Everyone idealizes children whose birth or adoption they are anticipating, so I won't denigrate the author's romantic ideals about South Asian culture. Expectant parents buying educational toys and parenting manuals are more or less engaging in the same kind of anticipatory dreaming. It's natural. But still, parenthood isn't only about the parents, and pursuing adoption because you perceive that it's what the better people do is simply crazy. It's fashionable to beat up on couples or individuals who pursue fertility treatment. The author's casual statement about adoption being "better" without further examination perfectly sums up this attitude. I admire the integrity of those who admit an honest preference for their "own" child far more than the narcissistic ruminations of those who are using parenthood as a badge of their own honor or superiority. The author should cease beating herself up. Her Indian baby is undoubtedly better off with another family and her soon to be born child will be an individual, not a reflection of the author's self worth.

Than proceed on the false assumption that you do. Maybe Moody's should come up with a rating and a confidence level that the rating is correct: For instance: AAA, with a confidence level of 70% that it is accurate, because of the limited ability to verify the underwriter's representations about asset quality.

Yes, investors would demand higher interest rates. That's the whole point.

It sounds like LW's husband has completely subsumed his sense of self and, more important, self-worth in the success of a venture that, statistically speaking, is doomed to fail. The last thing he wants to hear is his own wife basically telling him that the whole enterprise (i.e., himself) is a failure even though it appears as if he wanted her to be the one who wears the green eye shades in the family. LW can assume that the most recent conflict is a decision on his part that he no longer wants her involved in that way.

I think Cary's answer is right on -- LW should, at a minimum separate herself from the business so that a third party is doing the books. I guarantee that her husband is not going to threaten to kill an independent accountant. Getting a full-time job with benefits, dissolving her ownership interest in the restaurant (which might not even be possible, depending on how it's organized -- she will always share the personal debts of her husband), and letting her husband succeed or not on his own terms seem like the right things to do.

Maybe some preemptive counseling is in order so that, at a minimum, husband will agree that LW needs to remove herself from the business for everyone's benefit.

Personal safety is of course non-negotiable. And of course -- government agencies view using them as unwilling lenders of last resort to be an offense similar to how the general public views sexually abusing small children. You simply cannot commit a worse tax offense and you must do everything in your power to avoid doing so.

That's what I do. I think that Cary is onto something when he says that some houses defy cleaning because they were built before people had so much "stuff" to deal with. Modern houses devote an enormous proportion of square footage (starting with the garage) to hiding stuff that my early 20th century bungalow does not.

However, I remodeled and still face clutter. It's a constant struggle, and much of it, I believe, goes to the inability of certain individuals in my household to "own up to their" stuff and deal with it. My husband, for instance, has incredibly keen eyesight for the clutter of things that belong to others: "Why haven't you thrown away those catalogs yet?" And yet, his own clutter (like tools that sit on the kitchen counter for three months) is invisible to the naked eye. But really, when he looks at the tools he sees a job he's in the middle of but couldn't quite finish. When he looks at mine, well, he just sees junk. It's the housekeeping version of money battles: "how could you spend $___ on _________!!!!!"

And then, there's the issue of throwing away a magazine that you didn't have time to read -- what does that say about your life? That it's a sea of endless possibilities that are being shoved in the garbage.

So it's structural, emotional, psychological -- I started with the concept that the kitchen, the dining room, and some free space for the kids must be clean and no junk is allowed to accumulate there. Beyond that, whatever non-discriminatory rules you can impose (no newspapers older than a week, and no magazines older than three months, junk mail to be thrown away daily) can do a lot.

Also, collecting stuff to give to others somehow makes the enterprise less painful, whether it's old clothes or electronics or something else. I guarantee you, someone wants it.

One of Fly Lady's strategies is to get everyone together for 20 minutes or half an hour and tell them to put things away. You set the clock, and everyone goes into action with respect to a specific room. After 30 minutes (or however long), you stop and go back to living. You will be amazed at how much difference 30 minutes of concentrated effort can make.

Also, things accumulate because there is no clear place to put them. Even if the designated place is the corner of the room, or on the basement steps, if there is a place for something, there is much less excuse for not putting it away. If you simply have too much of something -- clothing and books, for instance, you really need to adopt the "let's give away what we don't need any longer" plan. Libraries, daycare centers, clothing centers, nursing homes, prisons, freecycle.org, Goodwill, Purple Heart, etc. Somebody will take the stuff, depending on what it is and which age it is aimed at.