Longsuffering Wife?

Within the abundance of words spoken and written about the disgraced (and now ex-) Governor of New York, there were a couple observations I found particularly astute. Given the ordinary drone of an [em]pathetic MSM ("it's only sex," "two consenting adults," etc. ad nauseum), it was especially heartening to read Jan LaRue on TownHall: Stand by your Womanizer. Finally! Someone who gets it.

We've seen this paint-by-number canvas in both political and religious mea culpas. Maybe it's part of the Faustian bargain these couples are willing to make to maintain their grasp of power, but is the moment of confession really a marital moment? Shouldn't this man — who has already kicked his wife in the teeth via his bad behavior — be made to stand alone and endure the shame of his own actions?! Why is she making it so cushy for him?

Don't get me wrong. I'm a strong proponent of forgiveness and restoration, but it seems to me easy forgiveness glosses over the transgression and often precurses further, more egregious transgressions.

Recall the scene in Gone With the Wind where Scarlett, clad appropriately in a revealing but stunning red frock Rhett has chosen for her to wear, and Rhett in white-tie-and-tails stand at Melanie's front door, late arrivers for Ashley's "surprise" birthday party. As the door opens, Rhett doffs his top hat and says, "Good night, Scarlett."

Naturally, she entreats him not to leave, but Rhett tells her: "You go into the arena alone. The lions are hungry ..." Rhett exits, intending to give Melanie "the satisfaction of publicly ordering you out of her house."

It's perfect, of course. Yet Melanie, a picture of grace and unconditional loving friendship, hardly misses a beat in assuring Scarlett is warmly received into her home. No recriminations, not even the hint of hostility.

A couple scenes later, Scarlett (now at home) descends the staircase in search of liquid comfort, and unexpectedly finds Rhett, drunk and belligerent. He pours brandy into a glass for her and roughly insists she stay seated. He says: "So she stood by you. How does it feel to have the woman you've wronged cloak your sins for you?"

There's a time for Melanie-like forgiveness, but Rhett Butler's approach, insisting Scarlett "face the music" without him there as a buffer, is highly appropriate and long overdue in these public confessions. I hope I'll live long enough to witness a self-respecting wife who refuses to play into this charade of the longsuffering wife. It's not forgiveness. It's degrading.

Coulter Nails It (Him) Again

No time to write an original post this morning, so I'll have to settle for a nod to the opinion of another.

Coulter: How to Keep Reagan Out of Office

Particularly relevant to this blog's usual object d'homage (how's that for imaginary French?), but also a powerful argument for those conservatives — and you know who you are — who see the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" as "No big deal."

Drew Carey — Living Large

If there's a quota for maximum number of posts per day, I'm probably pushing the limit. Nevertheless, this video was such a breath of fresh air, I had to post it. Drew Carey presents a compelling case that puts the lie to all the naysayers we usually hear on the nightly news.


Living Large and reason.tv ... the American Dream is alive and flourishing ... how blessed we are to be participants (and recipients)!

Proud of My Country

Almost anyone who has taken a gander at the blogosphere or recent news stories is probably aware of Mrs. Barack Obama's February 18th comments in Madison, Wisconsin.

I can't improve on the comments here and here so I won't try.

Candidate Obama's website prominently features the slogan "Change we can believe in." So I have to ask: what changed? The candidate's wife was, by her own admission —"for the first time in my adult lifetime" suddenly "really proud of my country." One must infer a notable CHANGE has, in fact, taken place in Michelle Obama's outlook. And I'm curious. What exactly sparked this swelling of pride?

The context of her comments was Mrs. Obama's contention that "hope is making a comeback" in America. [Especially when lacking experience or wishing to evade specifics, wily political candidates have relied upon a will-o'-the-wisp banner of "hope"as their substitute. Remember Clinton's oft-repeated slogan: "I still believe in a place called Hope."]

If hope is indeed "making a comeback," it's not because circumstances have changed but because some people (Michelle Obama?) choose to view their circumstances through a different lens.

When Ronald Reagan characterized America as "the last best hope of man on earth," it wasn't an accidental turn of the phrase. It was the Great Communicator's acknowledgment of the red-white-and-blue blood that courses through the veins of most American citizens — call it pride. We love our country, and no matter what her shortcomings, America is still land of the free and home of the brave. Proud of my country? You bet!

So what if it took Michelle Obama 40+ years to find in her heart some basic pride for country. I say, welcome to the party. Better late than never.

Payday Loans, Part One

Ask five random people what "usury" is and you'll likely get five blank stares. If you were to ask five people who worked in banking, you might find one or two people able to define the term.

