Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it...
BLOGS I REALLY LIKE...
OxBlog
Volokh Conspiracy
ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico
QandO
Powerline
RightWingNutHouse
Ace
Lorie Byrd
PoliPundit
LGF
Wizbang
INDCJournal
JustOneMinute
RightWingNews
Three Sheets
LaShawn
XRLQ
Betsy's Page
OTHERS NICE ENOUGH TO LINK ME...
SortaPundit
Don Luskin
California Yankee
Let It Bleed
TechieVampire
SecureLiberty
BenedictBlog
StopTheACLU
ProteinWisdom
Election Projection
The LiberalWrong
Autonomoussource
RatherGate
HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit
AND EVEN THOUGH HE'S USUALLY WRONG...
Mark Kleiman
HE WHO DOESN'T LIKE BEING CALLED A HYPOCRITE The Moderate Voice
Email Steve
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://web.archive.org/web/20080907054238im_/http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Friday, September 05, 2008
Even though more people did watch McCain than watched Obama, if you're rounding, then Obama and McCain were, per the AP, 'tied' in the number of people who watched their respective acceptance speeches.
But something tells me that had Obama edged out McCain in viewership, the AP headline would have trumpeted that...
And it's true that 'most' Clinton backers aren't going to vote for McCain, but I wouldn't be surprised if McCain won't be happy getting as many as 20% of them to vote for him.
Again, this headline could have been written differently, but doing so would have cast McCain in a better light than the headline that was used.... and the AP can't have that, can they?
|
But something tells me that had Obama edged out McCain in viewership, the AP headline would have trumpeted that...
And it's true that 'most' Clinton backers aren't going to vote for McCain, but I wouldn't be surprised if McCain won't be happy getting as many as 20% of them to vote for him.
Again, this headline could have been written differently, but doing so would have cast McCain in a better light than the headline that was used.... and the AP can't have that, can they?
|
Thursday, September 04, 2008
While most of the people watching McCain tonight and Obama last week had probably already decided who they'd be voting for, there were likely a fair number who hadn't. Of these undecided viewers, some will be swayed by the substance of what one candidate or the other said about the issues, while others will vote less on the particulars of the candidate's policies and more on the way the candidates looked and sounded.
Of this last group, there are probably some who actually like McCain's slow, plodding, somewhat off-cadence presentation, but my guess is that there are far more people who would have been enamored with the more electrifying Obama.
And just as I thought Sarah Palin missed an opportunity last night, so too did McCain miss an opportunity tonight to target those voters who are inclined to vote more on the way a candidate looks than on the substance of what he says.
McCain needed to take Obama's strength - his eloquence, good looks and enthusiasm - and turn it against him. And the way to do that would have been to portray Obama as a modern day purveyor of snake oil. Smooth talking but peddling stuff that is just plain dangerous.
Unfortunately, Americans have plenty of experience getting burned by glib salesmen who talk a good game but not only don't have anything to back it up but are in fact leading us down a path that leaves us far worse than we are.
Unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders, pitching unaffordable mortgages to the gullible and naive. Used car salesmen pushing lemons that break before the new owner gets home. Stockbrokers pitching stocks and other investments that they wouldn't buy for their own portfolio. Business consultants who spout all the hot buzz words, collect a hefty fee and take off while the business and its workers suffer the consequences of trying to implement a flawed business model. Preachers who call for their congregations to sacrifice while they are spending church money on jet airplanes, hookers and drugs. And politicians who come in, all smooth and graceful, yet implement policies that enrich themselves and their cronies while leaving their voters worse off.
Americans want their leaders to be smooth and talk a good game, but they also want and need to know that there's substance behind the veneer, that there's something behind the curtain, that they won't be burned. And McCain could have and should have left no doubt that anyone getting caught up in the spectacle that is Obama will definitely be burned for having done so. McCain needed to give undecided viewers a reason to be skeptical of Obama's oratorical skills, to make voters look at what is just how little is behind the smoke and the mirrors and the hype, and, alas, he failed to do so.
McCain could also have preempted Obama's eloquence and stage presence with a few well placed jibes tonight, something along the lines of: "I harbor no illusions that I come across as well as Obama. But, as you're watching me tonight and watching the debates, please don't make the mistake of thinking that just because someone talks well that they can get the things done that you voters want done. I have a lifetime of looking and sounding, well, like this, but I also have a lifetime record of getting things done that have made America a stronger and safer country. Obama has had a short lifetime of looking good, and, well (pregnant pause), not much else. With me, you'll get a President who has a record of actual accomplishment, with Obama, you'd get a President who, well (pregnant pause) looks good on a stage.
McCain did a good job living up to the rather low expectations that were set for him. No one expected him to surpass Palin's extraordinary performance. No one expected him to follow in Reagan's shoes. McCain was okay. But he had the chance to do more for his candidacy than he did, and I guess that he'll pay the price in the weeks and months to come.
|
Of this last group, there are probably some who actually like McCain's slow, plodding, somewhat off-cadence presentation, but my guess is that there are far more people who would have been enamored with the more electrifying Obama.
And just as I thought Sarah Palin missed an opportunity last night, so too did McCain miss an opportunity tonight to target those voters who are inclined to vote more on the way a candidate looks than on the substance of what he says.
McCain needed to take Obama's strength - his eloquence, good looks and enthusiasm - and turn it against him. And the way to do that would have been to portray Obama as a modern day purveyor of snake oil. Smooth talking but peddling stuff that is just plain dangerous.
Unfortunately, Americans have plenty of experience getting burned by glib salesmen who talk a good game but not only don't have anything to back it up but are in fact leading us down a path that leaves us far worse than we are.
Unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders, pitching unaffordable mortgages to the gullible and naive. Used car salesmen pushing lemons that break before the new owner gets home. Stockbrokers pitching stocks and other investments that they wouldn't buy for their own portfolio. Business consultants who spout all the hot buzz words, collect a hefty fee and take off while the business and its workers suffer the consequences of trying to implement a flawed business model. Preachers who call for their congregations to sacrifice while they are spending church money on jet airplanes, hookers and drugs. And politicians who come in, all smooth and graceful, yet implement policies that enrich themselves and their cronies while leaving their voters worse off.
Americans want their leaders to be smooth and talk a good game, but they also want and need to know that there's substance behind the veneer, that there's something behind the curtain, that they won't be burned. And McCain could have and should have left no doubt that anyone getting caught up in the spectacle that is Obama will definitely be burned for having done so. McCain needed to give undecided viewers a reason to be skeptical of Obama's oratorical skills, to make voters look at what is just how little is behind the smoke and the mirrors and the hype, and, alas, he failed to do so.
