Today in Saudi Arabia, the news came out that a 75 year-old woman was sentenced to 40 lashes, 4 months in prison and criminal deportation for "mingling" with 2 unrelated men in her home (one of whom she raised as an infant). A grandmother. Sentenced to be lashed and sent to prison, for visiting with a man she breast-fed as a baby.
My next car is a Prius.
Monday, March 9, 2009
GAZA WAR: UN School "Massacre" Update
(NOTE: I am re-printing a piece from a February 16 posting because it merits repeating. In the ensuing three weeks since, I have seen not a single article in any Western news outlet on this subject, which just confirms the last sentence below . . . sadly.)
Excerpt from February 16, 2009 posting . . .
Remember during the Gaza War, there was a news story about a UN School that was hit by Israeli artillary? At the time, news reports indicated that 42 civilians, including lots of children, were killed there. At the time, it was reported that the Israeli attack was unprovoked. International outrage at Israel's "disproportionate" response peaked after this story was reported.
Then, a few weeks after the incident, it turns out that there were witnesses in Gaza who came forward and testified that there was a Hamas mortar crew firing from right next to the school. And, questions were raised about the number of casualties at that time. Now, there is another story about this incident. Turns out that the latest estimate is that there were not 42, but 12 people killed at the school, and 9 of them were Hamas operatives. And, that the Israeli shells did not actually hit the school, but outside the school where the mortars were being fired from. Israel is providing the names and ages of the casualties in Gaza, to set the historical record straight. It is hard to dispute when you have the facts in hand.
But, you won't find this story on the front page of the New York Times, or the Guardian in London . . . nope. It would create too much egg on their faces to report this story. Just let the lie live, and save face.
All for now,
Woldy
Excerpt from February 16, 2009 posting . . .
Remember during the Gaza War, there was a news story about a UN School that was hit by Israeli artillary? At the time, news reports indicated that 42 civilians, including lots of children, were killed there. At the time, it was reported that the Israeli attack was unprovoked. International outrage at Israel's "disproportionate" response peaked after this story was reported.
Then, a few weeks after the incident, it turns out that there were witnesses in Gaza who came forward and testified that there was a Hamas mortar crew firing from right next to the school. And, questions were raised about the number of casualties at that time. Now, there is another story about this incident. Turns out that the latest estimate is that there were not 42, but 12 people killed at the school, and 9 of them were Hamas operatives. And, that the Israeli shells did not actually hit the school, but outside the school where the mortars were being fired from. Israel is providing the names and ages of the casualties in Gaza, to set the historical record straight. It is hard to dispute when you have the facts in hand.
But, you won't find this story on the front page of the New York Times, or the Guardian in London . . . nope. It would create too much egg on their faces to report this story. Just let the lie live, and save face.
All for now,
Woldy
Friday, March 6, 2009
Abe, I agree with you . . .
Yesterday, on pajamasmedia.com, Abraham H. Miller wrote . . .
"The government rewriting mortgage contracts constitutes a greater threat to the viability of the political system than letting real estate values find a natural price point in the market place. A contract is a property right, and like it or not, before any society can remove itself from the state of nature and embrace human rights, there must be property rights. No society has ever had human rights in the absence of property rights. That is why the ineluctable outcome of socialism always has been and will be corruption and oppression."
Check out my March 2 blog post below . . . Abe and I are in alignment.
"The government rewriting mortgage contracts constitutes a greater threat to the viability of the political system than letting real estate values find a natural price point in the market place. A contract is a property right, and like it or not, before any society can remove itself from the state of nature and embrace human rights, there must be property rights. No society has ever had human rights in the absence of property rights. That is why the ineluctable outcome of socialism always has been and will be corruption and oppression."
Check out my March 2 blog post below . . . Abe and I are in alignment.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
A little break from reality . . .
A few questions to take your mind off the stock market . . .
1. Who would have won a fist fight between Sonny Corleone and Dirty Harry?
2. Who would you rather have a beer with, Jerry Seinfeld or Bob Newhart?
3. Which show was better, M*A*S*H or All in the Family?
4. Who was more annoying, Alice, on The Brady Bunch or Lovey, on Gilligan's Island?
5. If you could have one album to listen to for the rest of your life, which would you take, Beatles White Album or The Band by The Band?
6. Which is a bigger time-sink, Facebook or Wikipedia?
7. Who was wimpier, Thurston Howell, III or Herman Munster?
8. Which movie made you cry more, Terms of Endearment or Ordinary People?
9. Who was cuter, Mary Richards or Laura Petrie?
and finally . . .
10. Who would have won a sword duel, Zoro or Braveheart?
(NOTE: I won't do this very often . . . I promise!)
