Archives

Signs of Economic Woe

Things are getting serious, folks.

We went to Sonic today and ordered a chicken strip basket. It came, but lo and behold, there was no ONION RING in the chicken strip basket. SInce the onion ring is mine, as mom and sole eater of onions, I asked the carhop where my onion ring was, very politely, of course. He said he’d get me one, but (get ready) when he brought me my onion ring, he said the manager told him that they no longer put an onion ring in the chicken strip basket!

Is Sonic headed for a bailout, or a government takeover, or what?

(The Sonic website still says they put a “freshly prepared onion ring” in each chicken strip dinner, but that’s not what they told me at Sonic today.)

Pseudogamy

Anthony Esolen at Mere Comments is writing a series of essays that he calls “Pseudogamy,” reflecting the sham and pretense that we as a society have made of the sacred institution of marriage. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but here are some selected quotes to whet your appetite.

Marriage — marriage such as Jesus defined it — is the foundation of society not simply because it is the best environment for raising children, though it is. It is the foundation because in it man and woman commit themselves one to another, as if they were, so to speak, gods freely bestowing freedom upon what they create.

I return to the notion of cosmos: order. Man and woman unite in marriage to bring into being a new generation; and even when they cannot do so, because of age or some physical defect, they may well wish to do so, or they stand for others as exemplars of the act that naturally brings forth children. All of which is to say that marriage that is open to children is part of the order created by God. Then marriage that is not open to children violates that order, and introduces into our understanding of marriage a destructive chaos.

In these two posts, Mr. Esolen says eloquently and intelligently some of the things I tried to start talking about in this post on marriage: that we have already lost the meaning of marriage before the activists and anti-Christians came along to try to put into statute and law what was already broken. I’m not saying that it’s a losing battle but rather that we will have to re-examine the fundamental Biblical meaning of marriage itself before we will be able to speak truth to our culture and, perhaps, change the course we are travelling toward the destruction of both marriage and family.

Pseudogamy 101 by Anthony Esolen.

Pseudogamy 102 by Anthony Esolen.

The Meaning of Marriage

Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary defined marriage as:

The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Merriam-Webster Online now says marriage is:

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage: same-sex marriage
b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union: the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross.

I am thinking a lot about the meaning of marriage these days. I find it disingenuous, at the very least, for gay activists to say that they are not, by their lobbying and legislative and judicial actions, trying to redefine marriage.

However, as the definition of marriage has changed in the last two hundred years, it has not been completely as a result of recent homosexual activism and propaganda. WIth no credentials as a sociologist or a historian, I give my humble opinion that the definition of marriage began to change as more and more people in Western society lost faith in the Bible and the God of the BIble, and that it continued to lose meaning as promiscuity and fornication became, not only common, but also acceptable as a lifestyle.

If marriage is not a contract “both civil and religious”, then what is its basis? If God and Adam did not agree on the definition of marriage in Genesis 2:24 (Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.), then why can’t we as a society, by majority vote or evolving social mores, define marriage any way we see fit? Serial marriage in which the partners know that that the marriage contract is impermanent or polygamy in which either partner can have have more than one lifetime mate or homosexual marriage in which both partners are of the same sex or open marriage/non-marriage in which the couple lives together but there’s no legal commitment . . . . the options are endless.

In this kind of society, with undefined marriage that’s simply “a state of being united to a person”, marriage loses all meaning. I can be united to Engineer Husband today and to Tom, Dick or Mary tomorrow. I can move in with Joe and decide that I want us to stay “married” for the rest of our lives, but he can leave me whenever the first gray hair appears.

We’re entering Wonderland, and it looks as if the state is to be master. Our democratically elected government will decide the meaning of the word marriage and in the process will drain the word, and the institution, of all meaning.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master—that’s all.”

I find this to be a sad state of affairs, and I challenge anyone who advocates for such meaningless marriage to tell me how it can be good for children or for a civil society, much less how it can be right before a holy God who created us to cleave to a mate of the opposite sex and become one flesh. Of course, if marriage means “whatever I choose it to mean, neither more nor less,” I am free to have my partner(s) in marriage choose a different meaning from mine. And that’s not freedom at all; it’s chaos.

