Why Abortion Must be Kept Legal and Safe

As a conservative, I believe that abortion in general is bad. No, Roe vs. Wade should not be overturned. But for the most part abortion should be kept legal for situations such as rape, incest or other extenuating circumstances that I will not even begin to define. But it's all based on responsibility.

But with the new Nebraska "Safe Haven" law, I see parallels with the concept of responsibility. The safe haven law allows parents to drop off children that they are unable to keep without fear of prosecution for child abandonment. First oof, how this law got passed is beyond me, but i don't live in Nebraska and don't know the law and its history, but obviously it got what it needed to become a law. So let's just assume that the lawmakers and those who voted for it knew what they were getting into.

But so far as of October 14th, 18 kids have been dropped off. Wow. That's a lot of abandoned kids. I'd like to think that those families had drug problems or abuse problems, but unfortunately that's not the case. From this story, it looks like at least 11 were dropped off due to "overwhelmed" parents. Are out of control kids or parents who can't cope, the reason this law was made? Well, over 50% of those who've taken advantage of it so far are using it for this purpose.

So what does this have to do with abortion? I'll tell you what.

I'd be willing to bet (no scientific proof even attempted) that a very large number of abortions performed in our country are due to irresponsibility. And unfortunately, the most irresponsible people are young people. Me, I'm married with two kids and we are not in the market for a third, so if we accidentally get pregnant again, then at least my wife and I can take the responsibility for our irresponsibility. Perhaps we'd blame me for not getting snipped. Who knows. But when a 14 year old gets pregnant the first time she has sex because she wants to feel "loved" or a college student gets a little too drunk and has unprotected sex with a stranger, then you're talking about irresponsibility plain and simple.

Can we really expect our children to pay the consequences for these youthful decisions that are driven by very primitive motives? Have the married men out there ever had morning wood and absolutely had to have sex before taking a shower? I think that primal desire goes on through a majority of our lives.

So, while I don't believe in an easy fix for irresponsibility, do we really want more unwed teens- kids raising kids? Do we really want kids without fathers? Do we really want families that have to suffer a life of poverty because their parents couldn't finish school because they had an unplanned chiled? Don't get me wrong, those who have the kids and really try typically seem to have all the love that any other family might have, but it's really not a pattern that should be encouraged or even deemed acceptable.

So to summarize, the "Safe Haven" law is a ridiculous law that shows just how irresponsible many parents are- willing to drive cross country to Nebraska to take advantage of this law. But based on those early statistics, the logically similar unplanned pregnancy statistics deem it crucial that abortion be kept legal- not as a safety net like the abortion pill, but as a safe (though murderous) alternative to bringing unplanned children into the world to be raised by irresponsible people. And yes, it's still murder, so I don't think God's too cool with any part of this process. But unfortunately, it's a worldly problem that affects everyone- regardless of their involvement (don't you realize that our tax money goes to pay for these wards of the state?)

The Ideal World Series is at Hand...

As you can tell, I've lost some fire for the presidential election. And my passion is now directed towards something that's a little more pure, and consistent: Baseball- and specifically, the world series. Here's a little background in case you're curious.

Growing up in southern California, i was raised a Dodger fan, with the likes of Lopes, Garvey, Russell and Cey. When I was 11, the Dodgers made the playoffs against the Montreal Expos. I went to a game with my dad and for some strange reason I fell in love with them. Sure I rooted for the Dodgers in the World Series, but I had found a new team. Since Montreal is sort of far from Southern California, I never went to any games, and we were a one game a year sort of family. I also adopted the Angles since we lived about half an hour from their stadium. Went to the famous Donnie Moore playoff game against the Sox in 1986. This was an era where fans would still rush the field, so with one pitch to go, me and my buddy Curtis and his brother and father were by the right field foul pole with one foot on the rail, when Dave Henderson tied the game with him bomb. We stood there for the rest of the inning sort of wondering what to do next and we eventually sat down and we lost. Being an Expos fan, I sort of rooted for the Mets that year because of Gary Carter, as well as my hatred for the team that killed the Angels that year. I then took a hiatus from baseball from about 1987 through 1992- something about college. But then in around 1992, my love for the Expos was reignited. From about 1993, I started fervishly following the Expos again and we had a great team that year. And in 1994 when we had the best record in baseball, my friend Matt (also an Expos fan) and I agreed that if they made the playoffs, we'd go watch every game.