Simple answer: usury is charging interest (on a loan) at a rate so excessive the borrower has difficulty paying off the loan. Usury is probably almost as old as economic exchange, but as an Old Testament concept, there was a moral component attached to it; you weren't supposed to charge interest on a loan to your brother (relative) but you could charge interest to a foreigner (stranger).

What's "excessive"? In the Old Testament (Nehemiah 5:10-11), 1% — or 12% per year — is acceptable. (Rates above 1% were considered usury.) Recognizing the truth of Proverbs 22:7b ("the borrower becomes the lender's slave"), once upon a time many state constitutions mandated "usury limits" as a reasonable protection for their citizens.

Given this background, consider a particular television commercial that penetrated my consciousness this morning. Toward the end of the spot I had mostly ignored, a tranquil, but authoritative voice issued this admonition: "Always use payday loans responsibly."

Responsibly? As in, whenever you require extra cash and just happen to feel like 250% interest isn't going to be a problem? As in, you don't have money to buy diapers for the baby so you get a payday loan where the service fees alone would cover the cost for two or more packages of diapers? With interest rates on payday loans ranging (according to one source) "between 390% and 780%," is it possible to use the word responsibly without wondering whether a lightning bolt might reasonably strike you dead?

Do a Google search for "payday loans" and almost 52 million (!) results come up. I didn't check every result but I suspect the majority are gateway sites to these "lenders" who are more than anxious to "serve" you.

Do a Google search for "loan shark" and you'll get a paltry half million (506,000) results, many of which are articles about loan sharks as opposed to vendors (lenders?). (I guess loan sharks are less likely to hang out their shingles, depending instead on their version of a 300-pound, brass-knuckled Vinnie for "customer relations.")

But here's an irony: in its article on loan sharks, Wikipedia mentions payday loans, characterizing them as a "type of consumer finance." Ha! — Similar to Vinnie's brass knuckles being one "type" of non-conforming collection instrument, huh?

In its 2006 report Financial Quicksand, the Center for Responsible Lending determined: "Ninety percent (90%) of payday lending revenues are based on fees stripped from trapped borrowers ... The typical payday borrower pays back $793 for a $325 loan."

One final question: can anyone define "predatory"?

Angry White Men: The Return

As Obama and Shrillary continue their scorched-earth campaigns across the Democrat party landscape, I found the following column, by Gary Hubbell for the Aspen Times Weekly, extraordinarily enlightening.

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man

If, like me, you are lucky enough to have a husband, a father, and/or a brother who fit the moniker of "angry white man" as described therein, you'll also find the column highly entertaining.

Come to think of it, maybe I'm a female "angry white male"...

Where's the Outrage?

Some news stories pack more of an impact than others. For me, one of those stories involves a police officer. This individual, with nine years serving his department and city as a K-9 officer and detective, is also a husband and father of two (the eldest a preteen daughter).

Last year, a federal grand jury charged him with three counts of child pornography, and just days ago — in a plea deal — the man admitted guilt to one count of distributing child porn.

Notwithstanding his betrayal of the public trust, the man’s crimes were characterized by one of his defense attorneys as “‘aberrational’ and inconsistent with his history as a dedicated police officer and conscientious citizen.”

Another defense attorney allowed as how “There’s no question that [his client] lived an exemplary life up to this point.” The attorney further claimed his client’s “conduct was not personally violent.” (I get it. Defense attorneys are supposed to present their clients as upstanding members of the community.)

Thankfully, a resolute US Assistant Attorney rejected these defense portrayals, noting the nature of sexual acts perpetrated on children is (and should be justifiably categorized as) the very definition of violence!

Why should this news story matter to me? I don’t know this fellow nor am I acquainted with his family or anyone related to the crime. But the story reminds me, once again, how deceitful are those people who insist pornography is a “victimless crime.” What bilge!

I grieve for this man and the damage his actions have foisted upon (who-knows-how-many?) others! Some questions for the defense attorneys: what possesses a supposedly “exemplary” individual … a husband … a father … a police officer … to consider this behavior acceptable? And what about the degradation inflicted upon the children whose images this “conscientious citizen” admitted to distributing?

Don’t get me wrong. I acknowledge this former officer’s culpability in digging his own hole, but in truth, that’s the story of addiction, isn’t it? People who would never smoke a joint or willingly inject a needle are finding their enslavement to pornography just as insidious ... and addictive ... and destructive.

When will society decide the human toll of pornography (and its residual debasement of the human psyche) has become too much? Not soon enough.