McCain could also have preempted Obama's eloquence and stage presence with a few well placed jibes tonight, something along the lines of: "I harbor no illusions that I come across as well as Obama. But, as you're watching me tonight and watching the debates, please don't make the mistake of thinking that just because someone talks well that they can get the things done that you voters want done. I have a lifetime of looking and sounding, well, like this, but I also have a lifetime record of getting things done that have made America a stronger and safer country. Obama has had a short lifetime of looking good, and, well (pregnant pause), not much else. With me, you'll get a President who has a record of actual accomplishment, with Obama, you'd get a President who, well (pregnant pause) looks good on a stage.
McCain did a good job living up to the rather low expectations that were set for him. No one expected him to surpass Palin's extraordinary performance. No one expected him to follow in Reagan's shoes. McCain was okay. But he had the chance to do more for his candidacy than he did, and I guess that he'll pay the price in the weeks and months to come.
|
I think Sarah Palin missed an opportunity to do even better. She did a good job of knocking Obama and the MSM on what they've said and done... but she should have preemptively gone after them for what they're going to do and say over the balance of the campaign.
For example, she scored some points with her attack on Obama 'having said one thing....', but she should have followed that up with: '... so over the next weeks, when you hear Obama say this or that, ask yourself just how sincere he is'.
She should have also gone after the Democrats expected lines of attack. She could have undercut the Democratic claim that she was divisive by saying something along the line of: 'I know our opponents will claim that we're being divisive, it's what they always do when they find themselves on the wrong end of the issues'.
She could also have followed up her attack on the MSM's elitism and liberal bias with something along the lines of: 'keep in mind that the likes of Brian Williams and Campbell Brown and Chris Matthews don't like me, they don't like what I propose and they certainly aren't going to vote for John McCain, so keep that in mind when you listen to their supposedly 'unbiased' reporting.
Had she done this, voters across the country would have been properly skeptical of the coverage she'll be getting and wondering about Obama's sincerity. Never again will she have a stage to address the American people like she did last night and I'm afraid she missed an opportunity to not just counter the criticism she has received but neuter the criticism she will receive.
Other than that, she done pretty good.
|
For example, she scored some points with her attack on Obama 'having said one thing....', but she should have followed that up with: '... so over the next weeks, when you hear Obama say this or that, ask yourself just how sincere he is'.
She should have also gone after the Democrats expected lines of attack. She could have undercut the Democratic claim that she was divisive by saying something along the line of: 'I know our opponents will claim that we're being divisive, it's what they always do when they find themselves on the wrong end of the issues'.
She could also have followed up her attack on the MSM's elitism and liberal bias with something along the lines of: 'keep in mind that the likes of Brian Williams and Campbell Brown and Chris Matthews don't like me, they don't like what I propose and they certainly aren't going to vote for John McCain, so keep that in mind when you listen to their supposedly 'unbiased' reporting.
Had she done this, voters across the country would have been properly skeptical of the coverage she'll be getting and wondering about Obama's sincerity. Never again will she have a stage to address the American people like she did last night and I'm afraid she missed an opportunity to not just counter the criticism she has received but neuter the criticism she will receive.
Other than that, she done pretty good.
|
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
I've long written that when it comes to fighting terrorists and other enemies, I have no patience with those who want to tie one hand behind our collective backs. 'Playing fair' is what you do when it doesn't matter whether one wins or loses; when it does matter, as in matters of life and death, I have no problem with using every weapon available to keep those who would harm me, my family, my friends and my fellow Americans from being able to do so. I'm fine with wiretapping them, I'm fine with torturing them, I'm fine with destroying their homes and places of worship, and I'm fine if those who have gotten a little too close to my enemies find themselves suffering collateral damage. Put another way, if you haven't figured it out yourselves, it's anything goes to make sure the good guys stay safe and the bad guys die. And while I don't advocate going overboard, for example, using a nuclear bomb to accomplish what can be done with conventional weapon, I am fine with erring on the side of doing and using too much, rather than too little, to make sure our objectives are met.
Well, the left side of the ideological aisle is taking some flak from the right side for the left's handling of the Palin nomination, in particular their allegedly going after Palin's pregnant daughter, with the right claiming that some things and issues ought to be off limits.
But the left is only doing to Palin what I advocate doing against the terrorists: doing everything to defeat the enemy. They can't be sure that Obama will win if they play nice, so just as I would expect them to, the left is pulling out all the stops. Nothing is off limits to them. They'll go after McCain, they'll go after Palin, they'll go after their respective families and friends. They'll tell lies if telling lies helps Obama win. They'll twist the facts if it helps Obama win. They'll make 17 year old girls cry if that will help defeat McCain. They'll shed whatever pretense they have of being fair if doing so will help beat McCain.
It's not so much their tactics that bother me, as they're doing what needs to be done to defeat an enemy. What bothers me is that they deem McCain and Palin to be more of a threat to America than Al Qaeda. That is some seriously misguided thinking.
|
Well, the left side of the ideological aisle is taking some flak from the right side for the left's handling of the Palin nomination, in particular their allegedly going after Palin's pregnant daughter, with the right claiming that some things and issues ought to be off limits.
But the left is only doing to Palin what I advocate doing against the terrorists: doing everything to defeat the enemy. They can't be sure that Obama will win if they play nice, so just as I would expect them to, the left is pulling out all the stops. Nothing is off limits to them. They'll go after McCain, they'll go after Palin, they'll go after their respective families and friends. They'll tell lies if telling lies helps Obama win. They'll twist the facts if it helps Obama win. They'll make 17 year old girls cry if that will help defeat McCain. They'll shed whatever pretense they have of being fair if doing so will help beat McCain.
It's not so much their tactics that bother me, as they're doing what needs to be done to defeat an enemy. What bothers me is that they deem McCain and Palin to be more of a threat to America than Al Qaeda. That is some seriously misguided thinking.
|
Like Washington Post columnist Steve Pearlstein, I agree that the big 3 auto makers do not deserve a government bailout. Unlike Pearlstein, I would include the workers themselves, and not just management, as one of the primary reasons these companies are in such lousy shape. And if there is going to be a government bailout, unlike Pearlstein, I wouldn't have the government (us) make low-interest rate loans to these companies as that would leave current ownership intact, I would have the government take a controlling interest in the equity in return for the cash and then immediately sell the equity on the open market. In this way, current equity owners are wiped out as they should be; their stock holdings are all but worthless now, with their only value attributable to the hope of a government bailout. Using a figure of $50 billion, as Pearlstein does, for the amount of money these companies need to get their act together, the government might recoup 2/3 or so of its investment through a sale of equity, reducing the cost of the bailout to only $15 billion or so. And as part of the package, I would cancel EVERY union contract, EVERY supplier contract, EVERY management contract, EVERY franchise agreement and EVERY consulting contract that these three companies have. It's one thing to rescue an 'industry' that contributes much to the American economy, it's another thing altogether to rescue those who participated and contributed to the problem in the first place.
|
|
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
The McCain campaign can't be stupid enough to think that their 'fond relationship' with the media was going to last through the campaign.... can they?