1994 was the beginning of the end for baseball. With the strike, my Expos lost their core and the steroids era was officially born. The demise of the Expos then started the widespread description of "small market team" and they became the case study. We all know the list of famous "Ex-pos"- You want the list? Here's who left for more money either via free agency or trade (regardless of how their career went after they left)- Randy Johnson, Andreas Gallaraga, Mike Lansing, Larry Walker, Ken Hill, John Wetteland, Marquis Grissom, Rondell White, Wil Cordero, Sean Berry, Cliff Floyd, Jeff Fassero, Kirk Reuter, Moises Alou, Darren Fletcher, Carlos Perez, Mark Grudzialanak, David Segui, Henry Rodriguez, Ugueth Urtain Urbina, Pedro Martinez, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano, and oh yes, Vladimir Guerrero- and the Expos weren't even allowed to try and resign Vlad. And this is just post-1989 activity. Couple in skyrocketing salaries, no salary cap and Bud "the J-hole" Selig and his mission to eliminate small market teams like the Expos and Twins, and we have the MLB that we see now. Teams like the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, etc. always have plenty of money to sign big name players, and teams like the Royals, A's, Pirates, Rangers and Rays never have enough money to bring in real teams- and the Rays of 2008 will not be the same Rays in the next few years- the stars will be fleeced by the Yankees or other big market teams- how can you turn down $15MM+ from a big market team?

So let's focus on what we have right now. The Phillies are up 3-1 on the Dodgers. The Rays are up 3-1 on the Red Sox. First, imagine a Dodgers/Red Sox world series. That would be awesome- with the whole Manny thing and Joe Torre touch and history of each team, cross country fever. The idea of that series is making Bud Selig soil his shorts. But at this point it's not likely that the Dodgers and Sox will meet in the fall classis. In fact it looks like it'll be the Phillies and Rays in the World Series... and Selig will also soil his shorts, but on the backside.

Now as a baseball purist and fan of the underdog, I'm rooting for the Rays all the way, but talk about a ratings nightmare. Two east coast teams. One team that nobody knows about- that happens to play in a big carnival jumper. I'll watch every game, but the powers that be are not happy with their product and the nightmare that will ensue. It's sad that our national pasttime has devolved into more of a popularity contest with hopeless hometown fans. Just look at the Marlins after 1997- worst record in 1998 or even after 2003- missed the playoffs. So these Cinderella story seasons are just that, but with no sequel. Go Rays!

Do you Have Pac Man Fever?

Finally, someone has written up a definitive list of incidents surrounding Adam "Pac Man" Jones. As usual, another well paid and well skilled athlete gets yet another slap on the wrist and yet another chance to redeem himself. He may be suspended for four games, but let's see what happens after that month off. My guess is that his latest drunk fighting incident isn't worthy of expulsion. And I'm willing to bet that Jerry Jones will feel the same way

Seriously, Will Old Guys Ever Get NASCAR Respect?

Jeff Burton is by no means old- he's 42. Now that's old if you're in the NBA or any other team sport, but he's a NASCAR driver. NASCAR is traditionally a sport where many drivers don't even reach prominence til they're in their 30s. Bobby Labonte won in all in 2000 when he was 36. Dale Jarrett was 43 when he won in 1999. Dale Earnhardt was 43 in 1994.

Jeff Burton has been finished in the top 10 in points 7 times (including the past 3 years). So what's the problem with him not getting any respect? I wrote before that he wasn't even mentioned in a race highlight feature on ESPN, but today, some clown still insists that he has no chance to win in 08 because he doesn't win races. Alan Kulwicki won in 1992 by winning only 2 races and by being consistent... and because of bad luck by a few other drivers. Does this author really believe that drivers ahead of Burton will finish the season without any bad luck at all? Kyle Busch was winning the entire season until some bad luck- and look at him now.

Again, I've never been a Jeff Burton fan, but in rooting for the underdog, I'm becoming one. I'm sick of guys like him not getting any respect because the younger sexier "name" drivers with big ears or big teeth get more glory than the little engine that can.

How is Obama Connected to our Current Mortgage Crisis?

I've heard a lot of talk about censorship on Youtube of conservative videos. I just saw this one and it is incredible. I recommend that everyone confirm the facts on their own. I've gotten about halfway through factchecking and I'm satisfied. Sure it generalizes a bit, but the bottom line is that Obama is not the answer. McCain and Bush are less to blame for the mortgage problems than Obama and the democrats. See for yourself.



