Stocks Are Set to Tank

Jason Zweig, writing in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Don’t be happy; worry.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 46% since March 9, when the world itself seemed to be coming to an end. In the entire 113-year history of the Dow, only six rebounds have been bigger and faster. But the swiftness and magnitude of this bounce-back aren’t reasons to be cheerful; they are reasons to be cautious.

In March, stocks traded as low as 11.7 times their average earnings over the previous 10 years, adjusted for inflation, according to finance professor Robert Shiller of Yale University. That put the market at its lowest valuation since January 1986. Today, however, stocks are selling at 18.4 times Prof. Shiller’s measure of earnings. That isn’t only up hugely from March but is above the long-term average of 16.3 times earnings.
[The swiftness and magnitude of the Dow’s bounce-back aren’t reasons to be cheerful; they are reasons to be cautious.] Heath Hinegardner

Robert Rodriguez, chief executive of First Pacific Advisors in Los Angeles, says that in March, investors feared getting crushed in a further decline. Now all they seem afraid of is missing an even greater rally.

Mr. Rodriguez is convinced that the consensus — economic recovery by early next year at the latest — is wrong. “People are talking about whether the shape of the recovery will be a ‘V’ or a ‘W’ or even a ‘square root,’ ” he says, “but I think we are in what I call a ‘caterpillar economy.’ It will be up and then down, up and then down. We will be far from normal for a very long period of time. People deploying capital will end up destroying capital.”

I am not as worried as Mr. Rodriguez, but it is at times like these, when a rising market sweeps our spirits up with it, that investors need to evaluate their emotions and consider whether their beliefs and actions are justified.

In August, corporate insiders — officers and directors of public companies — sold nearly 31 times as much stock as they bought. From last September through this past March, in the depths of the bear market, that ratio was just 2 to 1, according to TrimTabs Investment Research of Sausalito, Calif. The long-term average is about 7 to 1.

The people who run companies don’t know exactly what the future holds, but they do know more about their own firms than outsiders do. If they are furiously selling, how eagerly should the rest of us be buying?

It is well-known that investors chase past performance, buying whatever has just made the most money for other people. What isn’t commonly understood is that investors also chase their own past performance, buying more of whatever they themselves have made the most money on.

Research by economist David Laibson of Harvard University shows that 401(k) participants tend to add significantly to whichever funds they already own that have gone up the most. “Investors expect,” Prof. Laibson says, “that assets on which they personally experienced past rewards will be rewarding in the future, regardless of whether such a belief is logically justified.”

That is exactly what seems to be happening now: In June, according to Hewitt Associates, 401(k) participants put 41.0% of their new contributions into stocks. In July, as the Dow shot up 725 points, they pushed that rate up to 42.3%. Participants also cut their contributions to “lifestyle” funds that keep a portion of their assets in bonds and cash.

The market’s latest hot streak makes the future feel predictable, but it isn’t. The Dow had an uncannily similar 46.5% gain in the 117 days that ended April 9, 1930; it lost almost 51% over the next year. Another 47% upswing in 1971 led to a long, choppy decline of more than 37%. The market also could go nowhere, as it did for months after a similar-size gain in 1975. Or it could hit new heights, as it did in 2004 after rising 47% from the lows of 2002.

In his classic book “The Intelligent Investor,” the great money manager Benjamin Graham wrote that “the investor with a portfolio of sound stocks should expect their prices to fluctuate and should neither be concerned by sizable declines nor become excited by sizable advances.” If you can’t exercise that kind of emotional control, then by Graham’s definition you aren’t an investor at all.

I see nothing wrong with dollar-cost-averaging into this market, purchasing a fixed amount every month — especially in a low-cost stock index fund. But to buy more of what has gone up, precisely because it has gone up, is to fall for the belief that stocks become safer as their prices rise. That is the same fallacy that led investors straight into disaster in 1929, 1972, 1999, 2007 and every other market bubble in history.