The media never liked McCain, they liked that he opposed the GOP base on a number of substantive issues. Whenever McCain went off the reservation, it allowed the media to portray the GOP position as extreme, as evidenced by the fact that they were opposed by such 'moderates' as McCain. It also allowed the media to portray as 'bipartisan' the Democrat/McCain position as opposed to the 'partisan' GOP position. The GOP base opposed the soft immigration policies that McCain favored, and the media portrayed (and continues to portray) the GOP base as extreme. McCain favored restricting campaign speech in a way that drove the GOP base crazy which gave the media the opening to portray the base as extreme. And when McCain came out against the Bush tax cuts, his doing so allowed the media to portray the tax cuts as budget busting and those who supported the cuts as irresponsible.
But now that McCain is the face of the Republican party, he no longer is the 'maverick' whose positions can be cited in a way to advance a liberal agenda and the political fortunes of liberal candidates. In other words, he no longer has any value to the media in their quest to see Democrats elected. In fact, he is now a threat to Democrats being elected, in particular the most important position.
And as with any threat, those threatened turn all their energies to defeating the threat, thus the negative articles on McCain and everything and everybody around him.
I saw it coming, didn't you.
|
The media never liked McCain, they liked that he opposed the GOP base on a number of substantive issues. Whenever McCain went off the reservation, it allowed the media to portray the GOP position as extreme, as evidenced by the fact that they were opposed by such 'moderates' as McCain. It also allowed the media to portray as 'bipartisan' the Democrat/McCain position as opposed to the 'partisan' GOP position. The GOP base opposed the soft immigration policies that McCain favored, and the media portrayed (and continues to portray) the GOP base as extreme. McCain favored restricting campaign speech in a way that drove the GOP base crazy which gave the media the opening to portray the base as extreme. And when McCain came out against the Bush tax cuts, his doing so allowed the media to portray the tax cuts as budget busting and those who supported the cuts as irresponsible.
But now that McCain is the face of the Republican party, he no longer is the 'maverick' whose positions can be cited in a way to advance a liberal agenda and the political fortunes of liberal candidates. In other words, he no longer has any value to the media in their quest to see Democrats elected. In fact, he is now a threat to Democrats being elected, in particular the most important position.
And as with any threat, those threatened turn all their energies to defeating the threat, thus the negative articles on McCain and everything and everybody around him.
I saw it coming, didn't you.
|
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Considering that Born in in the U.S.A is not a song that extols the virtues of America, and especially given the grief Democrats gave Reagan when he thought otherwise, just why was Melissa Etheridge singing it tonight at the Democratic convention? Aren't there some positive songs they could choose?
|
|
The Democrats shouldn't be able to succeed in their attempt to tie McCain to the unpopular (and deservedly so) Bush. Unlike Al Gore, who served and supported Bill Clinton (up to the point where it was politically necessary to distance himself a bit), McCain is far from a loyal servant and supporter of the current President, opposing Bush on numerous occasions.
Of course, voters being who they are, there may be a fair number who fail to read beyond the headlines of the Democratic rhetoric. Thus, McCain can't count on people looking into the details, and he certainly can't count on the media to set the record straight, he has to start giving voters some headlines of his own on the ways in which he has stood apart from Bush.
McCain doesn't have to worry about alienating Bush supporters, he has to make sure he isn't unfairly tagged with Bush. We'll see if he responds appropriately.
|
Of course, voters being who they are, there may be a fair number who fail to read beyond the headlines of the Democratic rhetoric. Thus, McCain can't count on people looking into the details, and he certainly can't count on the media to set the record straight, he has to start giving voters some headlines of his own on the ways in which he has stood apart from Bush.
McCain doesn't have to worry about alienating Bush supporters, he has to make sure he isn't unfairly tagged with Bush. We'll see if he responds appropriately.
|
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
I think, if Obama ends up losing the election, the post-mortem analysis of his campaign will end up pointing out the similarity between Obama's campaign and that of Ross Perot back in 1992.
Perot, like Obama, ran as an agent of change, a way for voters to go Howard Beale and express their unhappiness with 'politics as normal'.
Unfortunately for Perot, while there were a lot - an awful lot - of voters who were unhappy with the status quo, there was no solid group of voters who were unhappy for the same reason, and even worse for Perot, voters unhappy with, for example, government policies on international trade, weren't all unhappy for the same reasons: some voters wanted more aggressive expansion of trade opportunities while other voters wanted a whole lot less.
And as such, whenever Perot was forced to go beyond the bland basics of 'change' and articulate the specific changes he was going to push, he lost voters who didn't like the change he was pushing to make.
And the same thing is happening today with Obama. EVERYBODY can get behind change. I want changes in the way things are happening in Washington, just as my neighbors do. But we don't want the same changes. And so, whenever Obama commits to X or Y, he's going to lose support, when those who want change realize Obama is not going to give them the change they want. For voters like this, maintaining the status quo is better than making a change in the wrong direction.
|
Perot, like Obama, ran as an agent of change, a way for voters to go Howard Beale and express their unhappiness with 'politics as normal'.
Unfortunately for Perot, while there were a lot - an awful lot - of voters who were unhappy with the status quo, there was no solid group of voters who were unhappy for the same reason, and even worse for Perot, voters unhappy with, for example, government policies on international trade, weren't all unhappy for the same reasons: some voters wanted more aggressive expansion of trade opportunities while other voters wanted a whole lot less.
And as such, whenever Perot was forced to go beyond the bland basics of 'change' and articulate the specific changes he was going to push, he lost voters who didn't like the change he was pushing to make.
And the same thing is happening today with Obama. EVERYBODY can get behind change. I want changes in the way things are happening in Washington, just as my neighbors do. But we don't want the same changes. And so, whenever Obama commits to X or Y, he's going to lose support, when those who want change realize Obama is not going to give them the change they want. For voters like this, maintaining the status quo is better than making a change in the wrong direction.
|
Monday, August 25, 2008
I'm "green with envy" at Prius drivers?