Stimulus and the States

At least some of the governors are being cautious.

Bobby Jindal in Louisiana:

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, has suggested his state may not be interested in all of the roughly $4 billion allotted to it in the economic stimulus package to be signed by President Obama today.

“We’ll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it’s beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars,” Jindal said.

Sarah Palin of Alaska:

“I would call for a veto, absolutely. And you know, let’s do this right, understanding there is going to be some kind of stimulus package. There’s going to be some kind of attempts for economic recovery. I’d say construction projects that put people to work — that fits the bill, but these big, huge, expanded social programs, where we’re adding more people to the rolls — and then the economic stimulus package dollars from the feds are going to dry up at some point. States then are going to be beholden to these programs. We will have to pay for them. That’s not right. That’s not fair. And we just want to make sure that whatever it is that’s passed makes sense for our states, for the residents of our individual states.”

South Carolina’s Mark Sanford:

A handful of Republican governors are considering turning down some of the money from the $787 billion package.

But Sanford told FOX News his state is still “looking at the pros and cons” of the bill and combing through the “fine print” to see what would benefit South Carolina residents.

Rick Perry of Texas:

“My concern is there’s going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long,” said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who considered rejecting some of the money but decided Wednesday to accept it. “We need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say ‘No thanks.”‘

I wish they would all either send it back, or take it and give it out to the taxpayers who are going to have to pay back what’s been borrowed. I’m sure they’re not allowed to do the latter, but it seems like the fairest response to this mess.

Lead Poisoning and Books

I took a look at this list of recalls issued by the CPSC due to excessive lead content.

Every recall I looked at involved a toy manufactured overseas, mostly in China.

Not one recall was issued for a BOOK that contained excessive lead content.

No injuries or deaths were reported associated with any of the toys recalled for excessive lead content.

What is the purpose of this law, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act? We are protecting children from a non-existent or minimal danger that parents and concerned adults are already protecting them from anyway, ergo no injuries or deaths reported. And in the process, small businesses, usable clothing, toys, and BOOKS are being destroyed.

Why?

They’re Burning Books!

I have been an ostrich. I thought that someone, somewhere would see reason, fix a broken law, and everybody would live, if not happily ever after, at least happily free to do business and buy books in the United States of America.

Instead, the deadline has come and gone, and now they’re burning/trashing books. The Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act was signed into law six months ago. It was supposed to keep our kids from being poisoned by lead in toys.

“Under the law it is now illegal, as of yesterday, to sell or distribute any product–toy, book, clothes, electronic gadget, you name it–aimed primarily at children 12 and under without first having every accessible element in that product–fabric, appliques, ink, zippers, buttons, switches, doll hair, you name it–certified by a third-party lab (not, for instance, the zipper maker) as having less than 600 parts per million of lead. The law includes substantial criminal penalties and allows state attorneys general, as well as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to enforce its provisions.”

Read more here. And here. (The Headmistress has been blogging about this law for over a month, and I, ostrich that I am, have done nothing.)

Yes, the law covers books. Yes, each book that is to be sold must be tested for lead content. Yes, this law includes used books. The Consumer Products Safety Commission has promised not to enforce testing provisions for another six months . . . while at the same time warning retailers not to sell anything, after February 10th, with unacceptable levels of lead. How exactly do you make sure your products don’t have too much lead if you don’t test? And how do you test every product if the testing costs a minimum of fifty dollars per product, and there aren’t enough labs to test everything anyway?

The answer: you don’t. Instead, it’s Fahrenheit 451, guys, and they are BURNING BOOKS, at the behest of the government. It doesn’t matter whether anyone meant for this giant, country-wide bonfire to happen or not. It doesn’t matter whether you think I’ve gone from being an ostrich to being an alarmist. It’s happening anyway.

