Al Qaeda should "surrender" to US and announce that they no longer will attack us. Why do they keep fighting us. They are getting their "brains beat out" and would be more effective dealing with their other enemies if we weren't there killing their leaders.
Maybe they don't have to "surrender", but somehow make it clear to us that they are no longer coming after us. With all of our high tech drones, missiles and special forces , do they really want us as an active enemy? Given our new spirit of isolationism , I'm pretty sure we won't jump to the defense of our allies if Al Qaeda weren't threatening us.
We can then just declare that the War on Terror, at least as far as the USA is concerned, is over and we won.
Even the most fanatical can't really believe they can takeover the USA; so just give up and focus on someone they can beat without us involved like the Europeans and the rest of the Muslim world.
I thought you all would enjoy a good laugh.
Eric
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Not your usual foreclosure story
Sunday June 19th front page NYT foreclosure article. http://s.nyt.com/u/4cHv
At last the story is out, sort of. Millions living rent free and more. The untold story of the foreclosure debacle. Now don't get me wrong, a whole lot of people have obviously lost their homes and are suffering , but according to that article, many are just staying put and living rent free, while the lenders are screwing up trying to foreclose, or as the article says, sometimes no longer even trying to foreclose. According to a defense lawyer many of his clients are renting out their properties, not paying their mortgages and pocketing the difference.
I'm not trying to disparage the vast majority who got in over their heads and may have been the victim of predatory lending practices , but my point is that the economic impact on many people in foreclosure may not be as bad as the headlines would lead us to believe. Not likely to hear about this Times article on the morning talk shows. It doesn't fit the conventional narrative, and frankly I was quite surprised (and pleased) it was done by the New York Times.
Also it all of this "sky in falling" foreclosure mania that is prolonging this recession and this article, if understood by the public, might somewhat lessen that negative perspective.
Eric
At last the story is out, sort of. Millions living rent free and more. The untold story of the foreclosure debacle. Now don't get me wrong, a whole lot of people have obviously lost their homes and are suffering , but according to that article, many are just staying put and living rent free, while the lenders are screwing up trying to foreclose, or as the article says, sometimes no longer even trying to foreclose. According to a defense lawyer many of his clients are renting out their properties, not paying their mortgages and pocketing the difference.
I'm not trying to disparage the vast majority who got in over their heads and may have been the victim of predatory lending practices , but my point is that the economic impact on many people in foreclosure may not be as bad as the headlines would lead us to believe. Not likely to hear about this Times article on the morning talk shows. It doesn't fit the conventional narrative, and frankly I was quite surprised (and pleased) it was done by the New York Times.
Also it all of this "sky in falling" foreclosure mania that is prolonging this recession and this article, if understood by the public, might somewhat lessen that negative perspective.
Eric
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Re-Writing History
This is my response to a New York Times Op Ed May 17,2011 by Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas
I've heard it said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
In his Op Ed piece,the supposed moderate president of the PLA gave a recitation of the facts of the creation of Israel and the Palestinian states that bears little resemblance to the facts as I, and most objective historians, know them.
In recounting the history of the UN's creation of an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, he never mentioned that Israel accepted that proposal. He failed to mention that the Palestinians rejected the UN proposal to create a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. He left out the fact that the Palestinians along with 5 other Arab countries, who had professional armies, declared war on Israel and attacked the nascent Jewish state. Their goal was to wipe Israel out.
They lost. Many Palestinians fled, and I won't even get into the debate as to why. Suffice it to say hundred of thousands Arabs did not flee and were not harmed in any way. Today they constitute a group of 1.3 million Israeli citizens. The fact that so many others fled was their decision.
From 1948 until 1967, the land which the Palestinians now want as the Palestinian state (and are going to the UN to have such a state so declared) was completely in Arab hands. A Palestinian state could have been declared by Jordan and Egypt and, among other things, no one would have had to live in refugee camps.
Why didn't they create the Palestinian state during that period? Whenever I have asked that very question over the years, I only get blank stares and comments about moving on. I believe it is a valid question and it's answer lies at the heart of the real problem. To give the Palestinians a state on anything less than all of the land which includes the state of Israel is an anathema to the Arabs.
Today there is talk of a two state solution. Everyone agrees, but not really.
