Part of the "agreement" made to get the votes for passage of the health care bill was that federal dollars would not go to provide abortions. 

In fact, Pres. Obama even signed an executive order to that effect. 

Is anyone really surprised that they lied?   If they were honest about not wanting federal dollars to cover abortion, it would have taken exactly one line in the already 2,000 page plus health care bill. 

-Federal dollars will be going to cover Pennsylvania's "high risk" pool (see government health care tab for more on how the federal health care bill works).  Technically, "elective abortions" will not be covered. 
This means that:
1) "non-elective" abortions will be covered.  Don't even get me started on that term.  If a woman gets an abortion, she elected to do it.  Nobody is holding her down forcing her. 
2) those wanting elective abortions simply need a doctor's note saying there is some possible health benefit to getting the abortion.  Let me give you a hint, go to Planned Parenthood.  Getting this note is not going to be a problem. 

-Similar circumstances exist in New Mexico.  As it has become clear that the executive order denying federal abortion dollars is a joke and will not be enforced, other states are following the Penn and NM example, and re-wording their coverage standards. 

On one last note, Planned Parenthood had been receiving state and federal support for years.  While the money is earmarked for non-abortion use, let's get realistic. 
For example, an organization gets $50 in federal funding to help pay office bills.  They can use that $50 for office bills.  Fine.  But they can now use $50 in personal donations that they would have had to use for office expenses to provide abortions. 

It's a simple fact of life.  Just like when you provide money to St. Judes, a church, or other non-profit, you have to realize a certain percentage is going to be used for administration and further requests for donations.  In fact, most non-profits include the % right in their appeal letters! 

Please forgive my not posting for a few days.  My husband was in an accident (in Norfolk, where he's at for temporary duty).  I got the call yesterday (in Summerville, SC- 8 hours away, where we live).
I'm now in Norfolk...they've released him, but he's on convalescent leave.  I'm staying to help take care of him for a few days. 
Thanks for your understanding,
Jennie

p.s. Things I dislike about navy life- #137- having to drive 8 hours before finding out how bad my husband is hurt after an accident. 
p.s. #2: Thank you, God, for Navy medical.  I cannot imagine what the hospital bill would have been

Well, I was talking to another writer, and she suggested that I try to break into the magazine market since I already write non-fiction articles. 

So, here is a list of my latest "online" articles....there won't be any for awhile.  Keep your fingers crossed for me!  Magazines, here I come!

"Pre-dynastic Egypt: 5500 b.c.-3100 b.c." (A.C. June 25, 2010). Link.
"First Dynasty Egypt: 3100 b.c.-2813 b.c." (A.C. July 16, 2010). Link.
"Second Dynasty Egypt: 2813 b.c.-2663 b.c." (A.C. July 16, 2010). Link.

"Madeleine Sophie Barat, Saint" (Suite101. June 30, 2010). Link.
"Barbara, Saint,  Legendary Virgin and Martyr" (Suite101. June 30, 2010). Link.
"Barnabas, Saint, Apostle and Martyr." (Suite101. June 30, 2010). Link.

Charleston, SC:
"A Stroll Along Rainbow Row- The Battery, Whitepoint Gardens, and Waterfront Park." (Examiner. July 10, 2010). Link.
"Edmondston-Alston House on Rainbow Row." (Examiner. July 10, 2010). Link.

"How to Reach Your Goals" (A.C. July 13, 2010). Link.

There are many things about being "married to the military" that are interesting. After much thought, debate, and laughing, I came up with...drumroll, please...

"The Top Ten Most Annoying Things About the Military"
For a recap, we've already done 3-10:
#10: Military Clocks Run in a Different Universe than Regular Clocks
#9: Your "Worth as a Person" is Defined by Your Husband's Rank
#8: The Uniforms
#7: It's Impossible to Get a Damn Vacation (aka "Leave")
#6: If Something Goes Wrong, It's Always Someone Else's Fault
#5: Military Health Care
#4: Being Required to Give Your Significant Other "Special Treatment"
#3: The "Men" in the Military Don't Grow Up

and....for today, #2: They "Field Day", but can't put their socks away

"Field Day" is the Navy's term for cleaning up the ship.

For those of you who haven't been in the Navy, it will be hard to explain. Cleanliness is an obsession. Between the crews, we literally spend 24 hours straight cleaning the boat. Nothing is this dirty- not even an engine room. As students, the favorite job to claim was to stand in front of the feed pumps. They leaked about ten drops of water a minute. You could stand there and wipe the pumps. Rub the floor...stand back up, and wipe the water. Trust me, this was a good job. There was actually something to clean up. Even the damn bilges (which collect water and oil) were spotless. This boat didn't have a single mote of dust that collect.

But, then the men come home. And there are socks on the floor. How hard is it to throw the socks in the laundry basket?

And dishes....they just stick them in the sink. Don't even rinse them off. How hard is it to rinse off a plate? And maybe, just maybe, stick it in the dishwasher?