The market’s light has turned yellow. Don’t try to run it.

I agree with him, although his assessment is not nearly as pessimistic as mine. Even then, when a prominent WSJ writer is sounding the alarm about a stock market rally, it should give pause to everyone who is drinking the recovery Kool-Aid.

Teachers, Watch Those Typo’s!

My Oldest daughter is taking Choir and Drama/Theater Arts for her two electives at her new Middle School. We have the option for her to take private voice lessons during her choir period once a week for an incredibly low rate.

New Husband and I discussed it Thursday night, and because of how very responsible she has become this summer, we decided to allow her to take these private voice lessons.

Oldest came home from school panicking, “Mom! You have to fill out that form and get it in, or I won’t get a slot! There were A LOT of forms turned in today!”

Being the good mom that I am, I quickly emailed her choir teacher informing her of our intent for Oldest to take private voice lessons and to inquire as to whether or not there are any slots open during school hours.

I just pulled up my inbox and saw a return email from her at the top of my inbox, and the line read:

Oldest, 4th Period – Hell, Yes, there are slots available!

I blinked a few times while the nano-second thoughts ran through my head, “OMW! We’ve just begun Middle School in this Excellence-rated school with this excellent and desired Choir program, and the choir teacher is emailing me with HELL YES?!!!”

So, I opened the email, and it read,


Yes, there are slots available! …

I think I’ll save this for posterity. I’m sure there will be sometime in the future I will want to pull this out and show her 😉

How to Shut Up a Middle Schooler

My Step Son’s mother needed to work today, so we picked him up for a few hours. I absolutely LOVE my Step Son. My Step Son is 11, just began middle school, is ADHD, is incredibly brilliant, and everywhere his brain goes, his mouth follows … talking NON-STOP.

As we were driving, I dropped my voice to ask my Husband a question. Step Son heard me drop my voice and shot out, “Am I in trouble? Are you talking about me? What are you saying? You’re talking about me!”

We were having a difficult time explaining to him that just because adults have conversation in which children are not invited, it does NOT mean the kid is in trouble or even that we’re talking about them. He just would not believe it.

Sooo … being the great parents that we are, we started in talking loudly about sex and tampons! He moved from the middle of the van to the back of the van, turned beet red, and shut up faster than a New York nano-second! Husband and I laughed and laughed!

A little later when he thought it was safe he said, “I don’t even know what tampons are. I just see these commercials on TV for Pearl tampons. I didn’t even know there were different kinds.”

Bless his heart … we had to fill him in. He turned beet red again and plugged his ears and didn’t ask any more questions!

We are still laughing. Poor kid. My girls know better than to keep on when I’ve told them to stop … from experience. I think my adorable Step Son gets it now. hehehehehe

“Should I Go Through Her Family?” and Other Issues, Part 1

Our friends at Boundless have long recommended that a man–interested in dating/courting a gal–go through the lady’s family. This has caused reactions ranging from wholehearted agreement to outright backlash.

A tangential matter is to what extent ought the church–or churches–of the two play in their relationship. At what point is it legitimate accountability? At what point does this become controlling or micromanaging that is unhealthy?

For this blog, let’s deal with the question: Should a man go through a woman’s family to gain permission to date/marry?

Where this is possible, this is a very good idea, especially if she is a Christian and her family is Christian.

While this is not a Biblical command–Take a chill pill, you ultra-libertarians out there–and while this is not an issue of “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not”, it does strike to the heart of respecting parental authority. The command to honor one’s father and mother does not go away when one turns 18.

If you are getting married, more often than not you are probably going to be having (or adopting) children. You will impart values to your children. You will want them to honor you. Ergo, it behooves you to extend that to her parents where that is possible. It helps extend a heritage for your future children.

Oh, and the times in Scripture where one circumvents parental wishes in the marital pursuit? It always ended badly. Esau and Samson come to mind.

A friend of mine–Delta Sierra, age 52–is in his second marriage. (His first ended when his wife died of cancer.)