1. Who would have won a fist fight between Sonny Corleone and Dirty Harry?
2. Who would you rather have a beer with, Jerry Seinfeld or Bob Newhart?
3. Which show was better, M*A*S*H or All in the Family?
4. Who was more annoying, Alice, on The Brady Bunch or Lovey, on Gilligan's Island?
5. If you could have one album to listen to for the rest of your life, which would you take, Beatles White Album or The Band by The Band?
6. Which is a bigger time-sink, Facebook or Wikipedia?
7. Who was wimpier, Thurston Howell, III or Herman Munster?
8. Which movie made you cry more, Terms of Endearment or Ordinary People?
9. Who was cuter, Mary Richards or Laura Petrie?
and finally . . .
10. Who would have won a sword duel, Zoro or Braveheart?
(NOTE: I won't do this very often . . . I promise!)
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Bernie Deserves No Mercy
This week, we learned that Bernie Madoff's wife has substantial assets, including $45 million of bonds and $17 million of cash (the bulk of which she mysteriously decided to withdraw a couple days before Bernie turned himself in - timing is everything in life). Plus an apartment here and there. It adds up to just under $70 million in assets. That sum, she says, and he says, is unrelated to his alleged (do I have to say "alleged" when he confessed to it?) ponzi scheme.
Every time you think you've heard it all, something new comes along. Do these two actually think that anyone believes this?
In my view, Mr. and Mrs. Madoff deserve no mercy from the courts. Whatever they have, should be taken away and given to the victims (especially because you know damn well that there are assets tucked away in places the Feds will never look). If there is justice in this World, the Madoffs will be left penniless, just like the folks who entrusted Bernie with their life-savings, and, once convicted, Bernie will spend the rest of his days behind bars. The man literally stole from widows and orphans. Who does that?
Whether, or not, Mrs. Madoff was involved in the alleged scheme, we will most likely never know. But, we do know that she benefited mightily from it, as did good 'ole Bernie. And, that wrong should be made right.
Take it all.
Every time you think you've heard it all, something new comes along. Do these two actually think that anyone believes this?
In my view, Mr. and Mrs. Madoff deserve no mercy from the courts. Whatever they have, should be taken away and given to the victims (especially because you know damn well that there are assets tucked away in places the Feds will never look). If there is justice in this World, the Madoffs will be left penniless, just like the folks who entrusted Bernie with their life-savings, and, once convicted, Bernie will spend the rest of his days behind bars. The man literally stole from widows and orphans. Who does that?
Whether, or not, Mrs. Madoff was involved in the alleged scheme, we will most likely never know. But, we do know that she benefited mightily from it, as did good 'ole Bernie. And, that wrong should be made right.
Take it all.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Enough, Warren!
Is anyone else sick and tired of hearing Warren Buffett's magnificent musings?
Okay, so the guy is (very) rich and he has been (very) successful over a (very) long time, but I would say that his track record over the last year ain't so good. In fact, it "sucks eggs", to quote my seven year old. Which leads to the question . . . why should we care what Warren thinks now? This is one screwed up market and he doesn't have a clue what is going to happen next. How else can one explain his bone-headed moves over the last year. Warren has poured billions of his investors money into stocks that have continued to sink, big time.
And, don't give me the explanation (I was going to say "crap") about how if you have a long enough time horizon, these are great moves to make, and blah, blah, blah. Folks, as of the market close today, if your time horizon was 12 years, you have not made a penny in the broader stock market. Not one red cent.
Yes, someday stocks will go up again. But when that day is, nobody, not even the (formerly) great (but still very rich) Warren Buffett, knows. And, the fact is, you may be better off over the next 12 years buying Treasuries at 1.5% than following Warren any longer.
Sorry for two postings today, but I couldn't resist.
Woldy
Okay, so the guy is (very) rich and he has been (very) successful over a (very) long time, but I would say that his track record over the last year ain't so good. In fact, it "sucks eggs", to quote my seven year old. Which leads to the question . . . why should we care what Warren thinks now? This is one screwed up market and he doesn't have a clue what is going to happen next. How else can one explain his bone-headed moves over the last year. Warren has poured billions of his investors money into stocks that have continued to sink, big time.
And, don't give me the explanation (I was going to say "crap") about how if you have a long enough time horizon, these are great moves to make, and blah, blah, blah. Folks, as of the market close today, if your time horizon was 12 years, you have not made a penny in the broader stock market. Not one red cent.
Yes, someday stocks will go up again. But when that day is, nobody, not even the (formerly) great (but still very rich) Warren Buffett, knows. And, the fact is, you may be better off over the next 12 years buying Treasuries at 1.5% than following Warren any longer.
Sorry for two postings today, but I couldn't resist.