Not even close.
Why should I envy someone silly enough to pay a premium for a car that will take years to return in fuel savings the extra money to buy the car in the first place? Not only are many Prius buyers paying a premium over sticker price, the sticker price itself is a premium over so-called normal cars with comparable MPG.
Why should I envy someone silly enough to think that their minuscule reduction in emissions (compared to a car with a lower MPG) makes a difference? This is analogous to someone thinking their drinking a diet coke helps lower the average weight of everybody in the country.
And why should I envy someone silly enough to take seriously the whole global warming issue in the first place?
Envy? No. Amusement? Definitely.
|
Not even close.
Why should I envy someone silly enough to pay a premium for a car that will take years to return in fuel savings the extra money to buy the car in the first place? Not only are many Prius buyers paying a premium over sticker price, the sticker price itself is a premium over so-called normal cars with comparable MPG.
Why should I envy someone silly enough to think that their minuscule reduction in emissions (compared to a car with a lower MPG) makes a difference? This is analogous to someone thinking their drinking a diet coke helps lower the average weight of everybody in the country.
And why should I envy someone silly enough to take seriously the whole global warming issue in the first place?
Envy? No. Amusement? Definitely.
|
Saturday, August 23, 2008
To no surprise, comments have already started that only racism could explain Obama not winning in November. It isn't enough that a black guy won the Democratic nomination, he now has to win the Presidency. It couldn't be an honest disagreement with Obama over the direction the country should head, it couldn't be one veteran honoring another with his vote, it couldn't be preferring someone with a tad more experience, it couldn't be the deep-seated revulsion at the thought of voting for any Democrat, let alone one of the most liberal ones, the only reason people have for not voting for Obama is racism, plain and simple.
And don't make the mistake of thinking that the cries of racism will go away if he is elected. If he wins, expect to see racism cited as the only reason Obama:
* fails to get Congress to enact every single one of his policy proposals,
* would face any opposition for the Democratic nomination in 2012,
* isn't re-elected by a landslide,
* isn't ranked as one of the top 5 greatest Presidents of all time, and
* doesn't have his image engraved on Mt Rushmore.
|
And don't make the mistake of thinking that the cries of racism will go away if he is elected. If he wins, expect to see racism cited as the only reason Obama:
* fails to get Congress to enact every single one of his policy proposals,
* would face any opposition for the Democratic nomination in 2012,
* isn't re-elected by a landslide,
* isn't ranked as one of the top 5 greatest Presidents of all time, and
* doesn't have his image engraved on Mt Rushmore.
|
Friday, August 22, 2008
It's interesting that Obama lists as his number one priority for a Vice President that he/she "be prepared to be President".... especially given that Obama, of all the candidates of both parties over the past twenty years, is himself the candidate least prepared to be President.
|
|
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
I agree with Larry Kudlow that McCain ought to link the Russian invasion of Georgia with increased domestic drilling.
And that got me to thinking: supposing we had expanded drilling and production years ago and thus kept prices low(er), to what extent would having fewer petro-dollars in the bank have kept Russia from acting as belligerent as they have been lately? And to what extent would having less money led the Mideast oil producing countries to have been a tad more cooperative in our war against Islamic fundamentalism?
Having lots and lots of money in the bank gives one a certain degree of freedom to ignore what polite society says about your actions. Whether a country enjoying its oil wealth, like Russia, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, or some dot-com billionaire with a eight figure checking account, having that kind of money allows one to do they things they want to do, it liberates them from having to conform to what everybody else in society thinks is proper. To paraphrase Love Story, having money means never having to abstain from invading a troublesome neighbor, it means being able to tweak ones nose at the United States.
Conversely, not having money requires one to pay a whole lot more attention to what others demand of you. Not being sure whether one has enough money to last through the week requires one to suffer the indignities imposed by those who control the purse strings.
Perhaps Russia would have invaded Georgia anyway, and perhaps they would have been just as much an obstacle to our efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And perhaps even if the West wasn't dependent on Russian oil and their pipelines, Europe and Bush would have been just as feeble in their response. All I know is I'd prefer to not have the Russians sitting in the catbird's seat that all the oil money has given them.
|
And that got me to thinking: supposing we had expanded drilling and production years ago and thus kept prices low(er), to what extent would having fewer petro-dollars in the bank have kept Russia from acting as belligerent as they have been lately? And to what extent would having less money led the Mideast oil producing countries to have been a tad more cooperative in our war against Islamic fundamentalism?
Having lots and lots of money in the bank gives one a certain degree of freedom to ignore what polite society says about your actions. Whether a country enjoying its oil wealth, like Russia, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, or some dot-com billionaire with a eight figure checking account, having that kind of money allows one to do they things they want to do, it liberates them from having to conform to what everybody else in society thinks is proper. To paraphrase Love Story, having money means never having to abstain from invading a troublesome neighbor, it means being able to tweak ones nose at the United States.
Conversely, not having money requires one to pay a whole lot more attention to what others demand of you. Not being sure whether one has enough money to last through the week requires one to suffer the indignities imposed by those who control the purse strings.
Perhaps Russia would have invaded Georgia anyway, and perhaps they would have been just as much an obstacle to our efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And perhaps even if the West wasn't dependent on Russian oil and their pipelines, Europe and Bush would have been just as feeble in their response. All I know is I'd prefer to not have the Russians sitting in the catbird's seat that all the oil money has given them.
|
The Russian invasion of Georgia and the Chinese repression of its own people provide clear insight into why it is so foolish to count on either of them to help in keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Neither Russia nor China fear that Iran would use nuclear weapons against them, as they are both sure Iran knows that any such action would be met with overwhelming retaliation. Iran can read the papers and can see the way Russia deals with problems, whether in Chechnya or Georgia. Russia doesn't look to 'solve' problems, it moves to 'eliminate' those problems. And for China, Iran has to know that a country that is willing to do what it does to its own citizens will certainly be willing, eager even, to dole out far worse to someone else.
And Russia and China both know that we (and Israel) are in Iran's sights. And as we are seen by both China and Russia as obstacles to their claiming their destiny, anything bad that happens to us has to, by definition, be good for them. If we're attacked by Iran, great. China and Russia would be happy even if we were just knocked down a few pegs (such as, in the event that Iran takes out Tel Aviv, by the world's dismay at the weakness of our response).
Now of course, this runs counter to the philosophy at the State Department, where they refuse to acknowledge Russia and China as enemies of ours. And as such, given that Bush has given Rice carte blanche to formulate US foreign policy (much as Bush has handed off economic issues to Paulson), this means that, once again, the United States is dealing with the world as we'd like it to be and not as it is.