Israel, ironically, would be doing what the Palestinian's brother Arabs didn't do, create a Palestinian state. This Palestinian state would be on land, the same in total area, and roughly the same geographically, as the pre-1967 borders.
There would be one Jewish state , Israel; and one Muslim state, Palestine. Of course, Jews and Muslims could live in either state. Much like the many Islamic and Christian states around the world.
President Abbas, and most of the Palestinians, view the two state solution much differently. One state , Palestine, would be overwhelmingly Muslim and Arab, and the other state , Israel would not be a Jewish state and in fact would be majority Muslim Arab, after the return of the Palestinians who ancestors left. His refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state says it all. It's not the same as recognizing Israel as a state, as he does.
I don't believe that the President Abbas's solution is what the rest of the world thought a two state solution would be. Of course Hamas won't even go that far.
Why hasn't this been made clear to us in the West?
History is being re-written as evidenced by President Abbas' NYT's Op Ed piece, and given the world's antipathy towards Israel, few seem to care.
I've heard it said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
In his Op Ed piece,the supposed moderate president of the PLA gave a recitation of the facts of the creation of Israel and the Palestinian states that bears little resemblance to the facts as I, and most objective historians, know them.
In recounting the history of the UN's creation of an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, he never mentioned that Israel accepted that proposal. He failed to mention that the Palestinians rejected the UN proposal to create a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. He left out the fact that the Palestinians along with 5 other Arab countries, who had professional armies, declared war on Israel and attacked the nascent Jewish state. Their goal was to wipe Israel out.
They lost. Many Palestinians fled, and I won't even get into the debate as to why. Suffice it to say hundred of thousands Arabs did not flee and were not harmed in any way. Today they constitute a group of 1.3 million Israeli citizens. The fact that so many others fled was their decision.
From 1948 until 1967, the land which the Palestinians now want as the Palestinian state (and are going to the UN to have such a state so declared) was completely in Arab hands. A Palestinian state could have been declared by Jordan and Egypt and, among other things, no one would have had to live in refugee camps.
Why didn't they create the Palestinian state during that period? Whenever I have asked that very question over the years, I only get blank stares and comments about moving on. I believe it is a valid question and it's answer lies at the heart of the real problem. To give the Palestinians a state on anything less than all of the land which includes the state of Israel is an anathema to the Arabs.
Today there is talk of a two state solution. Everyone agrees, but not really.
Israel, ironically, would be doing what the Palestinian's brother Arabs didn't do, create a Palestinian state. This Palestinian state would be on land, the same in total area, and roughly the same geographically, as the pre-1967 borders.
There would be one Jewish state , Israel; and one Muslim state, Palestine. Of course, Jews and Muslims could live in either state. Much like the many Islamic and Christian states around the world.
President Abbas, and most of the Palestinians, view the two state solution much differently. One state , Palestine, would be overwhelmingly Muslim and Arab, and the other state , Israel would not be a Jewish state and in fact would be majority Muslim Arab, after the return of the Palestinians who ancestors left. His refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state says it all. It's not the same as recognizing Israel as a state, as he does.
I don't believe that the President Abbas's solution is what the rest of the world thought a two state solution would be. Of course Hamas won't even go that far.
Why hasn't this been made clear to us in the West?
History is being re-written as evidenced by President Abbas' NYT's Op Ed piece, and given the world's antipathy towards Israel, few seem to care.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Reprise-- Happy Now?
I was listening to Morning Joe today and they spent a great deal of time again bashing Bankers and Wall St. about the bailouts and the come back of Bank and Wall St. profitability and bonuses, while Main St. has not recovered.
Of course, Main St. is recovering, if not as fast. I also noted that they didn't talk about how well most farmers have done with the rise in commodity demand and food prices, or how well Texas has done with soaring oil prices. Both farmers and oil companies get billions of dollars in direct subsidies from the taxpayer that, unlike the Bank bailouts, don't even have to be repaid.
No all they beat on was the surviving Banks that have returned to profitability and big bonuses. Naturally, they didn't mention the Banks that got wiped out like Lehman Brothers, Baer Stearns, Washington Mutual, Wachovia and all the scores of regional and community banks that went under; along with their executives who lost their jobs and savings.
They also never mentioned that those Banks have repaid all of the "bailout" funds along with a handsome returm to the taxpayers.