Woldy
Moral Hazard
Does this term ring a bell? It should, because our Government is in the process of creating a significant moral hazard. Namely: bailing out homeowners to lower their monthly payments and giving the power to judges to reduce mortgage principal on loans (i.e. private contracts are now open to revision by judges, as they see fit).
This is not good for the economy in the long run. Yes, we feel empathy for the financial situation that many, many people find themselves in as a result of taking mortgage offers that appeared too good to be true. But, no, it is not our responsibility to pay for their mistakes. Our system rewards (or used to) sound decision-making and sometimes punishes those who take higher risks. Push more chips into the center of the table and you risk losing those chips. You could also win, but that choice that is up to you. The old Risk-Reward Model we learned about on Day One of college Economics.
The unintended consequences of removing (or mitigating) the risk are, well, unknown right now. But one thing is for sure . . . they aren't good for our broader society in the long run. We may be better off letting the proverbial train hit the wall then trying to cushion it. Yes, that means more people will face foreclosure. But, that does not mean those people will be rendered homeless. There are options for people who can not afford to own their homes. Renting comes to mind. Living with relatives also comes to mind. Are those as gratifying as owning your own home? No, they are not. People could also buy smaller, more affordable, houses. There are options for people who can not afford to live in their current houses besides re-writing private contracts and taking away the risk side of the equation.
Do I sound like a Republican? I voted for Obama, for crying out loud!!! But, I am also a University of Chicago trained lawyer and at U of C (which is where Obama taught, by the way), we learned about things like moral hazard.
Finally, allowing real estate values to naturally descend to the point where the value proposition becomes compelling to investors is the best way out of this mess. That very thing is starting to happen in markets across the country. Artificially propping up the residential real estate market by re-writing mortgages en masse will just prolong the agony we are going through and in the end, we will all be worse off.
But, no one wants to hear this view right now. It is out of style. Because it is perceived as too risky. One question: how is Obama's direction working out for us so far? "Nicht so gutte", if you judge based on stock market reaction.
Pay me now, or pay me later. I would rather get it over with, personally.
All for now . . .
And, then there's the question no one wants to talk about . . . where is the money going to come from to pay for all these renegotiations and mortgage principal reductions? From other taxpayers, that's where. From the people who did not reach past their financial wherewithal to purchase homes. From the people who acted conservatively. Those people are going to get really whacked by all this, in the form of higher taxes (yes, Virginia, even the Middle Class will soon join the ranks of those that have received tax increases), and surging deficits that will someday need to be repaid.
Is this how our system is supposed to work?
This is not good for the economy in the long run. Yes, we feel empathy for the financial situation that many, many people find themselves in as a result of taking mortgage offers that appeared too good to be true. But, no, it is not our responsibility to pay for their mistakes. Our system rewards (or used to) sound decision-making and sometimes punishes those who take higher risks. Push more chips into the center of the table and you risk losing those chips. You could also win, but that choice that is up to you. The old Risk-Reward Model we learned about on Day One of college Economics.
The unintended consequences of removing (or mitigating) the risk are, well, unknown right now. But one thing is for sure . . . they aren't good for our broader society in the long run. We may be better off letting the proverbial train hit the wall then trying to cushion it. Yes, that means more people will face foreclosure. But, that does not mean those people will be rendered homeless. There are options for people who can not afford to own their homes. Renting comes to mind. Living with relatives also comes to mind. Are those as gratifying as owning your own home? No, they are not. People could also buy smaller, more affordable, houses. There are options for people who can not afford to live in their current houses besides re-writing private contracts and taking away the risk side of the equation.
Do I sound like a Republican? I voted for Obama, for crying out loud!!! But, I am also a University of Chicago trained lawyer and at U of C (which is where Obama taught, by the way), we learned about things like moral hazard.
Finally, allowing real estate values to naturally descend to the point where the value proposition becomes compelling to investors is the best way out of this mess. That very thing is starting to happen in markets across the country. Artificially propping up the residential real estate market by re-writing mortgages en masse will just prolong the agony we are going through and in the end, we will all be worse off.
But, no one wants to hear this view right now. It is out of style. Because it is perceived as too risky. One question: how is Obama's direction working out for us so far? "Nicht so gutte", if you judge based on stock market reaction.
Pay me now, or pay me later. I would rather get it over with, personally.
All for now . . .
And, then there's the question no one wants to talk about . . . where is the money going to come from to pay for all these renegotiations and mortgage principal reductions? From other taxpayers, that's where. From the people who did not reach past their financial wherewithal to purchase homes. From the people who acted conservatively. Those people are going to get really whacked by all this, in the form of higher taxes (yes, Virginia, even the Middle Class will soon join the ranks of those that have received tax increases), and surging deficits that will someday need to be repaid.
Is this how our system is supposed to work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)