And while we do, the likes of Russia, China and Iran sit and laugh and exploit the opportunities we have given them... while our allies sit and wonder whether they've signed up on the wrong side.
|
Neither Russia nor China fear that Iran would use nuclear weapons against them, as they are both sure Iran knows that any such action would be met with overwhelming retaliation. Iran can read the papers and can see the way Russia deals with problems, whether in Chechnya or Georgia. Russia doesn't look to 'solve' problems, it moves to 'eliminate' those problems. And for China, Iran has to know that a country that is willing to do what it does to its own citizens will certainly be willing, eager even, to dole out far worse to someone else.
And Russia and China both know that we (and Israel) are in Iran's sights. And as we are seen by both China and Russia as obstacles to their claiming their destiny, anything bad that happens to us has to, by definition, be good for them. If we're attacked by Iran, great. China and Russia would be happy even if we were just knocked down a few pegs (such as, in the event that Iran takes out Tel Aviv, by the world's dismay at the weakness of our response).
Now of course, this runs counter to the philosophy at the State Department, where they refuse to acknowledge Russia and China as enemies of ours. And as such, given that Bush has given Rice carte blanche to formulate US foreign policy (much as Bush has handed off economic issues to Paulson), this means that, once again, the United States is dealing with the world as we'd like it to be and not as it is.
And while we do, the likes of Russia, China and Iran sit and laugh and exploit the opportunities we have given them... while our allies sit and wonder whether they've signed up on the wrong side.
|
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Mark Krikorian argues that since Republicans have been the "driving force behind the successful use of expanded incarceration to reduce crime", we in particular have a responsibility to "help ex-cons who have reformed to re-incorporate into society".
I disagree.
Criminals bring their troubles on themselves, and as such, they bear the full and complete responsibility for dealing with the problems their actions have created for themselves. They got themselves in trouble, they can deal with the aftermath. I am not responsible for their having decided to break the law, and I refuse to accept responsible for helping them mitigate the effects of their having done so.
Secondly, there are an awful lot of people who haven't broken the law who can use help in one form or another, and I would rather our limited resources go to help the people who have chosen to stay on the right side of the law while they try to deal with the difficulties they are having in finding jobs, affordable medical care, a safe place to live and good schools for their kids. What kind of screwed up priorities place those who have broken the law ahead of those who have played by the rules in receiving assistance?
|
I disagree.
Criminals bring their troubles on themselves, and as such, they bear the full and complete responsibility for dealing with the problems their actions have created for themselves. They got themselves in trouble, they can deal with the aftermath. I am not responsible for their having decided to break the law, and I refuse to accept responsible for helping them mitigate the effects of their having done so.
Secondly, there are an awful lot of people who haven't broken the law who can use help in one form or another, and I would rather our limited resources go to help the people who have chosen to stay on the right side of the law while they try to deal with the difficulties they are having in finding jobs, affordable medical care, a safe place to live and good schools for their kids. What kind of screwed up priorities place those who have broken the law ahead of those who have played by the rules in receiving assistance?
|
Monday, August 11, 2008
Some random thoughts on the Russian offensive against Georgia...
Supposedly, the United States military and diplomatic brain trust 'war game' all sorts of military and diplomatic crises, all in order for us to be able to properly respond in the event that a particular situation erupts. Obviously, I don't know the exact process they go through, but it likely is something along the lines of: "OK, if this happens, what do we do, how do we respond? And if this happens, what do we do, what do we say, what do we do? And if we do that and the other side does this, what do we then do?".
While it was uncertain as to exactly when Russia would attack, nobody should have been surprised by the attack as Russia had all but telegraphed their intentions. Given this, I have no doubt that thousands of hours of planning time at the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom went into thinking about this very situation.
So I have to ask, seeing the extremely "feeble US response": "is that the best you could come up with?" Expressing your 'displeasure' and 'grave concern'? Do you think that Putin is going to call things off because he now knows you're upset?
As for Putin, how long ago was it that Bush looked into his eyes and saw someone he could trust. How long did Bush continue to approach Putin as an ally rather than an adversary? I know the historians are going to cite Iraq as the biggest screw up of the Bush Presidency, but I'm figuring that screwing up things with Putin and Russia will have far longer and far more serious repercussions than has been the case with Iraq.
It's ironic that, with both Iraq and Iran, the Bush Administration made the argument for dealing with problems before they became far more serious, yet Bush completely missed the opportunity to deal with Russia when we were in a stronger position to do so. But, like so much else that has gone on, Bush's 'not-so-excellent-adventure in Iraq so completely consumed his attention that he was unable and/or unwilling to pay much attention to what was happening - and needing attention - elsewhere.
And what is happening in Georgia totally undercuts Bush's rationale for sticking around in Iraq (past the point at which we had removed Hussein and determined the extent - or lack thereof - of Hussein WMD program). Per Bush, democracy is the magic potion that makes for a safer and more friendly world. Well, Russia is a democracy (not a great example, but one nonetheless) and where's the peace and quiet and peaceful coexistence with its neighbors? I wonder when Bush will realize, or if he ever will, that it isn't democracy per se that brings peace, it is shared values that makes the world go round. Russia is a democracy, but they don't share our values.
And finally, at least for today, Putin is once again proving a philosophy of mine, that for all of the talk about peace and diplomacy and restraint and so on, the willingness to use force - and lots of it - is what brings an end to conflict. Putin uses overwhelming force against the Chechen separatists, and they're no longer a problem (for Russia). Russia is using a lot of force against Georgia, and Georgia has gone from belligerent to pleading for peace in all of a couple of days. Putin could care less about what the world 'community' thinks of what he is doing. He has given his military the ability to take care of their 'problems'. And, to no surprise, at least not mine, the problems go away.
This is something that Bush never has learned. We would have been able to leave Iraq three years ago had he not tied our military's hands in dealing with insurgents and terrorists. And we wouldn't be facing the likelihood of Iran having nuclear weapons if Bush had done what needed to be done two-three years ago. But Bush has always cared (or perhaps more accurately, has had advisers who have cared) about how was portrayed in the press, he's cared more about whether the leaders of the world say nice things about him than whether he was keeping America safe and strong.
|
Supposedly, the United States military and diplomatic brain trust 'war game' all sorts of military and diplomatic crises, all in order for us to be able to properly respond in the event that a particular situation erupts. Obviously, I don't know the exact process they go through, but it likely is something along the lines of: "OK, if this happens, what do we do, how do we respond? And if this happens, what do we do, what do we say, what do we do? And if we do that and the other side does this, what do we then do?".
