Okay, TedSpe has decided to stir it up - and more power to him! Instead of debating issues of spirituality and ethics, let's get down to the basics - How do we spread the blame for the banking meltdown? How much is due to predatory lending, and how much is on the people who took out loans they couldn't repay? Shakespeare wrote "Neither a borrower, or a lender be"...so I guess an argument can be made that they're both at fault - goodness knows, there's enough wrongdoing for everyone to share.
Party of the first part - the banks: There are two types of banks that are affected by the 'questionable' practices used in determining the credit worthiness of some borrowers. We have the Commercial Banks that actually made the loans, and the Investment Banks that buy the Mortgage Backed Securities.
Party of the second part - Jane & John Borrower: Ah, the American Dream, aka "Home Ownership". The ideal to which we should all aspire...unless you can't get a bank loan. But, lookie here, the Neighborhood Bank is just dying to give us money. They know we can't really afford the house, but they are going to write it so that we have ridiculously low payments for five years, and then the rates - and payments - are going to go up, up, up! But, the economy is going gangbusters, housing prices are doubling daily, we'll either re-finance or sell our home way before that happens... (Oops, looks like everyone else had the same plan...our house is worth what?!?!?!)
Party of the third part - the lawmakers: These are the folks who made it all possible, in my opinion. Separate the Commercial and Investment Banks, and regulate them differently? No problem! Look the other way when people try to force us to deal with predatory lending practices? Heck, we'll do better than that - we'll shitcan your career (paging Gov. Spitzer - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html)!
For myself, I blame the party of the third part. These are the people who are supposed to provide the safety net - regulation - that protects society at large from business run amok (be it banks, big pharma, or Chinese toy manufacturers), and in some cases, even ourselves. They failed us in looking out for our interests, the citizens and the Nation's as a whole!
We know why the banks did it. We know why Jane & John did it. What did Congress (both Dems & Reps) get out of it?
Of course, you may disagree with me. Goodness knows, as a lifelong renter, I'm no expert in mortgages. I did however work in a bank for a long time (too long if you ask me), and I did learn a thing or two about how things work from that perspective. So, please disagree - I could use to be educated about this very serious issue.
Some background, if you haven't already downloaded all of this into your brains:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
120 comments:
j.m. ferretti, first off, I forgot to write, your ad-hoc commercials are great!!! U D PRO, my friend.
And winkingtiger, U D MAN.
Now, winkingtiger, you bring up the "new tough rules" the SEC passed today. Question.
Where the hell were they when this all started? I know who regulates commercial banks but who regulates these investment houses besides the SEC? Where the hell were they during all of this? I read in the paper today that WAMU was some sort of a pioneer in "sub-prime" loans and hence, they should be somewhat screwed but apparently the 85 mil that the government is giving/lending to AIG somehow made their stock go up?
HUH?!?!?
I don't get this serpentine financial crap whatsoever.
But again, and allow me to play Devil's Advocate, if the average, normal, run-of-the-mill individual said to themselves "Well, this appears on the surface to be a good deal, but, you know really, I can't afford this. In the long run, I'm kinda screwed"
So, were the "actual" inividuals (banking employees, not commercial bankers, investment bankers)involved with approving all these sub-prime loans getting a little...how shall I say...kickback?
Was all this based on individual greed that toppled entire financial giants, who kept a blind eye as long as the numbers looked good?
Scary thought. And again, the OCC, OTS and FDIC was overlooking the commercial banks. So where was the SEC with the investment banks? And beside out of intent ownership, how did AIG get involved/trouble?
Bizzaro World!!
A lot of the folks out in the Central Valley -- Modesto, Stockton area -- who got sucked into buying big new homes didn't understand ARMs or how interest rates could rise at the same time their jobs got vulnerable. Those communities are the worst hit in N Calif, I believe, by the subprime meltdown.
Can you blame those half-educated hard-working people for their economic "decisions"? They didn't go looking for the cheap money, the money lenders came hunting them.
Bottom line: a whole lot of bankers saw money to be made and they plundered a market theretofore untapped -- overconfident working and lower middle class folks who heard about rising home values and had to get in on the boom at the low low ARM rates available. Rapacity pure and simple.
The reason I'm a left winger: I believe people are capable of creating a civilization governed by something other than (more productive than?) greed alone. Economic crises like this only serves to deepen my conviction.
That's a lot to chew on, Ted S, and as you can see by my windiness below, it's one of my favorite topics! ;-)
Where was the SEC, you ask (and with good reason) prior to this disaster? Pondering the situation with their collective thumbs up their butt...as always. The Fed's been mis-managed since Greenspan left, not that he was a genius, but a little early intervention would have stopped a lot of this, and perhaps avoided a government bail out of AIG, or B of A's having to bail out Merrill Lynch. Nobody bailed out Lehman Bros., but they actually made moves as early as 6 months ago to cover their investors and avoid an Enron-style burn.
There's a theory in banking that if someone (another bank or lender) loans you money at 5%, you'd be a fool not to loan it to someone else at 8%. It's this greedy mentality that's been at work here, but eventually, you can get stretched too thin when there's nothing but loans outstanding left on your books (see Freddie and Fannie.) Large-scale investors (and investment houses) are almost completely unsupervised as to how much 'paper' they're able to transfer. OTOH, The small investor is VERY regulated. So Ted's theory of kickbacks probably has some teeth...if no one's really watching you, you can arrange all sorts of things, yecch...
WAMU's stock went up primarily because of rumors (which are really what's driving the market right now, alas) that they might be bought out by Wells Fargo or B of A, two of the last solvent nationwide banks left(because they have REAL INVESTORS, not just a lot of pretty paper loans) which might save old WAMU yet. Good thing; it's my bank!
Rumors have also driven down Goldman-Sachs and Morgan Stanley's stock, two brokerages that are actually solvent. It doesn't matter if they're not in any trouble; the results of investor panic are real enough. The whole bankjing sector is being pummeled right now, and it doesn't matter who falls. Judging by the jump in gold prices today, people are selling off their bank stock (at record volume) and buying gold or other commodities. It's panic time, and the mattresses are filling up...
I just want to say how tired I am of supply-side economics, so beloved of the Reaganites (remember when it was called 'Reaganomics?'). It is actually Hoovernomics: leave the free market alone, completely de-regulated, with no Governmental involvement, and it will right itself and cure all our economic woes. Didn't the Depression and FDR's reaction to it explode that myth? It did in my mind, yet people still cling to this Friedmanite BS. Wealth does not trickle down in any significant amount without some sort of Goverment redistribution, and I'm NOT talking Socialism. Just regulation. McCain will not help this problem, and I just saw part of an interview with Palin where she was equally unenlightened.
