to reverse.  That is serious.  And let us never, ever forget the BAIPA bill.  That is infanticide.  And Barack Obama sees nothing wrong with it.

Something stinks…

Well, the only issue that is going to make a difference in the election now is the economy.  I think we all can agree on that.

That being said, I want to point out that I only have a rudimentary understanding of all the recent goings-on with AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  All I do know is that there has ensued a flurry of finger-pointing.  It all seems too nuanced to understand.  McCain says we need more accountability, and Obama says we need more government regulation (of course.)  Actually, it’s not only Democrats who think this.  (Why does government oversight rub me the wrong way?  If there’s no risk, there’s no reward, right?  Isn’t that the way the market works?  The job of a CEO is to make sure the corporation that employs him makes money to pass along to the shareholders in that corporation.  But, if I were a CEO, and I knew that the government was going to bail me out no matter how crappy of a job I did, wouldn’t my incentive to do a good job lessen considerably?  Seriously, I’m rambling.) 

I do know that there are some things that are quite interesting about all this.  Namely, that Fannie and Freddie and Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were all in bed together.  And I can tell you one thing for certain:  If this were the case with, say, John McCain, or any other Republican, there’d be a demand for investigation upon investigation, and the media would be having a hayday.  Really.  You know it’s true. 

I thought this article did an excellent job in explaining all of this.  A great analysis and TIMELY revelation regarding S.190, a bill that would have averted this mess, that was not passed in Congress by Democrats, one of whose sponsors was none other than…John McCain.  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Too good to keep off of this post:

“[Barack] Obama… blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the ‘trickle-down’ economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend. But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties. The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but ‘predatory.’ Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ‘90s by Clinton and his social engineers.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Sweet nothings (in my aching ear)

The past few days have been busy.  I’m glad it’s Monday.  For those of us in stay-at-home land, this means less running.  

It rained during the night.  Complete with thunder and lightning.  I slept with the window open.  I couldn’t bring myself to close it, even though I know that lightning can strike through open windows.  I’m sure Ian will lecture me for it, so save your reprimands, Mom.

I’m so excited:  We might have a visitor next Sunday.  Jon might be driving up to Elgin to see the kids, and even though his stay will be short, it doesn’t happen very often.  He called me on his way to work at the hospital.  He is on call all night tonight, and though dreading it, he says his consolation is that he hooked up his Xbox in the call room, so he can play that when he’s not busy.  Does this inspire confidence in our doctors?  “Let me call in the radiologist.  He’s playing Nightfire in the other room.”  (Just kidding, Jon.)

And it seems that my body has regressed back to that of a two year old, as I’ve been having earaches.  What the?!?!?!  It got so uncomfortable that I stayed home last night, rather than go with David and the kids over to the Spiekers for pizza and good company with L and J and Marv and Helen.  Next week I’ll probably have to get tubes in my ears.  (Although, the absolute SILENCE I experienced at home alone did probably more for me than morphine.  It was wonderful.) 

I am full of nothing today, I realize that.  My utmost apologies.  I’m breaking the first rule of blogging:  don’t blog if you haven’t something to say.  I suppose I’m just delaying the mountain of laundry that needs my attention. 

I’m going to continue with The Female Problem soon.  I’m trying to track down something I recall reading that I want to add, and I haven’t been successful.  Please stay tuned.