And the idea of doing anything that hints at actual "cleaning" (such as vacuuming, dusting, scrubbing windows, scrubbing floors) is beyond their imagination. 

Is this a military thing or a guy thing?

The post below this one has an overview of the Federal Regulation Bill, including what it does and what it doesn't do.  Please vote and let me know what you think of it! 
I'll share the results in a few days.

Well, so much for today being an off-day.  I just caught the address by Pres. Obama (still looking for the video online- not posted at CNN or White House yet).  The Financial Regulation Bill has passed both houses of Congress and is awaiting Pres. Obama’s signature.  The bill is 2,300 pages long.

 This is a long post, but I broke it into three section, so feel free to go to the section that interests you.  Part 1 is “What Does this Bill Do?; part 2 is “What Does the Bill Not Do?; and part 3 is “The Effect on the Average American.” 

Part 1: What does this bill do? 

1) Creates a council of high-level federal officials led by the Treasury secretary.  They have the ability to seize and shut down financial institutes that are on the verge of collapse.  They also can pass rules to detect and prevent dangers to the financial system.  It is already stated that they will define how much cash banks must have on hand and that they will develop set procedures for the above-mentioned shut-downs.  

2) Creates a “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” within the Federal Reserve.  They can write and enforce regulations covering mortgages, credit cards, etc.  This protection of consumers from abusive practices is one of the major assets of the bill.  This bureau is to strengthen regulation of hedge funds and credit rating agencies.

3) Includes the Volcker rule.  This restricts banks from investing and trading for their own accounts (which was a serious problem).  Banks can still put up to 3% of their capital in hedge funds or private equity funds.  The Volcker rule also makes an extensive framework for dealing with derivatives.  (As you should know, derivatives were THE major cause of the collapse according to most sources).  In helping to determine the actual value of these derivatives, most derivatives will be “forced” into exchanges.  A middleman is also inserted into the process in hopes of preventing the incestuous inter-connections that also led to the financial collapse.

Part 2: What does the bill not do?

Fannie and Freddie are mostly ignored in the bill.  As you should also know, Fannie and Freddie were part of the reason the financial collapse spread to the housing sector.  Their lending practices were also fundamental in the formation of derivatives that were basically worthless.

The bill does not lay out exactly how the specific directions given in the bill should be carried out.  Regulators have broad goals and no instructions.  Even with the best of intentions, this is a recipe for failure, incompetence, and an ever-expanding government.  A study of the bill by the United States Chamber of Commerce found that at least 316 different regulations and rules would have to be set and enforced (70 federal through CFPB,  11 through FDIC, 30 via the Federal Reserve, and 205 through S.E.C.).

Automobile dealerships are exempt from the restrictions that will apply to other lenders.  Huh?  I guess you can still go and sign a loan to buy a car with $99 down. 


Part 3: The Effect on the Average American

There will be new rules and restrictions on mortgage lenders.  There will be limits to the types of mortgages they can write plus they cannot be rewarded for steering borrowers to higher cost loans.  

As a borrower, you will be protected from hidden fees and abusive terms. 

As a borrower, you will have to provide evidence you can repay your loans!  (Yes, I love this!  I still feel that irresponsible Americans were IN PART responsible for the financial collapse). 

As a borrower, your auto lenders will NOT be affected by this regulation.  Get your auto loans through your bank, not one recommended by the dealership. 

Your community bank (if you use one) is exempt from the harsher oversight of the CPBU and gets a reduction on the insurance required.  This could either result in your local community bank being better or worse, depending upon your view of the legislation.  Keep in mind that you still have a choice!

The Federal Reserve is going to set new pricing for interchange fees charged by debit card issuers.  These changes will trickle down to the customers. 

The hardest to determine is the effect on you, as an average American, via the effects on businesses.  Contrary to popular belief, derivatives aren’t a foreign concept that only affects bankers.  All sectors of the economy use derivatives- most as a way to hedge against the changing prices of raw materials, the changes in gas and oil prices, and changes due to foreign exchange rates.  Even farmers use derivatives to hedge against changes in the value of their crops.  The effect of these changes can only be guessed at.


Sources:

Fox News (2010, July 15). "Congress OKs Wall Street Crackdown in burst of financial regulation unseen since Depression."  Link to article.

Fox News. (2010, July 15). "Congress Sends Obama Sweeping Financial Overhaul Bill."  Link to article.

Herszenhorn, David M. (2010, July 15).  "Congress Passes Financial Regulation Bill."  NY Times.  Link to article.

Liberto, Jennifer. (2010, July 15). "Wall Street Reform: On to Obama."  CNN Money Online.  Link to article.

I hope you'll all bear with me.  It's not very often I go off-topic from either humor about being a military wife, current events, or politics. 