Ted's question about the run-of-the-mill individual living beyond their means really strikes at the heart of the matter from the consumer end. There are irresponsible home-buyers certainly, but there are also unexpected layoffs or medical emergencies that may cause a mortgage default. It's probably a vast combination of things, like a lot of life...
"God bless us, every one..." -Tiny Tim, victim of the mortgage crisis
Okay. I've stated before. I'm a leftist, but not a bleeding heart liberal. So how it appears to me is...it appears to me that this nightmare occured because of people who were too "smart" to not fall for the Nigerian scam but thought that, oh hell, this is an offer from a legit "American" company with a century(?) or so of reputation.
Bottom line is, all these sub-prime loans were "too good to be true". And these sub-prime loans are what has caused this monumental catastrophe.
There's something wrong with the American Dream when it reverts to "Please, sir, can I have some more?"
Sub-prime loans, to me, were basically Nigerian scams done legit by our own people to our own people.
It was simply unethical practices proverbed to the basic unethical laziness and feeling of deservedness that has primated amongst all of our uneducated throngs.
Cruel? Yes.
But this is the fault of EVERYONE involved. The bankers, the borrowers, the regulators.
But it never would have happended if the borrowers weren't stupid and lazy.
Mean? Yes. But, true.
Well, well, well. What an interesting topic. I've owned five different properties and just last Friday the last one, my business, was foreclosed upon. That must be it, Tedspe, I'm stupid and lazy. Thank you for figuring it out for me, 'cause obviously, I'm pretty stupid to do it myself.
It's not that the greed of sellers demanding higher prices and real estate agents pushing prices or shady loan companies that had anything to do with it, it's mostly stupid buyer's like myself. It's not all the millions of illegal aliens that kept pouring through the border driving up demand and costs, it's just the stupid people like myself. Oh, no, it's not loan companies that would give loans out like candy based on excellent credit, or their professional assessment, no it's just the fault of lazy, stupid, people like myself.
Is this where I take a bow?
The scary part is that Sarah Palin knows more about the economy than any one else. What's even worse? Sarah Heath Palin is an anagram for, "Ha! Hear a shit plan"
You know what's really bad? That the GOP helped create this nasty mess that I suspect will get worse, but they're only too happy to dump it into the laps of the Democrats. And laugh all the way to the bank.
How's that for a plan?
I'm curious, Tedspe. If there are 21 million -plus illegal immigrants that have flooded our country, where do you suppose they live when they get here? Do ypou think they live in the cracks of walls? Do they take away housing from legal Americans?
What, taking these numbers into account, do you think really fueled the housing market? Stupid, lazy buyers like me?
Incidently, I trace my ancestry in this country back two hundered years--on both coasts. When did your family get here?
Here's a link for you: http://www.immigrationcounters.com/
ginag,
First, just to get it out of the way, I don't know what immigration has to do with this so I'll just let that go.
As for your recent foreclosure, obviously I don't know the circumstances.
But if you set up a loan that you either couldn't afford the payments on or you didn't understand or bother to figure out the possible fluctuations, yes, that's stupid and lazy. And if it was foreclosed while renting to a 3rd party, that's just mean as well
Foreclosures don't occur because property values go down. They occur because payments aren't being made.
Tedspe. So you can't make the connection between housing demand and the influx of 21 million illegal immigrants. Now that's just lazy and stupid in my book.
As far as my recent foreclosure, I'm going to ask a couple questions before I even engage in any dialogue about this topic with you.
1. Have you ever owned a piece of property?
2. What do you do for a living?
3. Do you have children?
When I decided to write about this, I was thinking in the abstract. Gina, I am sorry for not considering that it may have impacted a member of our Brushfires family. I can't imagine how stressful a foreclosure must be for you.
TedSpe - please keep in mind that we shouldn't get too specific if we know our comments might be hurtful to someone else. Without knowing the details of someone's situation, it's kind of mean to judge them. Not everyone who is going through a foreclosure is doing so because they took out a loan they couldn't pay. There are a lot of factors that can cause someone to not be able to make payments on a loan. Hardworking, honest people lose their homes, too. (My personal belief is that 'stupid & lazy' are probably pretty far down the list.)
I'm not trying to call anyone out, just asking for a little consideration of a fellow human being who is going through a dificult time...okay? Thanks!
Why, thank you ferret. Once again, I must commend you on your graciousness. I appreciate it.
My life has been very stressful over the past couple of years. It all started with the loss of my husband's job. I won't go into the gory details, but I'm relating a lot to Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" song these days.
I really noticed a downturn in the economy when the interest rates changed. It wasn't just that people were buying and selling property when interest rates were low, they were also refinancing and using that equity to buy things. When that quit happening it affected the business climate. Many people we knew started hurting then. I f you live in a narea that's depressed tto begin with, things just go from bad to worse. In our town, we saw a huge employer shut down and devastate the local economy. What do you do in that situation? You can scramble all you want, but there ain't no changin' the hard facts. It's been tough, but I'm like a cat--I'll land on my feet. It's sort of been a blessing in disguise. It's given me an opportunity to re-evaluate what's important in my life. It's very liberating to be able to get rid of so many of the things that tie you down and make your life miserable. I think it's happened to many people. The real defining point of lazy I think will be what happens to them after their dealt the blow.
Lucky for me, in addition to coming from good stock, I have a permanent place to go that's owned free and clear, a steady food supply, and a job I can never get fired from waiting for me. So, I think I'll survive this one.
If it appeared I was generalizing on everyone who's gone through a foreclosure, that is wrong and for that I apologize. And "stupid and lazy" are harsh terms.
But please note, *I'm* the one who was called that on this thread on ginag's last post. If you re-read my post, I called a lot of the situations lazy and stupid, not any individual. I specifically stated I did not know her circumstances. So I don't see how it was interpreted I was picking on her. Nevertheless, apparently it was. So I apologize if I hurt ginag's feelings.
But that doesn't take away the fact that individuals being lazy, as in not doing their homework before getting into a mortgage that they didn't really understand, and being stupid, as in accepting a mortgage payment you know you can't afford because you have some other plan, *is* a part of this catstrophe. I was merely stating that anyone who got into real estate because it looked like a great deal when they knew they couldn't really afford the payments or bother to understand the small print was getting into something with their eyes closed (does that sound any kinder?).