In his first marriage, he sought permission from her mom before proposing. His bride–Kilo Sierra–appreciated that. The marriage was otherwise happy, and–like I said–only ended with her death from natural causes.

With his second wife, he met her online (Christian Cafe). After some e-mail and phone conversations, he flew from Chicago to Asheville, North Carolina. Met with her and her parents. After long conversations, he asked the parents for permission. They were married a short time later.

A friend of ours–Ted Slater of Boundless–has had instances in which the gal’s family refused his attempts to date their daughter. His attempt to circumvent that ended with him having to eat some humble pie. Prior to getting married, he went through his wife’s parents. He would probably tell us that it worked just fine.

On the other hand, FutureMrsLarijani’s parents are not believers, they live in a completely different state, and are largely uninvolved in her life. She has long been on her own. I did not seek her parents out for permission.

Still, even in her case, her home church has been her “family” for the last 10 years. Her pastor–and several families in the church–have been integral in her mentoring, and have given her an education she would not have received anywhere else.

She insisted that I go through her pastor before making any further pursuit. She told me that Wednesday was the best day to call, and I called her pastor that Wednesday. About 12 months later, the countdown is now T minus 98 days.

(For the record, I have met her mom, and her mom has a very favorable opinion of me. Her dad is uninvolved. Long story, but we’ll leave it at that.)

Are there times in which the authorities that be can deny permission–or express dissatisfaction–and the couple can honorably continue? Yes. Even as I say that, however, we must be careful to note that the operative rule is to honor one’s father and mother.

Rather than looking for reasons to circumvent that command–just like the Pharisees sought grounds to end marriages, in their attempt to drag Jesus into the divorce controversy–we should be looking for ways to keep the honor intact where that is possible.

(I am not going to give a list of reasons where I think a couple can move on, as I am not going to let this devolve into a circle-jerk over what constitutes a valid reason to marry against a parent’s wishes.)

Another Bank Bites the Dust

This, from Calculated Risk, reporting the FDIC’s latest seizure:

Affinity Bank, Ventura, California, was closed today by the California Department of Financial Institutions, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. …

As of July 10, 2009, Affinity Bank had total assets of $1 billion and total deposits of approximately $922 million. …

The FDIC and Pacific Western Bank entered into a loss-share transaction on approximately $934 million of Affinity Bank’s assets. …

The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $254 million. … Affinity Bank is the 84th FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year, and the ninth in California. The last FDIC-insured institution closed in the state was Vineyard Bank, National Association, Rancho Cucamonga, on July 17, 2009.

84 banks in about 35 weeks. We’re on pace for about 125 bank failures this year.

Sadly, the FDIC is broke. Vox reported it; MSM has now followed suit. The FDIC is in damage control mode, but the cat is out of the bag. And it’s a tiger that resembles Recon on steroids.

General Thoughts on Biblical Masculinity, Feminism, Marriage

Here is a synopsis of some key issues of Biblical masculinity, and the role of the Church:

There is no Biblical—nor historical—precedence for God’s people allowing the State to stop their promotion of Biblical ordinances.

In the Old Testament, prophets railed against the sins of society—often at great risks to their lives. In no case did a prophet of God ever hold back the truth because of government policies.

John the Baptist also preached boldly, and this ultimately got him killed. He did not hold back from condemning the sins of the Herodians, and this resulted in his imprisonment and ultimately his execution.

Jesus never minced words either. He took on the Disciples, He took on the Pharisees, He took on the Herodians, He took on the Saducees, He took on the Chief Priests, He called Herod a “fox”, He railed against the Scribes, He even faced down Pilate.

After the Resurrection, the Apostles preached boldly, even after multiple beatings, imprisonments, and brutal executions. Paul suffered tremendously, but that didn’t stop him from proclaiming the truth, even from jail and even in the face of certain death.