A few facts that stand out:

Banks have contributed more to Obama than to McCain- of course they play both sides, but the amount given to Obama far outweighs what McCain has received.

Jimmy Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act which basically expanded lending practices to lower income folks. And if lending institutions were not giving enough of these loans to low income/minority borrowers, then they were essentially cut off or limited in their ability to do business. So basically the law forced this sort of lending. Sounds good on paper.

• But then the S&L Meltdown led to the passing (by Republican George HW Bush) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, or as is commonly known- FIRREA (cha cha cha)
• At around the same time, democratic representative Phil Gramm authored legislation (passed into law) which increased subprime loans. Crowd favorite Bill Clinton then enacted new rules the allowed lower income people to get loans. This created the "subprime" mortgage and forced all banks to start offering them. And with those subprime mortgages came subprime mortgage securities.
• The hated one (George W. Bush) then attempted to change this law in 2005 because he saw that it was in fact a major cause for the housing market problems. But democrats opposed it and killed the proposed legislation. After all, it's the corporations that run Washington, and when the huge machine that is housing is "succeeding" then you look like an ass for trying to slow it down or stop it.
• A study in the pre-Bush era showed that predatory lending was taking advantage of gullible borrowers who were then going into foreclosure.

The further fallout of this act then led to a lowering and lowering of standards and the creation of more creative loans so that Fannie Mae could have more "product" to sell to investors. "Interest only", "no-doc", "option ARM". Heard of those? They were created so that more loans could be insured by the government sponsored Fannie Mae.

But as interest rates rose and inflation rose, and these loans started defaulting, the banks realized that the party was over and they stopped offering these loans. And with those borrowers now unable to refinance with a more affordable loan, more defaults resulted, and then depreciated home values, and then less people able to refinance, so more defaults. And so on.

Prior to the CRA, home values increased with inflation. But especially after Clinton's 1995 move, home values started going up way faster than inflation- that's right, starting in about 1996- before Bush was in office. And that's when speculators started coming in and buying "investment homes"- of course oftentimes lying about the true purpose of these homes. Trust me, as an Appraiser I've seen plenty of "owner occupied" loans where it was obvious that it wasn't true. But I was told that the home was owner occupied. It's not my job to check a person's ID when I appraise their home. I could have suspected all day long, but that did nothing to solve the problem- nor would it have.

Bush tried in 2003 to help regulate and stop this potential cycle, but democrats and the companies involved argued that it would limit their ability to lend to lower income people... The machine was "working" so Bush gave up.

And John McCain also tried to introduce legislation that would regulate Fannie and Freddie- and it too was blocked by the democrats.

Have you heard of Obama's trusted adviser James Johnson, who led his search for a vice presidential candidate? Johnson was president of Fannie Mae during the CRA expansion. He was most recently on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs- which gave Obama over $600,000. Johnson received "special" loans from Countrywide. He had to remove himself from the campaign when the Obama camp learned that he received those loans- from the company that would benefit from bailout legislation.

Have you heard of Franklin Raines? He was also a former president of Fannie Mae but was forced to retire under an investigative cloud over accounting standards and has been charged with a whole slew of crimes. Now I've read all over the place that he is/was Obama's adviser. But I believe that's merely sensationalism that is unfounded. But, he's worth mentioning here. He also received about $4 million in special Countrywide loans. He was also in the Carter administration when the CRA was first created! In June of 2008, the Washington Post reported that Obama's office had sought housing/mortgage platform advice from Raines. Three months later, McCain put out an ad touting that Obama and Raines are in cahoots. Only then- three months later, did the Obama camp officially refute the June 2008 article... oh and by the way, Raines received a $25 million dollar Fanniechute. Exactly the sort of thing that Obama is campaigning against. Why would the Obama camp refute this relationship only after negative press was brought out about it?

And did you know that between 1989 and 2008 Obama received $126k in campaign contributions from Freddie Mac? And I don't think Obama was in office that entire time- perhaps only about 4 years of that 20 year period. But during the same 20 year span, McCain only received $25k. And I think that McCain was serving our country during that entire span. I think that translates to about $31,500 per year to Obama and $1250 per year for McCain. Now why would Freddie give so much more to Obama than McCain? Or better put, why would Freddie give so much less to the man who wanted to impose restrictions on their business?

Moving on, did you know that Obama's law firm represented many lower class black people in Chicago? Sounds good. But he allegedly sued banks for not giving enough loans to low income people...