I understand situations happen beyond some persons' control, but foreclosures have been going on for centuries. The current situation was made through a specific product, the sub-prime loan. It was greed from both lenders and borrowers, it isn't just an "evil corporate" thing. It was mutual.
The current *deluge* of foreclosures may have been avoided if there had been more of a "buyer beware" attitude.
So again, I'm not picking on anyone specific *here* but I stick to the heart of my previous statement. The lenders created the situation as a large con on the American Dream but greed and or laziness and or stupidity on the consumer's part had a large part of perpetuating of this mess.
The Nigerian thing was a scam? Uh oh.
Back in the 80s, when the price of oil plummmeted from $60 per barrel to about $20, folks in Alaska and Texas got pounded. Lots of foreclosures, people drive from rented homes, etc. (Remember the video of bulldozers razing huge apartment buildings in Houston?)
Blaming regular people for getting hammered by economic disaster is icy right wing nastiness, in my book.
By the way, does anyone know how the recent government intervention to control and prop up the "free" market here compares to what the Nazis did to the German economy? I'll look it up when I have some free time. If I ever do have free time again . . . .!
What do you do for a living, Ted?
lefty - yes, I'm sorry about the Nigerian e-mail. However, should you decide to send your favorite blogger (or me, if I'm not your favorite) some scratch, you will be rewarded beyond belief. Honest!
tedspe - I just wanted to ask you to remember that we are talking about actual people, not just statistics. I didn't think you were necessarily being 'mean'. Our homes are our sanctuaries, and losing it, or having it threatened is at best disruptive, at worst devestating. That's partly why I blame the Congress that approved the de-regulation. If the banks couldn't make these questionable loans, it wouldn't matter how uneducated folks are about understanding the fine print.
Interesting question, ginag. But obviously loaded. There's no answer to that question that wouldn't get me attacked. It's liked being asked "How would you like to be executed"? You see, from the tone of this particular thread, if I wrote I sold scented candles in the Haight, from what I've seen of other posts, I'd be called a liar. If I said I was an International Investment Banker, you'd say "See? See?"
I'm going to reply for the last time but I really doubt anyone will actually read this because it's been pretty obvious, no one's read my previous posts. Not really. Picked up key words they found right winged and ignored what I was actually saying. I thought this blog was set up for interesting debates and diologues. Chances are, no one will bother reading the rest of this either, with the possible exception of j.m. ferritti.
And, with all due respect for j.m. ferritti, who requested this post be an intelligent discussion, frankly, I've been sidewinded. I have yet to have read a disagreement of my posts that referred to what I was writing about.
SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE LOANS!
Really, it's as if there were certain key words in my posts that automatically set me up for insults and accusations. I've been accused by ginag, of insulting her. I specifically stated I didn't know her circumstances so there was no insult to her . j.m. ferritti posted a request that I not insult people who post here. I didn't. Lefty posted "Blaming regular people for getting hammered by economic disaster is icy right wing nastiness, in my book." and then backed up the arguement with an occurence around 30 years ago in Alaska that had to do with fuel prices. That's not what I was writing about. I was writing about what's happening now, today in 2008.
Based on all the previous odd attacks on me, I suppose I've lost everyone's attention already and there will be more attacks on how heartless I am. But just as a coda, I will state in specific terms what I was trying to say. This is, in my opinion, what has caused the current financial crises:
THE VIRUS: Product. Sub-prime mortgage loans. A product so heinous, that certain financial institutions refused to offer them because it was obvious it was bound to cause disaster. They're the ones still standing but suffering the repercussions of the entire industry.
THE PREYERS: Greedy lenders who knew they found a loophole to lure in dupes with either the (for some) American Dream of being a homeowner or greedy investors who thought they could figure out a flipping or an exagerrated rent.These lenders were only concerned of making their sales goals and stuffing their pockets.
THE PREYED: Two parties. 1. Greedy borrowers who *knew* they found a loophole to quickly flip or rent at higher monthly costs, and 2. Those who have had it pounded in their brains that everyone, must, *must* own property even if it's beyond their means because that's the American Dream. Never mind the small print and the monthly cost. Equity!! Escrow!! YES!!
and finally
THE TRUE VICTIMS: Those who rented their homes and paid their rent on time, monthly, and have now been evicted because their Landlords took up a mortgage loan that should never have been offered and should never have been taken.
Okay. I'm through.
And by the way, ginag. I build septic tanks
;)
Okay, I lied. I'm posting again because I was writing and then posted before I had a chance to read j.m. ferritti's post.
Valid point. The de-regulations *are* what allowed this heinous product. But at what point can everything be so fine tuned that, in your words, "it wouldn't matter how uneducated folks are about understanding the fine print."?
There will always be predators out there. I'm not agreeing with this, it just seems to be the way. What can be done? Are there solutions? Or will greed always win out?
Wow. I'm depressing myself.
"lefty . . . backed up the arguement with an occurence around 30 years ago in Alaska that had to do with fuel prices"
Ted, you can't credibly complain about others not reading, or misreading, your posts if you do the same in response. I chose a narrower economic disaster that still resulted in a lot of foreclosures as an example of the sort of loss regular people endure as the result of huge economic storms they can't foresee. (I sort of thought the Ak. link might resonate a bit.)
I didn't call YOU an icy right winger. I tried to call for some compassion. The "greed" of a working class family who wants to own a modest home is not the greed that we need to worry about. The greed that drives lenders to prey on such regular people is the problem.
In any event, Ted I'm familiar with your posts here and on other blogs, and I don't believe you're an icy heartless person. Far from it. I am engaging in dialogue. If we disagree, that's okay. As I've said before, I've been wrong before (a few times).
tedspe - Don't you dare quit on me now!!! Honestly, I didn't think you were attacking gina, so much as that she felt attacked. So, I was asking for you to be gentle. I said I wasn't 'calling you out'...and I meant it.
When the market was going so wild, everyone kept telling me I should finally buy, but I was suspicious that things couldn't possibly be as good as they were being presented. It reminded me of the tech boom, when I warned my friends that just because a company had an IPO of $10/sh - if they had never produced a single thing, and had posted nothing but losses, chances are that a crash was inevitable. Perhaps I'm a pessimist. For a liberal, I am incredibly conservative when it comes to money...it probably comes from always having so little.
I called this post a 'smackdown' for a reason - I wanted to talk about the problem, hoping that if we could assess blame (always the first step in solving any problem - lol!), we might see what could be done to fix it. I'm not sure if there are any brillant economists posting here at Brushfires, but I think that energy directed towards making the world a better place is never mis-spent.
j.m.ferretti and lefty,
Thank you for your posts. I accused some (horrible word)of not understanding my posts but it seems, I wasn't really reading some of your posts correctly either.