There is no Biblical precedence for men—even women—of God to honorably compromise on fundamental matters, even in the face of severe danger.

The Hebrew midwives faced down Pharaoh to save lives. David faced down Goliath, who was profaning God’s Name. Jonathan even faced down his dad (Saul) to protect David. Caleb and Joshua proclaimed their faith in God, even as the other spies chickened out. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego faced down Nebuchadnezzar.

The times when men defaulted and compromised? It went badly.
Barak deferred to Deborah, and—as a result, she and Jael, not Barak—got the honor in battle. Of the 12 spies who scoped out the promised land, 10 of them gave a cowardly report.

End-result: 40 more years of wilderness for Israel. Abraham lied under pressure, twice. Isaac did the same.

Why is this important? That leads me to the next point:

Biblical masculinity is about acting—not just standing—for the truth, even under unfavorable circumstances.

This does not mean that real men of God never experience fear. Moses was apprehensive. As was Elijah and even Gideon. Still, masculinity means acting in boldness, even when the feelings of fear are present.

The examples of God delivering victory—when the odds against His people are overwhelming—are substantial.

In the New Testament, we are not guaranteed favorable outcomes in this world, as—if one is a Christian—one’s ultimate home is not on this earth. And yet there are no instances of any Apostle advising anyone in the Church to stop proclaiming ordinances that are matters of Scripture.

In the context of marriage, does that mean that God has called all men to get married? Of course not. Nor does remaining single necessarily represent a sign of sin or cowardice.

Still, in spite of (a) the State attacks against masculinity, (b) the State’s war against natural law, and (c) the State’s capitulation to feminist dogma, none of those things are a good reason for a (1) a Christian who is otherwise inclined to marry, not to marry, or (2) the Church to punt on proclaiming the Biblical model of marriage.

While there is no command that men—inclined to marry—must do the pursuing, (1) it is the general way that men and women are wired, and (2) men who are inclined to marry, will see their chances of success skyrocket if they do the pursuing.

Even in the cases in Scripture where a woman does some of the pursuing—Tamar and Ruth in particular—there are stipulations that one must note.

(a) in Tamar’s case, Judah was actively depriving her of a Kinsman-Redeemer, and this was dishonoring his son Er. Judah was also subjecting Tamar to disgrace by denying her the possibility of having children. As a result, Tamar took extraordinary actions to vindicate herself and her deceased husband.

(b) In Ruth’s case, she did the initial pursuing, but—once Boaz caught on—he took care of business. There was, in fact, a closer next-of-kin, and Boaz negotiated aggressively so that he could get the job himself. He became the pursuer.

Moreover, a man who allows himself to be pursued, and caught, by a woman, runs a serious risk of becoming dominated by a wife who will have the motive and permission to usurp his headship.

If you oppose feminism, you are not helping your cause by requiring women to be feminists in order to land husbands.

It is not an expression of Biblical masculinity to promote a general case against marriage—because of societal risks—given that Christians under much greater duress (China, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) are paying a far greater price for the things that matter.

And yes, marriage is something that really matters. It is a covenant that is reflective of Christ’s love for the Church.

When God’s people live up to that marital covenant, they send a positive message to the world about God: as we are faithful to the marital covenant, God is even more faithful to His covenant.

When Christians eschew marriage, or—worse—cater to discord, adultery, and divorce, then that breeds cynicism: if the marital covenant means nothing to God’s people, then one has reason to doubt whether God is capable of sticking with us in our depravity.

There is no mandate that Christians must all get married. On the other hand, there is no Biblical case to discourage marriage because the State is attacking us. If times are tough, then it may be advisable—if possible—to remain single. Even then, Paul admonished the Corinthians: “it is better to marry than to burn.”

Are times sufficiently tough that singleness ought to be the general option?

No way.

Divorce rates are very overstated, and plummet dramatically when you factor in regular church attendance, robust premarital counseling, examination of statistics by specific cohort, and regular family prayer.

