By Way of Introduction . . .

I’m delighted to announce that the lovely and talented Kathy Hutchins has consented to become a regular writer for this august forum. Ms. Hutchins is an economist by training, a dedicated wife and mother by present profession, a staunch Catholic, and a wonderful writer whose personal blog, Gathering Goat Eggs, is well worth visiting on a regular basis. Kathy will be writing about whatever she darn well pleases, and is certain to raise interesting points and the hackles of our many enemies. Please visit our comments section to make her feel welcome as she begins her tenure here. Welcome, Kathy!


10 thoughts on “By Way of Introduction . . .

  1. perhaps she’d like to join the over population discussion as she was so keen to see women forced to breed.

  2. That’s an entirely inaccurate characterization of her position, as you well know unless you are truly stupid.

  3. It was unfair, I’ll grant you that but she did profess a problem with women having the choice of whether or not to have children, so while unfair it’s not really inaccurate.

    On a separate issue with all the hooplah about gulag references I’d be interested in seeing if anyone can really defend the notion that Guantanamo is nothing like a gulag. Anyone want to poston the matter, or is it just so “self evident” that a real examination of the matter can’t happen?

  4. No, she did not profess any problem whatever with women having the choice of whether or not to have children. None whatever. Your statement was entirely inaccurate, not partly so.

  5. “No, she did not profess any problem whatever with women having the choice of whether or not to have children. None whatever.”

    Yeah actually she did.

    Here’s what she said:

    “The message that they could choose to indefinitely delay childbearing was a cruel lie.”

    Which sounds fine, right? I mean she’s just saying that you don’t have unlimited time before you can have kids.

    Except that wasn’t the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand was the choice of whether woen want kids. She objected, rather strenuously, but she couched it by changing the nature of the discussion.

    She couldn’t openly say “Keep them barefoot and pregnaqnt” so she made up a whole new line of thought to attack as if it had been the discussion all along.

    And lest you have any doubt about this disection of her deception consider her later remark:

    “The idea that women should have children is simple societal preservation.”

    According to her own words women SHOULD have children. So yes my statement while unfair again was not inaccurate. The only question is just how far along such lines she thinks society should go. Condemnation? Workplace discrimination? Forced Insemination?

  6. Until we decide to kill the comments section, Kathy, this is what qualifies as a welcome. Glad to have you!!!!

  7. Welcome aboard, Kathy. Already men are fighting over you, expressing a catholic range of assessments. Hopefully your first piece will serve as a poultice to staunch the bleeding.

Comments are closed.