Again, (and this seems to be a standard statement from me(SO, sadly, GET USED TO IT ;))
I apologize.
I think we all agree, we're in a temporary nightmare.
The way things work, it'll pass.
For now. For a while. As always.
And then, we forget.
And then, something as atrocious will occur again.
I'm not Plato. I have no answers. I'm starting to think, though, that the answer for our future, is simply education.
Education, starting, seriously, with our elementery schools. And some sort of, qualified, orientation of new immigrants to our country.
I'm going to get ugly again, here (throw the stones) but a lot of the problems are not just the greed and nastiness in this country, but the ignorance of the populace.
I feel squelching the financial crises that we are now going through is to educate, immediately, (and I'm talking about beginning at around age 6) the kids.
Street smarts and financial smarts.
Whacky concept, I know.
But imagine if that was the new curriculim(?).
Kumbayah, my lord
Kumbayah
Kumbayah, my lord
Kumbayah
`
I'm feeling the love.
`
Goodnight. And sorry for starting a diolougue that made me so aggresive and upset or insulted any of you.
`
I'm in my happy place
I'm in my happy place
Tedspe. Thank you for your apology.
My point was that there's more to this crisis than people being greedy, stupid or lazy.
When you're in that situation, losing your property, things are not so simple. We lost both our home and our business. After my husband lost his job in a profession that financially is sliding downhill fast, he decided after 25 years to get out. I was a stay-at-home mom. We were fairly comfortable, a number of children and were able to send them to private school. We cashed out of the California market in the summer 0f 2005--the peak-- and moved to a place we could better afford. We bought a home and another building and opened a business. Although we had no guaranteed income, our credit scores were so high and we had enough money in the bank to qualify for no-doc loans--twice. We did all right at first, then the interest rates changed, and then the gas prices started to escalate. Then a big company in our area shut down. That seemed to affect things. Things just went from bad to worse. We tried to sell our house and the other building, but there were no takers. The once hot market had died. So, with not as much income coming in, and jobs being scarce, we couldn't make the mortgage payments. So we let them go.
I will agree with you on one thing, owning a home is over-rated. But at the time, it cheaper than renting.
RE: Lefty's query on the Nazi economy as compared to ours. There IS one important similarity (which I'll get to later), but the situation was very different. The dollar isn't as radically devalued as the Mark was then...at least not yet. Unemployment isn't as rampant here as in Weimar Germany...at least not yet.
Early on, Hitler referred to himself as a 'Socialist'...but the Nazi's solution to their economic woes went along these lines: abolish unions, remove the 'right to quit' from workers, go off the Gold Standard, and start a huge military-industrial complex. Suddenly everyone had a job...that they could never leave. "Arbeit Macht Frei!"
The similarity to the current situation I alluded to earlier, was that the Nazi government honestly thought that the Economy was too piddling of a problem to concern them. There is a famous quote from Hitler, proudly stating: "Our economic policy is to not have an economic policy." This sort of dilettantism does seem to echo John McCain ever-so-slightly...not that he is a Nazi, lol.
And Gina G....you're Married?! *sound of heart breaking* ;-)
Ted: Hakuna Matata (no, that isn't an album by The Police)
FH/JMF: I'm glad you started this blog. Don't give up. You built it; they will come...
WinkingTigewr: Well, technically, yes. But I'm working on changing it.
I spoke earlier of taking the opportunity to find out what was important to me and getting rid of the things that made miserable. Does that comment make sense to you now?
Gina G.: It made sense before. Now it makes more. ;-) Of course, you probably would rather have figured it out without all the setbacks and catastrophe. The fact you referred to it as an 'opportunity' says something good about you too...
Thank you WT...you're too kind. I knew I liked you for a reason.
After the initial shock and trauma of it all, I've realized there are worse things in life to deal with. I have resources that money can't buy, and really am developing a sense of appreciation for little things that are free. I'm grateful for this opportunity to redefine myself. Maybe for me, this was best. It's given me a chance to do things over with much more insight to draw from.
How many people can say that?
What I find so troubling, if things get worse economically, what will people do that don't have the resources that I have?
Here's someone sending her work out for "free."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-N3brOjRsI
It's pretty good.
Hmm.Interesting Very interesting.
Night all.
Well, I always say it takes two to tango. The current situation was created with the help of everyone who took advantage of the relaxed mortgage rules--borrowers, lenders, securitizers, etc. I've told this story before, but the moment when I realized the mortgage business was out of control was a few weeks before Christmas about 4 years ago, when my girlfriend and I were shopping in Union Square. As we were crossing O'Farrell, we came upon hawkers handing out flyers advertising low interest rate loans. To my mind, that meant that money was so cheap that lenders were beating the bushes looking for borrowers, which spelled trouble. If you make borrowing too easy, at a certain point you start hitting the folks who have no business borrowing money, and the risk of defaults goes way up. What I didn't realize at the time was how these loans were being securitized and sold as solid investments, which should have been a red flag to anyone who saw those low-interest flyers on Union Square. Both the borrowers and the lenders were living in a fool's paradise, and we're paying the piper now. What irks me is that people who play by the rules and only borrow (and lend) what they can afford are going to end up bearing the price for those who decided to take the mortgage industry out for a joy ride by borrowing more than they could afford and selling loans and securitized mortgages for more than they were really worth.
By the way, I want to thank the government for ruining my vacation. Each morning in Maui we awoke to news of financial ruin and lunacy, which made our morning conversations unpleasant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMrjmi-rIxg
Well, DSG, it sounds as if you came into this world all-knowing. My, what a gift. Maybe you should market it for the rest of us who seem to lack that stupendous trait...you be a gazillionare!
Thank you, lefty, that was nice. .
Oh, come on, Gina, was that called for? I'm obviously not all-knowing, as my post makes clear. My point is that this situation isn't just the fault of any one group. One might even go so far as to say that all of us who have allowed our culture of cheating to take hold, even in the slightest, are responsible. Because once cheating's okay, everything else follows.
Winkingtiger, I remember when George H.W. Bush called Reagan's notions "voodoo economics."
No, dragonballz, it wasn't called for. But humor in the face of adversity is one of my stupendous traits.
Cheating? Didn't that become acceptable with the Clinton's and the Dems telling everyone that it was a 'private matter'?