While it was uncertain as to exactly when Russia would attack, nobody should have been surprised by the attack as Russia had all but telegraphed their intentions. Given this, I have no doubt that thousands of hours of planning time at the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom went into thinking about this very situation.
So I have to ask, seeing the extremely "feeble US response": "is that the best you could come up with?" Expressing your 'displeasure' and 'grave concern'? Do you think that Putin is going to call things off because he now knows you're upset?
As for Putin, how long ago was it that Bush looked into his eyes and saw someone he could trust. How long did Bush continue to approach Putin as an ally rather than an adversary? I know the historians are going to cite Iraq as the biggest screw up of the Bush Presidency, but I'm figuring that screwing up things with Putin and Russia will have far longer and far more serious repercussions than has been the case with Iraq.
It's ironic that, with both Iraq and Iran, the Bush Administration made the argument for dealing with problems before they became far more serious, yet Bush completely missed the opportunity to deal with Russia when we were in a stronger position to do so. But, like so much else that has gone on, Bush's 'not-so-excellent-adventure in Iraq so completely consumed his attention that he was unable and/or unwilling to pay much attention to what was happening - and needing attention - elsewhere.
And what is happening in Georgia totally undercuts Bush's rationale for sticking around in Iraq (past the point at which we had removed Hussein and determined the extent - or lack thereof - of Hussein WMD program). Per Bush, democracy is the magic potion that makes for a safer and more friendly world. Well, Russia is a democracy (not a great example, but one nonetheless) and where's the peace and quiet and peaceful coexistence with its neighbors? I wonder when Bush will realize, or if he ever will, that it isn't democracy per se that brings peace, it is shared values that makes the world go round. Russia is a democracy, but they don't share our values.
And finally, at least for today, Putin is once again proving a philosophy of mine, that for all of the talk about peace and diplomacy and restraint and so on, the willingness to use force - and lots of it - is what brings an end to conflict. Putin uses overwhelming force against the Chechen separatists, and they're no longer a problem (for Russia). Russia is using a lot of force against Georgia, and Georgia has gone from belligerent to pleading for peace in all of a couple of days. Putin could care less about what the world 'community' thinks of what he is doing. He has given his military the ability to take care of their 'problems'. And, to no surprise, at least not mine, the problems go away.
This is something that Bush never has learned. We would have been able to leave Iraq three years ago had he not tied our military's hands in dealing with insurgents and terrorists. And we wouldn't be facing the likelihood of Iran having nuclear weapons if Bush had done what needed to be done two-three years ago. But Bush has always cared (or perhaps more accurately, has had advisers who have cared) about how was portrayed in the press, he's cared more about whether the leaders of the world say nice things about him than whether he was keeping America safe and strong.
|
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Henry, don't let the door hit you on the way out...
Why does Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson think he'd have the opportunity to stay in the job after Bush leaves office that he feels the need to say that he won't be staying? Has there ever been a time where a newly elected President kept ANY of his predecessor's Cabinet, let alone one as important as Secretary of the Treasury? Can Paulson really think he's indispensable, that he alone is up to the task, that either Obama or McCain would want him around? I wouldn't have thought so, but anybody who puts together a rescue package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that doesn't, at a minimum, require current management to be replaced and for shareholders to surrender equity may be delusional enough to think that his services will be required starting next January.
|
Why does Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson think he'd have the opportunity to stay in the job after Bush leaves office that he feels the need to say that he won't be staying? Has there ever been a time where a newly elected President kept ANY of his predecessor's Cabinet, let alone one as important as Secretary of the Treasury? Can Paulson really think he's indispensable, that he alone is up to the task, that either Obama or McCain would want him around? I wouldn't have thought so, but anybody who puts together a rescue package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that doesn't, at a minimum, require current management to be replaced and for shareholders to surrender equity may be delusional enough to think that his services will be required starting next January.
|
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Can you think of anything that would better describe her cluelessness than Condoleezza Rice saying that the United States would be safe with Obama as President?
First, the substance of her comments: with Obama to the left of Bush on just about every issue concerning national security, for her to believe that we would be safe with Obama as President, this suggests that she thinks Bush's more aggressive policies are either (1) overkill and thus unnecessary, in that they don't make us more safe than would less aggressive policies, or (2) counter-productive, in that they are making us less safe than we would be with a less aggressive policy. Either way, if she felt that way, she should have resigned a long time ago.
Making that comment ensures her (and Bush's) irrelevance during what remains of Bush's time in office. Why would anybody support Bush's policies when his Secretary of State is on the record as supporting Obama, who career was built on opposing Bush's policies?
And finally, what possible political benefit is there to saying what she did? Doesn't she have an interest in seeing a Republican succeed Bush as President? And doesn't she know the likelihood of that happening goes down the more voters think a Democrat would do a good job of keeping the country safe from attack?
It's possible that she's engaging in some Machiavellian maneuvers, in that she doesn't want McCain to win, figuring that his winning would make it less likely she could run and win the Republican nomination in 2012.
Or she could just be clueless, stupid or some combination of both...
|
First, the substance of her comments: with Obama to the left of Bush on just about every issue concerning national security, for her to believe that we would be safe with Obama as President, this suggests that she thinks Bush's more aggressive policies are either (1) overkill and thus unnecessary, in that they don't make us more safe than would less aggressive policies, or (2) counter-productive, in that they are making us less safe than we would be with a less aggressive policy. Either way, if she felt that way, she should have resigned a long time ago.
Making that comment ensures her (and Bush's) irrelevance during what remains of Bush's time in office. Why would anybody support Bush's policies when his Secretary of State is on the record as supporting Obama, who career was built on opposing Bush's policies?
And finally, what possible political benefit is there to saying what she did? Doesn't she have an interest in seeing a Republican succeed Bush as President? And doesn't she know the likelihood of that happening goes down the more voters think a Democrat would do a good job of keeping the country safe from attack?
It's possible that she's engaging in some Machiavellian maneuvers, in that she doesn't want McCain to win, figuring that his winning would make it less likely she could run and win the Republican nomination in 2012.
Or she could just be clueless, stupid or some combination of both...
|
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
I'm not going to comment on the lawsuit alleging that the wife of TV preacher Joel Osteen physically assaulted a flight attendant, an incident that led the FAA to fine Victoria Osteen $3,000 for her inappropriate actions, but I do wonder: why is Victoria Osteen still allowed on commercial flights? If you misbehave at a restaurant, you're told not to come back. If you misbehave at a movie theater, you get told not to come back. If you misbehave at the office, you get told to pack up your belongings and not come back. Shouldn't misbehaving on a plane, which is potentially far more dangerous than making noise at the neighborhood multiplex, be punished more severely than with an insignificant slap on the wrist?