But I got another Adgitize payment and just wanted to let anyone who isn't using Adgitize how great it is!
I advertise for $14.00 per month. 
But, I always make my money back plus a little bit.  So, I'm getting free advertising plus a couple of extra dollars each month. 
It's easy to do:
1) Sign up for an account and link your blogs/websites.
2) Place some ads on your site (many, many people put them on the bottom).
3) Buy an ad yourself.
4) Post each day.
5) Do daily clicks...I visit 51 websites each day, most of which also net me Entrecard drops. 

I highly recommend trying it, even if only for a month.  Provided you post each day and do your clicks, you'll make your money back. 

I've avoided talking about the actual spill due to the fact that not only are many blogs covering it, but so is the media.  In great detail. 

As I've been perusing the various lawsuits, I've been alternately amused and cynical.  We've all heard about the fishermen who are getting money from BP.  You've probably even heard about the fact they don't want to pay taxes on the money.  (Don't even get me started on that). 

The latest lawsuits are by people, houses, and businesses that rely on the tourist industry for their income.  BP has already stated they will compensate vacation rentals, though how much is still up for debate.  BP has even said they will be compensating some homeowners for lost property value.  Various restaurants and tourist shops (you know, the ones that hawk cheap T-shirts, postcards, sunblock, rocks, etc) are also on the list to be reimbursed. 

Now, the Kertzes of Scottsdale, Arizona, have gone a step further.  They paid a $3,400 deposit to rent a house at Fort Walton Beach.  Upon hearing of the oil spill and realizing that they wouldn't be able to enjoy the water during their vacation, they canceled the vacation.  They're now attempting to get their money back....from BP.  BP has gone back and forth, but the latest answer is that they will be getting their money back.

So, my question for you is simple: Are the BP lawsuits going far enough?  Are the lawsuits going too far? 

On a personal note, if I were BP, I'd be seriously worried about getting cheated.  If the Kertzes get their money back, we should assume that the rental property kept the $3,400 deposit, which would have gone towards the rental price.  Should we also assume that the rental property is also going to be suing BP for their lost rental income?  Are they going to admit that they got to keep $3,400 for absolutely nothing, thus lowering how much BP is going to reimburse them?


Sources:
Colpitts, Mike. (2010, July 9). "BP claims czar may compensate vacation rentals."  Link to article.   
Headline News. (2010, July 11). Television news broadcast, approx. 10:30 a.m.
Searcey, Dionne. (2010, June 28). "Hello, RICE!  The Latest Headache to Hit BP."  Link to article.
WEAR ABC3. (2010, ??). Link to video & article

This is going to be a little different from other WTF Fridays....
I want you to all look at two scenarios and tell me which one seems more plausible...

Scenario 1: People really, actually believe that more people benefit from having a capitalistic economy, using statistics, history, and the example of the former USSR.  They really, actually believe in the CONSTITUTION and want to uphold the rights and laws written there.  They believe that welfare should be a temporary solution to people's problems, not their main source of income for years on end. 

Scenario 2: There is an evil conspiracy out there by a group of people to discriminate, rob, and cheat a large group of people.  This group of people "spins" the media every day, lies to all of the citizens everyday, and their sole purpose in life to pass laws to enable their previously mentioned habits of discriminating, robbing, and cheating people. 

OK, what's your answer?  Which is more plausible?  And which is more widely believed?

Sorry for the flippant title "Oops, I did it again," but SOME (not all) of the people arguing these issues are acting like teenage pop singers.  My sarcastic streak wins again.

My sources on this story aren't as good as most as it seems like the major media hasn't quite picked up this story yet.  I've seen in mentioned in a couple of soundbites on Fox and CNN, but can't find an actual article on either site. 

Arizona Senator Pearce is "weighing legislation" (Fischer) that will state that any children born in Arizona will not be issued an Arizona birth certificate, and hence U.S. citizenship, unless one of the parents can prove that they are in the country legally.  This proposed law has widespread approval in Arizona (Tapscott, UPI) by an almost two to one margin, with 64 percent approving and 26 percent opposing. 

This, of course, seems to fly in the face of the 14th amendment, which says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." 

But, as with all constitutional arguments, there is always debate.  If their parents are here illegally, they're not following the "jurisdiction thereof", which means that if the parents WERE following the law, the child wouldn't have been born in the U.S.  And if the child is automatically a U.S. citizen, the child (and its guardians) are required to follow the law.  So, at the time the child became a citizen, if the parents would be required to leave the country....with the child. 

I'm not even going to take a side on this one.  But, as always, dear readers, what do you think?
Would this law, if passed by Arizona, be legal? 
Even if it is legal, is it morally correct? 
Which side, or both, or neither, are you on?

Sources:
Fischer, Howard. (2010, July 5). "Focal Point of Immigration Now on Children." YumaSun.com.  Link to article.
Tapscott, Mark. (2010, July 5). "Most Arizonans Support Law Denying Birth Certificates to Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants." The Examiner, WashingtonExaminer.com.  Link to article.
United Press International. (2010, July 5). "Citizenship for Immigrant Babies Opposed." UPI.com.  Link to article.