Gina, cheating became acceptable long before then. If you want to know my personal opinion, the marijuana laws bear a large part of the blame, though the income tax laws and Prohibition also played a big role prior to then. When the laws prohibit something that is socially acceptable, nay, socially desirable, respect for the laws diminishes and cheating is exalted.
gina - let's not start the day by equating our posters to incomprehensible (to me) anime. Also, in a completely unrelated matter - infidelity IS a private matter.
What I don't understand is that no one on this blog seems to agree that the law makers are the ones who made this all possible. The Glass-Steagal act was put in place after the Great Depression precisely to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Remember the S&L crisis of the 80's? That was aided and abetted by Congressmen (Keating Five, anyone?) who attempted to obstruct regulators from doing their jobs.
Un-checked greed, whether you attribute it to the borrowers or the lenders, is responsible for this crisis. However, there is someone who is responsible for checking that greed, and it is the Congress!!!
DSG: did you like my new pet name for you? Wasn't that clever? That's what your name looks like to me. I think I'm dyslexic--that would explain why I have such a hard time with sentence structure, grammar and punctuation.
I think cheating goes back a little farther than what you mentioned. I think go said something about it to Moses, didn't he? Well, that is if we can all agree that God does exist.
I meant to say "God said".
Yes, Mother Superior, you're right as always. I 'll go stand in the corner now.
Congress? Pardon my cynicism, but Congress lost its moral/ethical authority long, long ago too. Our laws have become a joke. Just look at the tax code (no offense, but is there a more egregious example of legislation purchased by special interests than the logorrhea contained in Title 26?).
JMF: I agree that Government de-regulation and good-ole-boyism had a large part to play in the current crisis. My problem is: both parties seem to be equally culpable (the wiki entries above bear this out). So if this issue was my #1 priority, who should I vote for, based on their parties' history? Both candidates are supported by Wall Street, a place that always hedges it's bets...
I also don't think the Fed's new 'temporary ban' on short-selling should be temporary. Ban it outright, like England did. And how come England always seems ahead of us, as far as law enforcement is concerned?
DSG: That's a good point you made. People who wouldn't DREAM of breaking the law or harming another might still find themselves classified as criminals thanks to prohibition, etc...so they ignore the law. This attitude is a slippery slope, of course...
Men and women are mere mortals, aren't they?
Kinda all makes you wonder if maybe we should pay more attention to God's law, doesn't it?
Ten Commandments, anyone?
WT, when I was in law school, one of my professors, the late John Kaplan, was the author of a book called Marijuana: The New Prohibition, in which he made the argument that the marijuana laws were corrosive to society because they inculcated a culture of disdain for the law, as well as other standards and authority. A friend of mine recently had an experience in Humboldt County that was a perfect illustration of this phenomenon.
Gina, the problem is which God? Because of the variances in the tenets of all religions, I stick to the Golden Rule, which is present in all religions, primarily because it's derived from a basic feature of human behavior. I frequently make the case that the only objective basis for laws is the Golden Rule.
That one doesn't work, either. If I'm a lying cheater and I have an expectation that others should be able to do the same to me, 'cause it's a dog eat dog world, then what gives?
How about that other timeless set of rules, the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly virtues? They're much more descriptive.
I think St. Thomas Aquinas was on to something.
Gina, game theory has shown that the use of the golden rule in classic dilemmas like the Spanish prisoner game produces optimal results more often than any other approach. It's still the only true objective basis; your example doesn't negate it, it only shows its limits. No set of rules is perfect, because people aren't perfect, but objectively, the Golden Rule is the only one that can be shown to be beneficial most of the time, and its universal acceptance by all religions shows its breadth. Aquinas's rules aren't absolutes, as I'm sure you'd find some other religion's tenets that would contradict them. It's because of these faith-based contradictions that religion can't, in my view, be the basis for public policy.
Gina posted: What I find so troubling, if things get worse economically, what will people do that don't have the resources that I have?
Spoken like a true liberal, gina! I think you and dsg are more in agreement, than you might think...let go of the semantics, and you'll see I'm right! The difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoints in the US seems to be this: A liberal is concerned with how we care for the least in our society, whereas conservatives figure 'I got mine, you're on your own'. That, of course, is a gross over-simplification, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying.
Thom Hartmann refers to the US as 'a nation of barn builders.' We (and I think humans in general) are naturally inclined towards helping one another, building a strong community that benefits all within it.
DSG: Ah, yes the logic of reciprocity. If we apply that to the the laws of abortion, where do we stand then? How do you find a loophole for that one? And don't give me that lame argument about viability 'cause I ain't buyin' it.
It could be argued that the root of America's slippery down the path of sinful and irresponsible behavior all started with Roe vs Wade and the end of the intrinsic value of life. It became a massive free for all and an endless stream of creating laws to protect self-interests.
Yes, ferret, perhaps we are. Maybe he's my cousin or something--we do share the same last name, sorta.
I think many generation grew up Catholic and with a strong sense of those beliefs. Some of us held on to more of them than others. I would venture to say that the only difference between me and most liberals is that I'm pro-life.
err. I think faster than I can type. I meant to say:
I think many in our generation grew up Catholic or Christian and with a strong sense of those beliefs.
But, gina, what about someone like me, who has no religious upbringing, whatsoever? I don't want to send things into a tailspin, but I think that an argument could be made that our innate sense of community pre-dates all religion. Religion is outgrowth of community, and behaviors that benefit that community, not the other way around.
A friend of mine is a big proponent of the value of cooperation in human evolution; his view is that the Golden Rule comes from that trait. And Gina, in the end, I think abortion is clearly an area where people have to be allowed to make up their own minds about the humanity of the fetus/unborn child.
And Roe v. Wade wasn't the start of the devaluation of human life, just one of many steps in our history. Why not start with war?
Thankfully, there is no requirement for religion in our country, 'cause I'm not very religious. But religion does serve a purpose, as I think it was intended. I believe it was meant to act as a set of rules that if people would just follow them, we'd all get along better because we'd be on the same page. I think our constitution was based on Christian-Judeo beliefs and Western thinking. I don't think our founding father's ever considered having to take into account anything else, except maybe atheism.
And, our country just making more and more rules. Who can remember them all? Wouldn't it be easier to have a basic set of rules that could equally apply to everyone?
As far as abortion,I think human nature would predispose us to procreate, not diminish ourselves as a group.
Gina, while procreation is generally good, there are instances where it isn't, and in nature, that circumstance is handled with (a) infertility, (b) spontaneous abortion, (c) infanticide, and (d) culling of the weak.