UPDATE: OK, I will comment. Even stipulating that Victoria Osteen did what she is alleged to do, it sure looks like the 'victim', along with her oh-so-respectable enabling (if not instigating) attorney, is using this incident to soak up as much money as she can get. Asking for 10% of Osteen's net worth? Ridiculous. Having to see a counselor to get over the trauma of being pushed? Ridiculous. Getting hemorrhoids from being pushed? Ridiculous. Just ridiculous.
|
UPDATE: OK, I will comment. Even stipulating that Victoria Osteen did what she is alleged to do, it sure looks like the 'victim', along with her oh-so-respectable enabling (if not instigating) attorney, is using this incident to soak up as much money as she can get. Asking for 10% of Osteen's net worth? Ridiculous. Having to see a counselor to get over the trauma of being pushed? Ridiculous. Getting hemorrhoids from being pushed? Ridiculous. Just ridiculous.
|
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
What difference do shows like Olberman and O'Reilly make when pretty much everybody who watches and reads them have all pretty much made up their mind who to vote for?
Do the producers and hosts and the battling guests who appear on the various talk shows think they're reaching anyone who isn't already committed to vote for the candidate backed by those in charge of the show? Along those lines, can the editors of the NYT and the Washington Post really be so naive as to think that they are persuading people to vote for one candidate or another? Can the writers who spend thousands of hours a year putting out blogs point to a single voter who changed his or her mind after reading a blog posting?
I don't profess to know exactly how people go about deciding who to vote for, but I will wager dollars to doughnuts that they don't do so by watching political commentary shows and reading political blogs, nor do they do so by reading the pages of the New York Times.
And no, I don't write this thinking that I'm going to persuade anybody to vote for my candidate. Heck, I don't think I'm going to persuade anybody of anything. At least I'm honest enough to admit this blog is going to have absolutely no impact on anything at all. And yet I still (occasionally) punch this out.
|
Do the producers and hosts and the battling guests who appear on the various talk shows think they're reaching anyone who isn't already committed to vote for the candidate backed by those in charge of the show? Along those lines, can the editors of the NYT and the Washington Post really be so naive as to think that they are persuading people to vote for one candidate or another? Can the writers who spend thousands of hours a year putting out blogs point to a single voter who changed his or her mind after reading a blog posting?
I don't profess to know exactly how people go about deciding who to vote for, but I will wager dollars to doughnuts that they don't do so by watching political commentary shows and reading political blogs, nor do they do so by reading the pages of the New York Times.
And no, I don't write this thinking that I'm going to persuade anybody to vote for my candidate. Heck, I don't think I'm going to persuade anybody of anything. At least I'm honest enough to admit this blog is going to have absolutely no impact on anything at all. And yet I still (occasionally) punch this out.
|
Monday, August 04, 2008
Even if his initiatives are supported by a Congressional majority, it's pretty tough for a President when whomever is holding the Speaker's gavel vehemently opposes the President. In such situations, if the President wants to see his agenda enacted, it is incumbent upon him to use every tool in the shed to force the Speaker to yield to the majority.
Given that Speakers usually hail from safe districts, it doesn't do much good to directly pressure the Speaker. The President must bring pressure - and lots of it - on the vulnerable Members of the Speaker's party to get them to pressure the Speaker.
One way to do that is to embarrass those Representatives, to portray them negatively to the voters in their home districts, and so much so that they are driven to beg the Speaker to concede so as to save themselves from possible defeat come November.
And a great way to do that would be to call Congress back into session for the purpose of debating and voting on proposals to allow offshore drilling. Doing so is a win-win for Bush: either it yields the result Bush is looking for or it depicts Pelosi and the Democratic leadership double as a bunch of out-of-touch smug liberals.
Of course, since that is right thing to do, it doesn't surprise me at all that Bush isn't going to do it.
|
Given that Speakers usually hail from safe districts, it doesn't do much good to directly pressure the Speaker. The President must bring pressure - and lots of it - on the vulnerable Members of the Speaker's party to get them to pressure the Speaker.
One way to do that is to embarrass those Representatives, to portray them negatively to the voters in their home districts, and so much so that they are driven to beg the Speaker to concede so as to save themselves from possible defeat come November.
And a great way to do that would be to call Congress back into session for the purpose of debating and voting on proposals to allow offshore drilling. Doing so is a win-win for Bush: either it yields the result Bush is looking for or it depicts Pelosi and the Democratic leadership double as a bunch of out-of-touch smug liberals.
Of course, since that is right thing to do, it doesn't surprise me at all that Bush isn't going to do it.
|
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Most nobody likes being tagged as racist. And for years yelling 'racist' has been one of the liberals favorite weapons to wield against people and ideas they don't like. Liberals know that merely threatening to yell the word is usually enough to cause their opponents to give up the fight against whatever it is the liberals are trying to do. It works against conservatives, it even works against fellow liberals, as evidenced by the charge that Bill Clinton was a racist for his comments concerning Obama's candidacy.
So it's great to see someone with the stature of McCain yell BS and call Obama out. It would have been great if Clinton had the guts to do so during the Democratic primaries, but that would have required Clinton to actually have some backbone, so it's no surprise that Clinton folded like the proverbial bad poker hand.
If we get nothing else out of McCain's candidacy, we'll have this to thank him for.
|
So it's great to see someone with the stature of McCain yell BS and call Obama out. It would have been great if Clinton had the guts to do so during the Democratic primaries, but that would have required Clinton to actually have some backbone, so it's no surprise that Clinton folded like the proverbial bad poker hand.
If we get nothing else out of McCain's candidacy, we'll have this to thank him for.
|
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
By definition, there is no such thing as a deal that is so good that it is worth doing 'everything possible' to get it, as doing everything implies giving up more than you would get in return, rendering the deal as less than desirable.
This rule holds no matter what the situation and no matter what one is negotiating. A sports team trying to trade for a certain player draws the line at giving up too much (however 'too much' is defined). Businesses know there's a point where the price a target company is asking is too rich. And people know (or, at least they used to know) there's a point where the asking price for a given house is too much.
And it applies when countries are negotiating trade deals with one another. A country may want access to another country's markets, but there is, by definition, a point where that access can not justify what is being asked in return.