My daughter works in a used bookstore. TODAY they pulled all the books from the children’s section that had any kind of metal or plastic or toy-like attachment, spiral bindings, balls or things attached, board books, anything that might be targeted under this law, and they very quietly trashed them all. I say “very quietly” because the bookstore had a meeting with employees and told them to be careful not to start a panic. If anyone asked what they were doing they were told to say that they were “rearranging their inventory.” No one was allowed to tell anyone about the new law, and no one was allowed to take any of the doomed-for-destruction books home or give them away.

The CPSC has, as of last week, made an exception for “ordinary children’s books printed after 1985.” Supposedly, some inks used before 1985 may have contained some lead. (However, the eight, nine, or ten year old reading a copy of Winnie the Pooh printed before 1985 would have to eat the book to get get any level of lead into their system. My four to twelve year olds don’t eat books. Do yours?) Right now, the bookstore where my daughter works is getting around the law by reclassifying their children’s books printed before 1985 as “vintage books” for adult collectors. Of course, this strategy is just that, a way of circumventing the law. That 1983 copy of Winnie the Pooh isn’t really vintage or collectible; it also isn’t dangerous to children.

It’s not just books, of course. Small businesses that make clothing and toys for children are going out of business. Thrift shops are destroying all their inventory of children’s merchandise because they fear being found with something that contains lead. And all this is happening in an economy that is having major issues in the first place. Are we crazy?

My husband asked me why this law was passed in the first place and why no one has fixed it. I think it was passed out of ignorance and fear, and now out of pride and inertia, no one wants to admit that they made a mistake.

Please call Congress, and tell them to fix this law. Many of these older children’s books are irreplaceable. The books are out of print, and no one even has the original manuscripts or printing plates. And it’s already too late for the books that were destroyed today and those that will be burned tomorrow.

By the way, the American Library Association says that the CPSIA doesn’t apply to libraries because . . . get this, no one has said yet that it applies to libraries. So, libraries don’t have to comply with the law unless . . . they do. And bookstores have to destroy or “reclassify” their books, but libraries can loan out these “possibly dangerous” books to children without fear of penalty.

Read more here. And somebody tell me that this horrible thing isn’t happening in the U.S.A.

Solvent States Bail Out the Spendthrifts

I live in Texas. We do a lot of things backwards here in Texas, and I could be critical if I wanted. However we do two things right:

1. The state legislature is required to balance the state’s budget and spend no more than it takes in in taxes and other revenue.
2. We only allow the state legislature to meet every two years.

(I won’t say much about about number two; I’ll just let you think about how nice it would be, if you live somewhere else, to only have to worry about what the state legislature might do next, every two years.)

In the so-called Stimulus Package that is now moving sluggishly but surely, like a juggernaut of an oil spill, through the Senate, there is a provision for 79 billion dollars in monies for a “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I think this government-speak title means is that those of us who live in states that have a balanced budget will be sending money, lots of money, to states that spend money like it’s water to save them from dying of thirst. Only they’re not dying, just in debt. And I don’t particularly feel obligated to pay California’s debts.

This 79 billion is only one of many boondoggles spending sprees disguised as economic stimulus that are in the bill that is about to make through Congress if we don’t do something to stop it. I’ll be highlighting several more in the next few days. Why? What hath this to do with books?

Well, I won’t be able to buy any books or much of anything else, I fear. I’ll be too busy paying for an economic stimulus that didn’t stimulate anything but more spending and more debt that we, as a nation, can’t afford. You don’t get out of a economic depression by spending money that you don’t have!

For more information on Congress spending like a drunken sailor, see The Corner, 50 De-Stimulating Facts.

Stimulating Taxes

The Anchoress has a 1-2-3 Stimulus Bill, an easy three-step program to stimulate the economy. I think she has a great idea, and I have a plan to help with step three on her list: make people who don’t pay their taxes pay them.