Nor did they mention that "recovered" Banks like Citi have a current stock price of $4 ,down from $50 before the crisis.
Since they were so unhappy that the Banks are profitable again and paying bonuses , I thought I'd re-post my post on this very subject back on January 12, 2010. It's truer and more relevant today than it was back then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAPPY NOW?
Here's a future news story that should make the American public, pundits and politicians happy:
"Banks announce record losses today and cancellation of all bonuses.
The Dow Jones plunged to below 4,000 with resulting massive losses in all 401(k)s, employee pension funds and other pubic investment vehicles.
Housing prices dropped another 40% with complete shutdown of lending by weaken banks.
Jobless rate approaches 20%."
At last the public, pundits and politicians are happy because they really socked it to Wall St and those Bankers. Boy does that feel good.
Eric
--
Posted By Eric Schiller to Meditations at 1/12/2010 12:15:00 PM
Of course, Main St. is recovering, if not as fast. I also noted that they didn't talk about how well most farmers have done with the rise in commodity demand and food prices, or how well Texas has done with soaring oil prices. Both farmers and oil companies get billions of dollars in direct subsidies from the taxpayer that, unlike the Bank bailouts, don't even have to be repaid.
No all they beat on was the surviving Banks that have returned to profitability and big bonuses. Naturally, they didn't mention the Banks that got wiped out like Lehman Brothers, Baer Stearns, Washington Mutual, Wachovia and all the scores of regional and community banks that went under; along with their executives who lost their jobs and savings.
They also never mentioned that those Banks have repaid all of the "bailout" funds along with a handsome returm to the taxpayers.
Nor did they mention that "recovered" Banks like Citi have a current stock price of $4 ,down from $50 before the crisis.
Since they were so unhappy that the Banks are profitable again and paying bonuses , I thought I'd re-post my post on this very subject back on January 12, 2010. It's truer and more relevant today than it was back then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAPPY NOW?
Here's a future news story that should make the American public, pundits and politicians happy:
"Banks announce record losses today and cancellation of all bonuses.
The Dow Jones plunged to below 4,000 with resulting massive losses in all 401(k)s, employee pension funds and other pubic investment vehicles.
Housing prices dropped another 40% with complete shutdown of lending by weaken banks.
Jobless rate approaches 20%."
At last the public, pundits and politicians are happy because they really socked it to Wall St and those Bankers. Boy does that feel good.
Eric
--
Posted By Eric Schiller to Meditations at 1/12/2010 12:15:00 PM
Thursday, March 31, 2011
For Foreign Eyes Only
I read in the Financial Times of London last week that the " Federal Reserve made a record contribution of $79.3 B to the US Treasury from investments in its large portfolio of mortgage bonds."
Today I read in the same foreign publication that the US Treasury is forecasting (on a very conservative basis) a profit of almost $24B from TARP and called it "a positive outcome for despised bail-outs that were once estimated to cost hundreds of billions of dollars."
I read the NYT and WSJ, both days, and saw nothing about this positive economic news. I guess good news about banks doesn't sell newspapers, at least in this country. I also didn't hear about it on Morning Joe, CNN, Fox, etc.
Despite what Neil Barofsky and Elizabeth Warren have said, and of course their views appear in our press regularly, the TARP not only saved this country from economic disaster, but made a tidy profit for the taxpayer to boot.
And as to moral hazard concerns , tell that to the shareholders of Lehman, Baer Stearns, WaMu, Merril Lynch, Wachovia, AIG and others, and all their former executives who lost their jobs and most of their fortunes. Even survivors like Citi saw the value of their stock go from $50 to $1( now back up to $4) and Bank of America's stock plunged as well, and their Chairman lost his job. I think there is plenty of moral hazard arising from this crisis.
As to "too big to fail", recall the words of Paul Krugman in his column about Canada. He noted that Canada was not suffering the same degree of financial distress and observed that "Canada has only 5 banks and they are all too big to fail", so that alone was not the cause of the financial crisis.
Why can't our press tell the American people about all this?
Eric
Today I read in the same foreign publication that the US Treasury is forecasting (on a very conservative basis) a profit of almost $24B from TARP and called it "a positive outcome for despised bail-outs that were once estimated to cost hundreds of billions of dollars."