And regarding our history, I think it is clear that the founders were very skeptical of the place of religion in government/policy, hence the First Amendment to the Constitution. And then there was the Barbary War; in Amendment XI in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, we find the statement, "…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…"
dsg: pro-creation is especially good in some instances. I think it was meant to offset the causalities of wars, famine and pandemics. Do our modern day abortion laws take those problems into account?
Do you think that when perfectly good fetuses are aborted simply because they were an inconvenience to the lives of their parents, that that is nature taking care of itself?
Have you ever considered, from a scientific point of view, what 44 million and counting abortions has down to our gene pool? what types of people has abortion "culled".
Culling is an interesting term to use when describing humans, don't you think? In my circle we use it to describe throw-away fruit and vegetables.
dsg: Why do we have references to God all over the place? Like money for instance.
Here's something else that comes to mind:
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Gina, when I used the term "culled," I wasn't speaking about humans, I was speaking about what happens in nature. Infertility, spontaneous abortion, infanticide and culling are all responses in nature to circumstances in which reproduction is not adaptive. I never said that humans had to follow nature--infanticide, for example, is generally looked down upon in human society.
And those references to God in the Declaration of Independence are not to the Christian God, they are to the deists' God ("Nature's God"). The same can be said for the other references to God that you cite.
In a society such as ours, where individual freedom is prized, the decision whether to have children should belong solely to the person or persons involved. Until the fetus/unborn child has rights at viability, the potential parents should have the right to make the decision. They can take all of the various considerations you mentioned into account. If they can't do it well, why should we expect them to handle child-rearing decisions well?
As much as I am loathe to have another post become all about abortion, I do have a question: Where would those 40 million people live? And, where would their children live? Do you really think this nation could be supporting that many more people?
Putting the abortion question aside, if even HALF of those births had come to term, can you imagine the strain on the infrastructure of this nation? Of course, given the socio-economic reality of abortion, I guess we probably wouldn't be having the shortages of troops in our military.
gina - you do realize that women were having abortions before Roe, right? Since, pretty much forever, abortion - either chemical or surgical - has been practiced. I have said again and again that I respect your position, but I really wish you would respect mine, and that of millions of your fellow Americans!
"you do realize that women were having abortions before Roe, right? Since, pretty much forever . . . ."
The Abortion, by Richard Brautigan, which I'll now plug again, is set in pre Roe times.
Also, Whoopi Goldberg started her career in Berkeley, with the Blake Street Hawkeyes in the late 70s and early 80s. She lived near Blake Street, apparently, because one day she looked out her upper-floor apartment window and saw a circulating line of anti-abortion protesters below, with picket signs and so forth, exercising their 1st Am. rights outside (what was then) Herrick Hospital. Whoopi took a bunch of wire coat hangers from her closet and went down to the street and silently offered each and every marching protester a complimentary wire coat hanger.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
dsg:Even though you have no proof to back up your assertion,let's assume you're right about the Creator being a diest's god. That doesn't changed the fact that they believed that we were created equally and endowed with certain unalienable rights--such as life. If we give women the right to take away a life without any say by the person losing it, or anyone else involved, doesn't that give her more power than the rest of society? More than the Creator? Doesn't that automatically create inequality?
And, if we are allowed to let people determine the value of another's life simply by whether or not they are fit parents, aren't you discounting people like ferret, who by her own account was an unwanted child?
I don't know about you but I see in ferret a kind and loving spirit--one doing something worthwhile. And, whether you want to see it or not, you are enjoying the fruits of her labors.
gina - thanks for the kind words. As I said before, I'm glad I'm alive, but I do believe that the scared 15 year-old who gave birth to me, should have had a choice in the matter.
Again, abortion was practiced when the Founders wrote the Declaration and Constitution. I believe that, knowing that and saying we have a 'right to life...', the Founders were talking about those of us outside of the womb. Nowhere do they address the issue of abortion, because they didn't feel it necessary, or relevant, to the discussion. Perhaps, that was one of those rights they held to be self-evident - the 'liberty' to make the decisions that most affect our lives, for ourselves.
(I hope this makes sense - posting without caffeine is always an iffy proposition!)
No matter how you slice it, it still comes down to this question: When does human life begin? To say that it begins at conception is, although it is a bright, clear line, still a matter of faith. Your point about women being "more equal" because they can terminate a life assumes that the fetus is a human life as soon as it is conceived, which people do not necessarily agree with; one could reasonably take the position that consciousness is the point at which human life begins, but consciousness is also not objective. Viability is an objective medical standard of when human life begins that the law can rely upon. The law (at least in this country) cannot rely on matters of faith.
As for the Declaration of Independence, the primary author, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist, and wrote it specifically without reference to the Christian God or Jesus Christ. See Joseph J. Ellis, American Sphinx.
From Webster's:
Main Entry:
cre·a·tor
Function:
noun
Date:
13th century
: one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being ; especially capitalized : god 1
in·alien·able
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date:
circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
Well, if we're going to assume to know the intentions of the founding father's, we could easily assume that they used the definitions above.
There's nothing by these definitions that talk about viability or granting Creator's rights to specifically one select category of people.
And, if we assume to know the intentions of the F.F's, why change the Hippocratic Oath?
Lefty: Legal abortion is no guarantee of a safe, harmless abortion. My aunt had one by a doctor and he perforated her uterus without realizing it. The ensuing infection was so bad it damaged her kidneys.She almost died. She lived another 20 years before she died of kidney failure-- as a direct result of that botched abortion.
gina, of course there's no guarantee. All you can do is minimize the risk. Most doctors are better than . . . . well, I'll stop there.
Also, before you start pinning the Founding Fs' diction down, take a look again at what you first quoted:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal, . . . ."
We're talking about fairly complex issues of interpretation, here. As well as issues of great importance to many different individuals, all of whom have a say. Luckily enough.
Lefty...perhaps you're right. But read the original Hippocratic Oath. It was changed in 1964. Doctors for at least 2,000 years have sworn to certain standards. We've changed them not only to contradict those long-standing, time-honored practices of an art, but also we've re-interpreted our founding principles to seemingly deny "MEN" of their rights. It's ironic that men have no say in the matter of abortion. It's strictly been reduced to the "right' of a woman. It gives some women more rights than men,or anyone else for that matter. In my mind that special status confers more rights to a certain class of people--childbearing ones. Whether they're women or not is irrelevant, it's that I see an erosion of a basic,fundamental right that was not only stated in the Declaration of Independence, but also twice in the Bill of Rights.