For the Christian who desires to marry, the outlook is not nearly as bad as advertised. Even with the lurking threat of feminism, there is no case for living in fear.

Moreoever, feminism will never die until men decide that it will die.

If men did the latter, feminism would be in the dustbin by sundown, and once the women realized how much they would enjoy the nights, they would wonder aloud why they ever embraced such a stupid, self-destructive, genocidal ideology.

And the men would be worn out by sunrise.

Must the Church Wait for the State, Intro

This is going to serve as the backdrop for my thoughts on the matter, which shall hopefully be posted this weekend.

In a thread on Anakin’s blog, Davout posits the following. My responses are provided

This is an example of the ‘is-ought’ fallacy. Just because men have a higher sex drive on average than women, it does not necessarily follow that the burden of pursuit should fall upon men.

While it is hardly morally wrong for a woman to do the pursuing, and while it is hardly morally wrong for the man not to do the pursuing, one must ask the question of whether it is reasonable for a man–who wishes to marry–to wait for a woman to pursue him.

We can sit here and circle-jerk over “musts” versus “oughts” versus “good versus better”, but the fact remains: if a man wishes to get married, the percentages are MUCH GREATER in his favor if HE does the pursuing.

I know a guy in a singles group at a very large church. He’s a year my senior. He’s been at that church for at least 15 years. He’s been in the “singles ministry” the entire time.

He’s the stereotypical “nice guy”: a good guy who is at every ministry function, works hard for a living, but rarely ever gets a date let alone a serious marital prospect. He is VERY passive in the pursuit matter, and his mannerisms smack VERY MUCH of the “awww shucks” pushover. Exactly what Roissy would call a “beta”.

Now I’m not saying that God can’t drop a great Christian gal into his lap, nor am I suggesting that he is living in sin by not doing the pursuing.

On the other hand, his chances would be a heck of a lot better if he did the pursuing, and if he became more assertive and decisive.

I would call that more of an exercise in masculinity, rather than “game”.

In fact, exercising such masculinity, far from being “game”, is a man’s way of refusing to be “gamed” by the women. In their heart of hearts, most women would prefer a man who will not be “gamed”.

I think of it like wrestling. When your opponent shoots in for a takedown, you have a couple of options: (a) a reflexive countermove–which is defensive–or (b) a countermove which uses the opponent’s momentum to your advantage. Really good wrestlers will use the latter. The end-result: you maintain control and score big points in takedowns and nearfalls.

For the secularist, that control is for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

For the Christian, it’s about exercising legitimate Biblical leadership. If the husband is head of the wife, it is within the man’s best interests that he prove himself capable of leading.

Davout responded with the following:

I am not arguing with that. In non-feminist times, your arguments make sense.

However, we live in feminist times. The incentives for men to get married are much less than they were pre-feminism. Any man who gets married is putting a great deal of faith in his wife that she doesn’t whimsically abuse her privileges to use the state against him.

Given the decreased incentive for men to marry, it is logical that men should proportionately decrease their pursuit of women.

One alternative is to fix the system. Another is to leave the country and find a mate in a non-feminist country. Yet another is to find meaning in one’s life without marriage.

Encouraging men to get married in a feminist country would only perpetuate the problem because married men fund the state, through ignorance and/or cowardice.

Your approach has no Biblical precedence. Since when does God ever command the Church to wait for the State to clean up the political scene, before the Church can promote the very things that God ordained in Creation?

Women and men today are impacted by feminism, just as men and women of the First Century were impacted by the banal and lascivious culture of that day. The threat was not simply one of divorce, but rather getting betrayed into the hands of government.

And yet, while Paul wished others could be like him–celibate–he also said, “it’s better to marry than to burn”, even has he provided very harsh admonishments to husbands and wives regarding submission and headship. Ephesians 5 comes to mind…

Paul didn’t back down from promoting Biblical leadership, even in the face of government opposition to the Church on nearly every front.

