Yes, I’ve been busy.  Hence the lack of blogging (and of anything else indicating a normal, functioning life).  Anyway, a quick round-up:

The Boston Globe claims that every baby born in America should have a trust fund for its very own.

“But a growing movement argues that every baby should be a trust fund baby: a modest trust fund should be a basic right, like education and adequate nutrition. By opening a savings account for every American newborn, the thinking goes, the government would give all citizens a foothold in the financial system, as well as access to a nest egg, however small.”

A trust fund, but no ponies?  At least ponies wouldn’t cause rampant inflation.  If we give trust funds to children, we encounter several problems: 1) education and housing will increase by the amount in the trust fund, as everyone will have that to spend; 2) unless the trust funds are controlled by the state, a lot of kids will either waste the money, or be pressured by their parents to spend it for their benefit - the latter being more of an issue, as lottery winners (and anyone who gets a sudden influx of unearned cash) ends up in a worse financial position later, as they live beyond their means; and 3) the same generation will have to pay this money back, with interest.  Yay for inflation!

As liberals never tire of telling us, language matters.  So when “ethicists” debate the morality of a woman giving birth to eight babies, we get statements like this one:

“The woman’s mother told the Los Angeles Times that doctors gave the woman the option of selectively reducing the number of embryos, and she refused.

As to a “correct” decision at this stage, experts are split.”

Let’s rephrase this: “[D]octors gave the woman the option of killing viable babies in the womb, which appeases misandric environmentalists, the anti-baby pro-abortion brigade, and a bunch of busybodies who think that they have the right to limit the size of your family.”  Are experts still split?

Check out SarahPAC - Gov. Palin’s own political action committee.

The Freedom of Choice Act would, by its own wording, require abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy.  Through the seventh month, there would be no restrictions, whatsoever (as if women should be allowed to gestate a baby for six months, then say, “Fooled ya!” and kill it).  After the seventh month, abortion would be allowed to protect the health of the mother.  Under Doe v. Bolton, “health” includes anything, mental or physical, which, in the opinion of the attending physician (i.e. by no objective standards) would affect the woman.  It has long been recognised that a woman’s own desire is a health interest.

The only thing I’m hoping for at this point is the backlash from hell.

Obama stated that he thinks his stimulus bill will receive support from a substantial number of Senate Republicans.   This, despite the fact that every single Republican (and 11 Democrats!) in the House voted against the bill. Possibly, this is because Obama has yet to understand that he is not in academia or a New York cocktail party, but is in the White House.  After all, his “bipartisanship” included inviting Republicans to cocktails and a Super Bowl party.  What next, a sorority’s semi-formal dance? Let’s just ignore the fact that support for this boondoggle is dropping faster than the popularity of a southern girl without her Lilly Pulitzer; drinks and football will unite everyone!