It looks as if there might be a lot of these people, people who owe forty thousand or one hundred fifty thousand dollars in taxes. The IRS doesn’t have time or manpower to audit everyone who might owe that amount of money or more. What we need is self-audit. And we’ve happened onto a way to get rich people to ‘fess up and pay their back taxes: appoint them to a position in the Obama administration that requires confirmation by the US Senate. Now, President Obama can’t appoint everyone who make more than a million dollars to a position within the administration any more than the IRS can audit all those millionaires. However, he can threaten/promise. I suggest he make a statement something like this:

“I believe that if you’ve made a million or more dollars that you know something. You’re doing something right. And I want that kind of expertise in my administration. So, I’m going to be looking at a list of millionaires for positions in my new administration. And I want a bipartisan group working for me, so it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat or neither or even if you haven’t voted in years. If you had a million dollars in income in any year in the past five years, I’m looking at you. Uncle Sam wants you to serve. HOWEVER, you must have paid all your taxes. If you have any unpaid taxes, please pay them now, voluntarily, so that I can consider you as a part of my team.”

All those millionaires would be scrambling to pay their taxes just like Daschle. The US treasury would start filling up, and if we also did steps one and two of The Anchoress’s plan, everyone would at least have a good time for a while. Which is more than I can say for the stimulus package that’s in Congress now.

Economic Stimulus: Throw That Money

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: “We won the election. We wrote the bill.” “We” is Democrats, and boy, have they written a bill! We’re going to be paying the bill for a long, long time (825 billion dollars in the House version). Money does not grow on trees, nor can it be magicked up out of thin air. But remember that all this spending/borrowing from the future is supposed to create jobs and stimulate the economy:

Amtrak $1 billion (I thought Amtrak went out of business ten years ago!)

Child care subsidies $2 billion (Do I get some of this money since I care for my children. Bet not.)

National Endowment for the Arts $50 million

Global warming research $400 million (Haven’t we researched this to death? And isn’t the politically correct term “climate change” since we’re not sure anymore whether we’re warming or cooling?)

Carbon-capture demonstration projects $2.4 billion (Carbon-who, and why am I paying for it?)

More digital TV conversion coupons $650 million (Why, oh why, am I paying for you to get a TV converter box? And where are the jobs? Jobs for TV converter box manufacturers?)

Renewable energy funding $8 billion (If it’s not profitable now, it won’t be profitable after they’ve gone through the eight billion dollars.)

Mass transit $6 billion (“If you build it, they will come” has not proven to be true in the past. Why should it start to be true now?)

Modernizing Federal buildings $7 billion (The jobs will only last until the money runs out.)

And it’s not going to create jobs or keep you from losing yours.
Heritage Foundation: “It is worth remembering that the New Deal of the 1930s substantially and permanently increased the scope of the federal government as Congress and the President attempted to spend their way out of the Depression. After the stock market collapse in 1929, the Hoover Administration increased federal spending by 47 percent over the following three years. As a result, federal spending increased from 3.4 percent of GDP in 1930 to 6.9 percent in 1932 and reached 9.8 percent by 1940. That same year– 10 years into the Great Depression–America’s unemployment rate stood at 14.6 percent.”

Read more at
Wall Street Journal: A 40-Year WIsh List

US News and World Report: 10 Reasons to Whack Obama’s Stimulus Plan

Heritage Foundation: Infrastructure Spending Won’t Boost the Economy

I don’t usually write about politics and economics because I don’t know enough about economics in particular to argue intelligently. However, this disaster is obvious to even my limited knowledge of economics: if you’re broke, you can’t spend your way out of debt. And if you keep spending, the piper must eventually be paid —with interest.

LIFE 2009

I’m wishing I could be in Washington D.C. today at the gathering on the mall to be a part of history, to try to make a difference. No, I’m not confused or two days late. I’m talking about the gathering commemorating this event:

Today marks the anniversary of one of the saddest days in our nation’s history.
36 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that women have the constitutional right to end the lives of their unborn children.

By the way, our new president, Barack Obama was invited to this commemoration. I don’t think he acknowledged the invitation.