Which brings me to the point of why I can't ever become a Democrat. Traditionally, the party was all about protecting the weak, the voiceless, the people that cannot protect themselves. Can you honestly say that this is who represent now?
Also, protecting the right to life may be insignificant to them, but what of a right that is significant to them? The First Amendment, for instance. If a basic right means nothing to them--one that guarantees equality--how can one take them seriously on all the other rights of less importance? It appears hypocritical and self-serving...one perhaps motivated by power than anything else.
By the way, ferret, I think I've made my case about abortion. I'll give it a rest now. Thank you for your patience...you're a dear.
Hmm.
Interesting
Gina, until you can provide me with an objective, scientific, rational basis for the idea that human life begins at conception, I will have to conclude that the only basis for it is faith. If you're going to make faith the basis for law, we might as well turn our government over to the Taliban. They're faithful, aren't they?
Gina, the Democrats are no less concerned about protecting life than the GOP. They're just less pandering to the religious folks who require the laws to comport with their theology.
Gina, most women do in fact discuss abortion with the men in their lives and reach a consensus with the men as to what to do. The question is, what happens when a consensus can't be reached? You're asking that a woman's desires be trumped by outside interests. In my view, the only time that should happen is when the fetus is viable and thus holds rights, including equal protection rights. Please read The Nine, by Jeffrey Toobin--it's a great treatment of the recent history of the Supreme Court, including the evolution of constitutional law on abortion. Justice O'Connor, a Republican, ended up crafting a mainstream approach to when the state can regulate abortion, which has worked pretty well in theory and practice.
Tedspe: Is that all you have to say for yourself?
And dsg, this is for you and your lawyerly ways:
conceive
One entry found.
Main Entry:
con·ceive Listen to the pronunciation of conceive
Pronunciation:
\kən-ˈsēv\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
con·ceived; con·ceiv·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French conceivre, from Latin concipere to take in, conceive, from com- + capere to take — more at heave
Date:
14th century
transitive verb1 a: to become pregnant with (young) conceive a child b: to cause to begin : originate a project conceived by the company's founder
Now how about you prove that life doesn't exist at conception?
Well, Gina, I think the burden is on you, since you're the one who wants to impose a religious tenet upon our civil laws. Dictionary definitions aren't enough to prove anything, either. But in the interest of argument, let's look at a couple of ways in which human life doesn't begin at conception.
1. If we're going to get all subjective like religions do, I don't recall being conceived, so as far as I'm concerned, I wasn't alive, and would have had no consciousness of the termination of any existence I might have had.
2. From a scientific point of view, at conception, what exists is a zygote, not even a fetus. There is nothing about the zygote that constitutes a separate human life. If you're going to treat a zygote as a separate human life, you can just as well treat a cancer cell the same way, because from a biological point of view, there's little difference between them at that point.
dsg...What religious tenet? I was simply pointing out what the men who founded this country said themselves. They used the term 'Creator', they used the term that we are all equal as made by our Creator, and they said we were all entitled to the same rights of 'Life , liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' as was intended by our Creator.
You can interpret words any way you want, but if they intended for abortion to be legal, why would they state those things in not only The Declaration of Independence, but also twice in the Bill of Rights?
As far as using a dictionary such as Webster's, it usage is standard. The history of those words go back centuries. Are you now challenging the legitimacy of the English language?
In regards to whether or not a fetus or zygote is indeed human, I would advise you to take a college level genetics class--there you will learn that from the moment of conception each creation is a genetically complete individual person. Not just it's mother, not just it's father, but one, complete, brand new human person. Perhaps you know different people than me, but I have never known of a single human woman to give birth to anything other than another human being.
So, sir, I think the burden of proof is upon you to prove your assertion.
Are you sure you don't own stock in the bio-tech industry?
Gina, now you're being disingenuous. You're taking the words of the founders and the definitions in the dictionary and stretching them beyond all recognition. There's no evidence that unborn fetuses were on their minds at all when they wrote of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so you can't say that their idea bars abortion unless you take the leap of faith in saying that human life begins at conception; the same goes for your interpretation of the definition of "conception," which takes the dictionary meaning and expands it to include ideas that just don't exist in the actual words being used. You're free to believe that life begins at conception, but you can't impose laws on other people based on that item of faith. As for the zygote, it's something different, just like a cancer cell is something different, but whether it is an actual person is a matter of opinion and/or belief.
dsg: You're the one that's being disingenuous.
You're trying to redefine commonly held beliefs by repeating your version enough in hopes that people will just give up and let you bully and badger your way into power. That is how the Socialists took over Nazi Germany.
I ask you again...prove that human life does not begin at conception....what propels it to grow? If it were simply the mother, she should be able to will it to die.She has to terminate its life, or get help from someone on the outside. No,your assertion can't be true. It must have a will of its own, something in it that grows by itself with the help of its mother's body.
I'll bet you argue in front of the mirror when there's no one else to do the job, huh?
"The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring…represents the most humane act of mankind." (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10.)
". . .we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is ' absolutely prohibited ' to the feeble-minded." (Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, The Pivot of Civilization, p.102.)
A cancer cell has to be killed to keep it from growing, does that make it a person? Simple growth is not the key criterion for human life. And posting the notions of Adolf Hitler or even Margaret Sanger is not pertinent to this discussion, which is about individual choice, not state-imposed actions. In my opinion, which is shared by the Republican-dominated Supreme Court, the fetus does not enjoy the legal status of being a human being until viability. Until then, the mother can deal with it without restriction. You should focus on convincing people not to abort, not coercing that behavior through the power of the state.
First of all, I don't consider myself a Republican.
Secondly, the earliest an baby was delivered and survived was 20 weeks gestation.
I presume that you are against late-term abortion, then--when a living baby is killed once it passes through the birth canal?
Judging by what you say, the courts are in contradiction of themselves.
Here you go dsg...just for you...sound familiar?
http://www.voncampe.com/contempt_life.html
How is Margaret Sanger not pertinent to the discussion about abortion? She founded Planned Parenthood--the biggest abortion provider in America.
She was a firm believer in the science of eugenics and felt that blacks were inferior people.Did you know that there is a disproportionate of black abortions and abortion clinics in black neighborhoods than any other race?
I thought you might want to know that in case you want to vote for Obama.
Gina, I'm familiar with the Nazis' philosophy. I'm not sure of its relevance to our discussion, but I suspect you've proven Godwin's law once again.