What you’re suggesting is that the Church just punt on marriage altogether and wait for the State to return marriage to status quo ante circa 1950.

That’s not even close to Biblical masculinity, Davout. In fact, that failure of the Church to promote Biblical headship/submission–in favor of the Metrosexual Jesus (also known as “Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild”)–is exactly what got the Church where it is now.

You are conflating two matters: (a) the premise that the man who aspires to marry, should do the pursuing, as that is a higher-percentage move, and (b) the fact that marriage is less favorable to men.

As for men placing faith in the woman not abusing her position, that is true. There are ways to ensure that the faith is rational, but that’s not foolproof.

Then again, nothing–and I DO mean NOTHING–in life carries zero risks.

If I have a bank account, I am putting a lot of faith–some could argue too much–in the bank to redeem my deposit, or–worse–the government to keep their promise to insure my deposit if the bank goes tits up.

It is on you to decide for yourself what your own level of risk tolerance is, and make your decisions accordingly. You must also weigh that against all the risks involved, and I’m not just talking financial.

As for the matter of pursuit, by insisting that women must do more of the pursuing, then you are only ensuring the likelihood of marrying a feminist.

After all, if you let HER pursue YOU, you are, in essence, handing your balls to her.

That will do nothing to stem the spread of feminism.

Davout continues:

It appears you are arguing that the church can function independently of the state. I don’t think this is possible today given that the state and church are adversarial, that the church has zero power to enforce its laws…

Even if the church persisted in Paul’s time, it does not necessarily follow that it will follow the same course today. There is no ‘St. Paul’ today. The church leaders promoting biblical leadership nowadays are putting the onus on men to be ‘better’ instead of reprimanding women for being entitled. This is equivalent to blaming the victim…

Biblical masculinity does not exist in a box. For the church to currently advocate marriage is tantamount to advocating husband abuse. It is quite easy for a woman to claim that biblical masculinity is ‘oppression’. Why take that risk if the state agrees with her? It is a little much to expect the husband who has to watch his financial and emotional state crumble to rest assured that he won the ‘moral victory’ by staying true to his biblical principles. The very real and large risks outweigh realising the mirage of a traditional marriage in nanny state countries. Even men who do have a happy marriage are financing feminism through their tax money…

As I mentioned earlier, the way to kill feminism IMO is to stop funding the state. Married white men are the largest demographic of useful idiots who fund the state…

How is it possible to hold a woman accountable for maintaining her faith?

For one thing, the Church always has the capacity to function independently of the state. This has been the case even in times of the most extreme persecution. In fact, the Church has been shown to flourish in spite of State efforts. The Church only endangers itself when it becomes a mouthpiece for the State.

This, by the way, is a fulfillment of Jesus’ statement: “the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church].

Moreover, Christians have been known to risk far more than the financial and emotional. And–like I said–the risks you mention, while real, are substantially overstated.

As for the pursuit/response dynamic: if SHE pursues you, and CATCHES you, then she OWNS you. What rational basis does she otherwise have to submit to you?

In fact, you decry feminism while suggesting that women must take on the role of feminist–be active pursuers–to land husbands. It’s a self-defeating position.

But for the CHURCH to wait for the STATE to change, before promoting marriage, is the path of cowardice. It is an approach that has NO precedence in Scripture, nor is reflective of any expression of Biblical masculinity.

God told Joshua to “be bold…be strong…be very courageous”, and Davout is suggesting the Church ought to quake in fear of the State??? FuhgeddaboutThat!

As for his question: “How is it possible to hold a woman accountable for maintaining her faith?”

First off, let’s stipulate a couple facts:

(1) I already have conceded that ensuring that your faith in her reliability, is not foolproof. Never has been. Not even prior to modern feminism. Nor is the risk exclusively on the men. Men (women) have always entered marriage with the risk that she (he) could be a complete phony.

(2) It is not my job to make sure that she maintains her faith. I cannot force her to have faith, any more than I can force her to love me. Nor can she force me to love her, or have faith.