Which makes the report that Bush instructed his trade negotiator to "do everything possible" to reach a deal very troubling, as that suggests Bush was more interested in reaching a deal, for the sake of having a deal, than in making sure that the deal was a deal worth having.
And that is a terrible position to take. It smacks of someone who cares less about the substance of the deal than in having a deal, of someone who is more interested in the press clippings than in having a deal that benefits the United States.
Aside: unfortunately, the Bush Administration is consistent, as this is the same approach Bush and Rice are taking in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: they're more interested in reaching an agreement than in having an agreement that means anything.
|
This rule holds no matter what the situation and no matter what one is negotiating. A sports team trying to trade for a certain player draws the line at giving up too much (however 'too much' is defined). Businesses know there's a point where the price a target company is asking is too rich. And people know (or, at least they used to know) there's a point where the asking price for a given house is too much.
And it applies when countries are negotiating trade deals with one another. A country may want access to another country's markets, but there is, by definition, a point where that access can not justify what is being asked in return.
Which makes the report that Bush instructed his trade negotiator to "do everything possible" to reach a deal very troubling, as that suggests Bush was more interested in reaching a deal, for the sake of having a deal, than in making sure that the deal was a deal worth having.
And that is a terrible position to take. It smacks of someone who cares less about the substance of the deal than in having a deal, of someone who is more interested in the press clippings than in having a deal that benefits the United States.
Aside: unfortunately, the Bush Administration is consistent, as this is the same approach Bush and Rice are taking in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: they're more interested in reaching an agreement than in having an agreement that means anything.
|
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Having Jamie Gorelick complain that some low level political appointee trying to recruit fellow conservatives to the Justice Department was a "Blow to Justice" is akin to the captain of the Titanic complaining about the meat served that night being undercooked.
Sure, what Monica Goodling did isn't right, but in the big scheme of things, I can't think of someone who screwed things up worse at the Justice Department than Gorelick herself, who in her role as Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, was the chief advocate of the 'wall' that kept our nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing the information that could very well have protected us against the attack on 9/11.
Given my druthers between some political based hiring and not having the 'wall', guess which way I'd choose? Wouldn't you?
|
Sure, what Monica Goodling did isn't right, but in the big scheme of things, I can't think of someone who screwed things up worse at the Justice Department than Gorelick herself, who in her role as Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, was the chief advocate of the 'wall' that kept our nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing the information that could very well have protected us against the attack on 9/11.
Given my druthers between some political based hiring and not having the 'wall', guess which way I'd choose? Wouldn't you?
|
To claim that the couple who were given a house on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition are victims of the 'foreclosure crisis' is more than a bit misleading...
'Foreclosure', as least the way that term is being used today, means losing one's home after falling behind - and usually way behind - on the loan(s) taken out to finance the purchase of the property. And when we think of the people losing their homes to foreclosure, we usually think of people who took on a larger mortgage than they could afford to pay or someone who lost their job and with it the means of paying their mortgage.
But this couple didn't lose their house because they couldn't make the mortgage payments. They didn't have a mortgage! They were given the house free and clear of any debt. They lost the house because they went out and borrowed $450,000, pledging the house as collateral... and then, for whatever reason, didn't make the payments on that loan.
Let me repeat, they owned the house free and clear of any debt. And not only did they get a really nice house for free, they were also given money to help pay property taxes and repair bills. And if that wasn't enough, their kids were given college scholarships.
They could have stayed in that house for the rest of their lives. They could have passed the house down to their kids and their kids and their kids (yeah, I'm ignoring the inheritance tax). But they chose to risk the four bedroom, three car garage, four fireplace gift they were given.
I don't know why and won't even begin to try and guess why they borrowed the money. And I don't know what happened that left them unable or unwilling to make the payments due on that debt. But like anyone else who pledges their house as collateral for a loan, whether it be a business loan or a loan to buy lots of goodies, they ran the risk of losing the house if they didn't make the payments.
They didn't make the payments, they lost the house. Sad.
On a related note, examples such as this make rethink my position that once someone is given something, it is up to them to do with the gift as they wish. They can use it as the donor hoped or they can misuse and abuse it however they like, as it is theirs the moment title changes hands. Technically, all those who contributed money and time and effort towards giving these people such a nice gift had no say in how the couple used their gift. But... maybe there are times and some gifts where the gifts ought to come with some strings attached. In this case, a 'no borrowing' rule would have helped ensure that this family kept the house. Put another way, if a recipient is too stupid to do the right thing, then maybe the donor ought to put some conditions on their gift. ABC ought to think about this, after all, how eager are others going to be to donate their time and money if they think their gifts are just going to be p****d away?
|
'Foreclosure', as least the way that term is being used today, means losing one's home after falling behind - and usually way behind - on the loan(s) taken out to finance the purchase of the property. And when we think of the people losing their homes to foreclosure, we usually think of people who took on a larger mortgage than they could afford to pay or someone who lost their job and with it the means of paying their mortgage.
But this couple didn't lose their house because they couldn't make the mortgage payments. They didn't have a mortgage! They were given the house free and clear of any debt. They lost the house because they went out and borrowed $450,000, pledging the house as collateral... and then, for whatever reason, didn't make the payments on that loan.
Let me repeat, they owned the house free and clear of any debt. And not only did they get a really nice house for free, they were also given money to help pay property taxes and repair bills. And if that wasn't enough, their kids were given college scholarships.
They could have stayed in that house for the rest of their lives. They could have passed the house down to their kids and their kids and their kids (yeah, I'm ignoring the inheritance tax). But they chose to risk the four bedroom, three car garage, four fireplace gift they were given.
I don't know why and won't even begin to try and guess why they borrowed the money. And I don't know what happened that left them unable or unwilling to make the payments due on that debt. But like anyone else who pledges their house as collateral for a loan, whether it be a business loan or a loan to buy lots of goodies, they ran the risk of losing the house if they didn't make the payments.
They didn't make the payments, they lost the house. Sad.
On a related note, examples such as this make rethink my position that once someone is given something, it is up to them to do with the gift as they wish. They can use it as the donor hoped or they can misuse and abuse it however they like, as it is theirs the moment title changes hands. Technically, all those who contributed money and time and effort towards giving these people such a nice gift had no say in how the couple used their gift. But... maybe there are times and some gifts where the gifts ought to come with some strings attached. In this case, a 'no borrowing' rule would have helped ensure that this family kept the house. Put another way, if a recipient is too stupid to do the right thing, then maybe the donor ought to put some conditions on their gift. ABC ought to think about this, after all, how eager are others going to be to donate their time and money if they think their gifts are just going to be p****d away?
|