Gina, the Supreme Court's issue with regard to late-term abortion restrictions has been to permit those restrictions if they allow an exception for the health or life of the mother. The court's decisions with regard to the bans on so-called partial birth abortions were distinguishable (and consistent) on that basis.
As for Planned Parenthood, I don't have to agree with Margaret Sanger's philosophy to agree with the benefits the organization has provided. Should I not purchase Ford cars because Henry Ford was a fascist? My second wife's late father was a believer in eugenics, who founded organizations based on that belief. Should I not have married her, even if she didn't agree with him?
Gina, your arguments have lost all rationality in favor of the use of guilt by association and the parade of horribles. You might want to quit before you fall even further behind.
dsg--you've got the screwiest logic.
Health of the mother can mean psychological health--as in 'I can't handle it, so kill it'.
And yes, you should question supporting an organization with questionable beginnings. And as for benefits of that organization,, what would those be?
To buy a Ford or not? Maybe that's why they're such sucky cars...founded by a facist.
About your second wife. Well, maybe that's why you're no longer married to her...apples don't fall far from the tree.
Are you Jewish?
Why would you ask such a question?
Whoa, Nelly! Let's make sure we're not treading into treacherous waters, here. Gina, DSG - I doubt you will ever be able to have a protracted discussion on this issue. Try to remember our mission here - polite, respectful debate...
Yup.
Thats' why all I say is "hmm. Interesting"
:)
You remind me of my first husband.
He's the son of a lawyer and thinks he's one, too.
If I thought I was an attorney, I'd probably be a self-taught attorney.
Like Max Cady.
That's why all I say is:
"hmm. Interesting"
I didn't mean you Tedspe...Aren't you in the septic business?
I meant dsg.
Oh, man, so many tempting things to say, but I'm going to ignore the devil on my left shoulder and keep my trap shut.
I'm a temptress,DSG, didn't you know that?
Maybe you'll keep your mouth shut about being Jewish, but maybe you can answer this for me--seeing how you're so smart and all.
I've for years wondered how Jews-- who were persecuted by the Nazi's and treated as less than human--can support abortion? They do in overwhelming numbers, it seems.
I've honestly never understood it. About the only Jewish politician that speaks out against it is Leiberman, and he pays for it. It seems so inconsistent.
gina - Lieberman's pro-choice. That's part of the reason that McCain couldn't pick him for veep, even though he wanted to...
Why, thank you ferret. I stand corrected. For some reason I had it in my head that he was pro-life, or at least came out and said that the issue should be re-examined. His voting record is in complete contradiction of that notion.
Maybe I thought that because he's an Orthodox Jew.
Gina, here's a link to a number of online sources talking about the Jewish view of abortion:
http://tinyurl.com/3gjymc
I still don't think my religion, if any, is pertinent to this discussion.
dsg: Thanks for the link.
You first said you were a converted Catholic...or at least sought to convert for lust.
I happen to think religion is pertinent to the abortion debate. I think it's unfortunate that the Democratic party has a number of politicians (Biden, Pelosi and Kerry to name a few) that profess to be Catholic, but must go against the most basic tenet of their religion in order to toe the party line. I'd like to know why that is. There's just no room in the party unless one compromises their moral integrity.It seems that there is flat-out bigotry towards Catholics in the modern day democratic party.
Furthermore, it's hard to believe that any Catholic democrat can claim moral superiority over this war and Bush policies when they themselves have lost theirs. They should just denounce their religion altogether.
dsg:
Since we're exchanging links, here's one for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98I85ceICRM
Gina, that's a cool link, thanks. I did say previously that I converted to Catholicism. I studied for 9 months and was baptized at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart on Easter Day 1979.
You're welcome.
Well, then as a Catholic, you do understand that sanctity of life is a sacred belief, right?
You do understand that in order to take communion that one must be in good standing with the Church? Don't you think it's hypocritical and arrogant of politicians like Biden and Pelosi pick and choose what tenets they want to follow?
How do they reconcile that? All it does is destroy their credibility.
And before you point out the flaws of the Church and the pedophilia scandal, the Church has paid out millions and millions of dollars to victims and has set policies into place to correct wrongdoing. And that money comes straight out of the pocket of the innocent members that had nothing to do with the crimes.What have these politicians done to rectify their sins?
Gina, most Catholics I know pick and choose which Church strictures they will follow; few can live in the modern world and avoid making that compromise. I try not to judge whether anyone is truly honoring his or her faith; that's his or her own personal business.
One thing: Given how Jesus said to render unto Caesar and all that, and since the politicians you cite, to my knowledge, have only expressed the notion that abortion should be permitted under civil law (not Church law), and have not actually participated in an abortion, I don't understand how you can argue that they are not in good standing. I hold the view that Catholics should be able to divorce and remarry. Does my opinion mean that I'm not in good standing?
Notwithstanding my actual divorces, of course.
Sorry, picking and choosing only works with catholics, not Catholics.
I think Jesus meant taxes, not men's souls. I suppose these men will have to take it up with their God, or god, whomever they meet when they meet their end. We'll never know, will we?
As far as divorce, there is such a thing as annulment. It's usually granted when the marriage wass done under false pretenses. I suppose lust would qualify.
Gina, I think Jesus' exact words were: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." I don't see any mention of taxes, just "things." That's pretty broad. The original Christian religion never saw the state as its agent, and I don't believe the Church should look to the state to enforce its laws.
I suppose that God would have nothing to say about taking away the life of some 'thing' he created?
Do you know what I think is funny? That on our money it says 'In God We Trust'. And considering the state of affairs our country is in and the value of our dollar,it would seem that God is not too happy.
Here dsg...this is more my to liking when it comes to music:http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/paul+simon/slip+slidin+away_20105975.html
God can deal with abortion however He wishes. Government should stay out of it, though.
Dsg:
Don't you have a habeus corpus to write or something equally important to do than argue about apples and oranges?
Gina, lawyers love to argue. It's mother's milk to us.
Yes, I've noticed.Even with people that think they're lawyers....
Yes, but the pseudo-lawyers don't do it quite so well.
You mean yourself, right?
No. I am, in fact, licensed to practice law in the State of California and all of its courts, the District Courts for the Northern and Eastern Districts of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Tax Court.
Yes, perhaps dear dsg, but do you work as one? I mean other than argue in the court of public opinion?
124001
In other words, yes.
Gina, you're not going to bait me. I know who and what I am, and I don't need anyone's opinion to validate me.
I'm teasing you. I'm sure your time is valuable. And I appreciate you taking the time to discuss abortion with me.
Post a Comment