OTOH, there are ways in which I can ensure a higher probability of success:

I can look at her life track record.

(a) How has she handled money? Does this vary from what she says her values are?

(b) What has her record been at church. Is she a mere attender? Does she do things that are important but not easily visible? Does she accept criticism from leaders in her church? Does she undermine leaders? Does she sit around and talk trash about people she does not like?

(c) What is her stated attitude about feminism? Is that consistent with the way she has carried herself?

(d) What is her attitude toward her family, if she comes from a bad one? Is it one of hatred, or one of pity? Hatred=BAD; pity=GOOD.

(e) Is she honest about her own faults, evidenced in her willingness to accept criticism from you? Does she duck responsibility when she screws up? Does she own her junk in life?

(f) How does she understand Ephesians 5?

If she thinks in terms of “mutual submission”, while denying the headship of the husband, then you might want to move on.

If she gives you a more correct answer, then you must consider whether her actions around people in authority are consistent with that. If the consistency is there, her score goes through the rood. Otherwise, she has some hard questions to answer.

(It is also fair for her to ask you what your view is on leadership, and to contrast that with the way you have carried yourself in life.)

Those things are no guarantor of a “keeper”, but they make your percentages much higher. The risks certainly decline remarkably, even as the State flexes its muscle.

A “Heartwarming Story”

There are two possible heartwarming stories here:

1. That Jaycee Lee Dugard has been found alive and reunited with her family.
2. Phillip Garrido gets mutilated–slowly–by prison inmates who have more honor than our political class.

He claims to have found God. That is utter rubbish, as his religious fervor appears to be centered on telepathic mind control.

Even if he has become a Christian, then great. But does that undo what he did to Jaycee? The two kids? Jaycee’s parents? Of course not. (In that case, my answer to him would be what it was to Karla Faye Tucker: good on you, but you still owe a debt to society. And that requires as severe a punishment as we can muster as a society.)

As for Jaycee bonding with him, that was natural. That was the path of least resistance, and she cannot be blamed for doing what she did. Hopefully, she will get lots of support from within her family, as well as without.

Garrido–with his wife acting in concert–hijacked the marital covenant act to exploit Jaycee. Once she figures out the extent to which she was abused, she will have a very long way to recovery. Ditto for her kids.

Hopefully, Jaycee will get some excellent Biblical counsel, as this would be quite restorative for her. It would also serve as a vindication of God’s Name.

As for the Garridos, Pilgrim and I would be happy to take a trip to California, and treat them to the scenery of Death Valley.

UPDATE: Here is his blog. He is no Christian. He’s what you get when you cross Joel Osteen with Aliester Crowley.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Last year, as Congress foisted the $700 billion TARP on the American people, they did so as they claimed that institutions like AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase, were all too big to fail.

Now, those institutions have only become larger. This means that when the truth comes out about their insolvency–and they ARE insolvent–that we will be forced to either (a) cop up another trillion dollars, or (b) allow the institutions to fail, the latter causing a bigger crash than we would have had if we had let them fail last year.

As ugly as it would be, I vote for (b).

Given that the talking heads–Krugman, Bernanke, Paulson, Greenspan–have been wrong from day one on this, why should we believe them when they call for more bailouts? Bernanke has yet to tell the truth about the FDIC, but Vox Day–whose career is in a completely different industry–hasn’t missed. Which one is doing the better service for Americans?

Bernanke is a liar who is doing little more than transferring the hard-earned wealth of the American worker to the CEOs in Big Banking. Obama is his bitch.

Right now, Americans are rightfully outraged that Obama and his brood of scoundrels in Congress are attempting to hijack the health care system. Sadly, that is the tip of the iceberg of what is really going on.

Obama, Bernanke, and most of Congress, are selling America down the river. When Americans finally grasp that–hopefully it will be sooner and not later–then Americans will know what they need to do.

Then we will be a free country once again.