On an aside not worthy of its own post, did you know that the speaker of the house- Nancy Pelosi has the audacity to say that democrats have nothing to do with our current economic crisis? If you've read this post so far and confirmed any of the facts, maybe you would see her one word answer as flat out comical. Is she saying that republicans are 100% responsible for this? One would think...

So to summarize, Barack Obama's party and his own history shows that he is a major part of the economic problem in general, and the mortgage situation specifically. Yet he continues to blame the Bush administration for our failed economic situation. He categorizes McCain as one who offers the same solution as Bush.

How dare he. I'm pissed at that hypocrite.

I'm sure there are other bloggers who are more articulate than me, but my point here is that everyone needs to know this information about Obama. And if they still love the guy, then that's fine. But so little has been made of this that it's a disservice not to be educated so as to elect the best candidate to lead our country on this front and all others. Please do your own due dilligence. Get educated on your own. Don't believe the headlines and Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews and Bill Maher. Find out these things on your own.

Where does the McCain/Palin Campaign Go From Here?

Wow,

I think we're in trouble here. And when I say "we", I don't mean republicans, I mean Americans. I've been a McCain supporter/ Obama basher for a short while now. All the time trying to educate my friends on why this Obama character will not be good for our country. But unfortunately, it looks like his opposition is showing a level of confusion and ineptitude that will allow Obama to waltz into office and begin the further descent of our nation. Never mind the possible no-show for the debate from last week, I'm talking about Sarah Palin.

Like many conservatives, I was pleasantly surprised by McCain's VP choice of Sarah Palin. I thought that she brought a great fervor to the campaign that would draw in a portion of Americans that was desperately needed- in fact two specific groups- right wing conservatives who don't like McCain and might not have voted, and women. She's truly free from legitimate controversy- and when I say legitimate, I'm talking about all the bull that the liberal tabloid press has been digging for. Now I'm not saying that it's untrue, but to think that politicians do not do things to further their own personal agenda is asinine. And in a small town, it truly is like Mayberry.

It really is unfair the amount of crap she's taking. I'm ok with criticism, but the vicious criticism is just plain barbaric and very typical of democrats. The CBC Network recently apologized for such an attack. Sandra Bernhardt got away with what Michael Richards and Dog the Bounty Hunter and Don Imus couldn't.

But what I'm talking about is her performance over the past few weeks including her recent Katie Couric interview. Now right or wrong, it's all about perception and my God, I perceived her as clueless. Or if not clueless on topical knowledge, then clueless on the proper way to answer the types of questions asked of her so as not to make her look bad. Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and you realized that that person (or maybe you) has no idea what they're talking about, and rather than defer, they start rambling. And at that point you've sort of tuned out of what they're saying. That's what I see in Palin. But the problem is, she needs to speak- we need to get to know her, but she doesn't know enough to speak intelligently.

Is she intelligent? Is she articulate? Is she likeable? Absolutely. But she's just not ready for prime time. Can she get ready on the job? Sure. And I'd much rather have the co-pilot in this scenario than the pilot. But our pilot is old, and their pilot is young. If you see two dudes in literal pilot uniforms on the tarmac and one is 40 something and black and the other is 70 something and white, I'd guess that 9 out of 10 would pick the young black pilot. But put that older co-pilot with the black guy and the attractive female copilot for the old white guy, and you'll see that drop to perhaps 5 out of 5. But ask those copilots about flying a 747, and you'll know right away if they are qualified to fly it.

Unless the McCain/Palin campaign is planning to pull off the ultimate bait and switch, sandbagging, sneak attack move, then we're done.

And here's another thing. I live in a town of 25,000- surrounded by about 35,000 county residents. I could find nothing about grass roots McCain/Palin campaigning. I sent an email to the McCain/Arizona campaign department... and I've heard nothing back from them. Not giving me much confidence in their organization skills. I hate trying to volunteer but then getting either rebuffed or ignored.

McCain Pulling out of Debate- The Slants

First I listened to the liberal radio station- "He's tucking tail" "He knows he can't beat Obama" "He can't multitask" "He can't use a computer" Of course, lots of callers with their jokes about his age, calling him a Bush loyalist, he's a liar, etc.

Then I listened to the conservative station- "He's doing the noble thing" "He knows that this crisis it too important to avoid" "Obama should do the same" And then of course lots of callers commenting on how Obama will spin this negatively against McCain, Obama doesn't know what to do in a crisis, etc.

It's the polarity of these people that just drives me absolutely crazy. Stop the insanity!