In a lifetime
Made of memories
I believe
In destiny
Every moment returns again in time
When I've got the future on my mind
Know that you'll be the only one
Meet me halfway
Across the sky
Out where the world belongs
to only you and I
Meet me halfway
Across the sky
Make this a new beginning of another life.
That's how I imagine a conversation went between Barack "The One" Obama with General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal is believed to have outlined three options to the President: 80,000 additional in a low-risk, 40 to 45,000 in a medium-risk, and 20,000 for a high-risk operation to stabilize Afghanistan in the face of the Taliban insurgency. Obama has reportedly settled for 30,000 (halfway between the high and medium-risk options from his own trusted military advisor) and is simultaneously pushing for a 3-year exit strategy in leaving Afghanistan, ironically wrapping things up around election day.
To a certain extent, Obama may have boxed himself in because of his own push for a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq in early 2007 and his awkward dependence on Republican support for any meaningful surge. (But do you think that Obama, needing that support, would have brought the GOP into the conversation? Of course not! Was Obama's post-partisan rhetoric, in the words of another pop song, "More Than Words"?) He has put himself in a tough spot for his reelection battle: if the war goes badly, the Republicans can argue that he should have sent McChrystal's low-risk numbers. What does he do--leave Afghanistan in a state of chaos, with the Taliban in a position of regaining power? What will become of the "real war" then? What of the American lives that are sacrificed in vain for Obama's war? Bush never pushed for a big enough footprint to stabilize Iraq until after the 2006 election; are we seeing Obama replicating Bush's earlier mistake?
Judge Spinner: We Need to Cram Down on Activist Judges
Judge Jeffrey Spinner, a New York judge canceling a $525K mortgage loan, is spinning his own Alice in Wonderland interpretation of the Fifth Amendment in his unconscionable, unethical, ill-tempered, irresponsible, ill-reasoned decision to cancel a mortgage loan just because he didn't like the lender's behavior. This guy is so eager to cram down mortgage loans--which the US Congress has wisely refused to enable--he gave the ultimate cram down. About the only thing he didn't cram down on was studying the US Constitution before rendering his decision.
If this kind of nonsense was played out consistently, it would wipe out the US banking industry which lent out money in good faith. There are two parties to a mortgage contract. If the judge's abuse of power is left to stand, you will find very few parties willing to make loans; not just that, but what about the homeowners whom continue to pay their loans in good faith? The judge makes a big deal about the fact that the value of the house has gone down in the aftermath of the housing bubble burst; apparently when someone sells a house for a gain, without the original lender getting a cut, that's okay, but the judge thinks that he has the right to write down a loan during adverse market conditions because a homeowner doesn't live up to the terms of his loan. That's judicial theft of property. The judge's actions are shameful, disgraceful and reflect badly on his profession.
There are a lot of misguided populists going around saying, "Great that the little guy won..."; what a great Thanksgiving gift! No, this was not the "little guy"; we are talking about a college professor and his wife whom bought the house over a decade ago and then decided to take a subprime loan for roughly 3 times the original mortgage. It's unfortunate that the professor made a bad, costly decision that cost him his home. The lender when it made the loan didn't know that he wouldn't be able to live up to the terms of his loan; they are exercising their legal rights to secure the collateral to the loan under terms of nonpayment.
Political Cartoon
Jim Morin of the Miami Herald addresses the elephant in the room:
Judge Jeffrey Spinner, a New York judge canceling a $525K mortgage loan, is spinning his own Alice in Wonderland interpretation of the Fifth Amendment in his unconscionable, unethical, ill-tempered, irresponsible, ill-reasoned decision to cancel a mortgage loan just because he didn't like the lender's behavior. This guy is so eager to cram down mortgage loans--which the US Congress has wisely refused to enable--he gave the ultimate cram down. About the only thing he didn't cram down on was studying the US Constitution before rendering his decision.
If this kind of nonsense was played out consistently, it would wipe out the US banking industry which lent out money in good faith. There are two parties to a mortgage contract. If the judge's abuse of power is left to stand, you will find very few parties willing to make loans; not just that, but what about the homeowners whom continue to pay their loans in good faith? The judge makes a big deal about the fact that the value of the house has gone down in the aftermath of the housing bubble burst; apparently when someone sells a house for a gain, without the original lender getting a cut, that's okay, but the judge thinks that he has the right to write down a loan during adverse market conditions because a homeowner doesn't live up to the terms of his loan. That's judicial theft of property. The judge's actions are shameful, disgraceful and reflect badly on his profession.
There are a lot of misguided populists going around saying, "Great that the little guy won..."; what a great Thanksgiving gift! No, this was not the "little guy"; we are talking about a college professor and his wife whom bought the house over a decade ago and then decided to take a subprime loan for roughly 3 times the original mortgage. It's unfortunate that the professor made a bad, costly decision that cost him his home. The lender when it made the loan didn't know that he wouldn't be able to live up to the terms of his loan; they are exercising their legal rights to secure the collateral to the loan under terms of nonpayment.
Political Cartoon
Jim Morin of the Miami Herald addresses the elephant in the room:
Christmas Musical Interlude: Bing Crosby/David Bowie: "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy"
I mentioned in an earlier post I loved the annual holiday specials, in particularly those featuring the Crosby and Williams' families growing up. I remember seeing the clip below during the original late 1970's show airing and instantly loved it; it remains what I think is the best cross-generational duet and mix of different singing styles I've ever heard. I think the "Peace on Earth" ditty was created especially for this performance. I was so happy to see copies of the performance available the next holiday season, which, of course, I purchased.