I read the NYT and WSJ, both days, and saw nothing about this positive economic news. I guess good news about banks doesn't sell newspapers, at least in this country. I also didn't hear about it on Morning Joe, CNN, Fox, etc.
Despite what Neil Barofsky and Elizabeth Warren have said, and of course their views appear in our press regularly, the TARP not only saved this country from economic disaster, but made a tidy profit for the taxpayer to boot.
And as to moral hazard concerns , tell that to the shareholders of Lehman, Baer Stearns, WaMu, Merril Lynch, Wachovia, AIG and others, and all their former executives who lost their jobs and most of their fortunes. Even survivors like Citi saw the value of their stock go from $50 to $1( now back up to $4) and Bank of America's stock plunged as well, and their Chairman lost his job. I think there is plenty of moral hazard arising from this crisis.
As to "too big to fail", recall the words of Paul Krugman in his column about Canada. He noted that Canada was not suffering the same degree of financial distress and observed that "Canada has only 5 banks and they are all too big to fail", so that alone was not the cause of the financial crisis.
Why can't our press tell the American people about all this?
Eric
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Anomalies
The following was written in January but I just got around to posting it, so I apologize if these aren't very current; however the issues are still relevant.
I noticed several anomalies in the news lately, along with some really troubling news.
1. Nicolas Kristoff wrote about the negative societal affects of growing income inequality . He cited the increase in crime and unwanted teenage pregnancies as evidence of such negative societal affects . However while I agree that the growing gap in income equality is a very serious problem, I checked and confirmed that crime and teenage pregnancies have actually dropped significantly during this period of growing income inequality.
2. I recently read an article in the Chicago Tribune about the serious problem of lenders abandoning properties before finalizing foreclosure after the foreclosure had been filed and the owners moved out. By dropping the foreclosure before it was final, the lenders left the property vacant and an eyesore or worse for the neighborhood. If that wasn't bad enough ,the article went on to cite a government statistic that some lenders even had walked away from 60% of their defaulted loans before filing a foreclosure, which which the article implied, further exacerbated the vacant property problem.
I asked myself if those lenders never even filed foreclosure action, why did the owners move out? Indeed they could still be living there "rent free". I called one of the neighborhood organization referred to in the article and asked that question. He agreed my question was a good one and didn't have a good answer except to say that the report I questioned didn't come from them. He agreed that there would be no reason to leave if a foreclosure hadn't even been filed. Nevertheless I'm sure the Trib thought it made for good reading. The author of the article didn't answer my email.
3. Earlier one morning I heard a NPR report that studies showed that political assassins were motivated almost solely by desire for notoriety as opposed to political extremism. Why hasn't more been said about this report as part of the on going discussion on this issue?
4. Most troubling, a large number young urban lawyers in Pakistan are supporting the murder of a governor who advocated repeal of a blasphemy law. What hope is there for Pakistan when those who presumably are sworn to uphold the law, celebrate a cold blooded murderer.
I noticed several anomalies in the news lately, along with some really troubling news.
1. Nicolas Kristoff wrote about the negative societal affects of growing income inequality . He cited the increase in crime and unwanted teenage pregnancies as evidence of such negative societal affects . However while I agree that the growing gap in income equality is a very serious problem, I checked and confirmed that crime and teenage pregnancies have actually dropped significantly during this period of growing income inequality.
2. I recently read an article in the Chicago Tribune about the serious problem of lenders abandoning properties before finalizing foreclosure after the foreclosure had been filed and the owners moved out. By dropping the foreclosure before it was final, the lenders left the property vacant and an eyesore or worse for the neighborhood. If that wasn't bad enough ,the article went on to cite a government statistic that some lenders even had walked away from 60% of their defaulted loans before filing a foreclosure, which which the article implied, further exacerbated the vacant property problem.
I asked myself if those lenders never even filed foreclosure action, why did the owners move out? Indeed they could still be living there "rent free". I called one of the neighborhood organization referred to in the article and asked that question. He agreed my question was a good one and didn't have a good answer except to say that the report I questioned didn't come from them. He agreed that there would be no reason to leave if a foreclosure hadn't even been filed. Nevertheless I'm sure the Trib thought it made for good reading. The author of the article didn't answer my email.
3. Earlier one morning I heard a NPR report that studies showed that political assassins were motivated almost solely by desire for notoriety as opposed to political extremism. Why hasn't more been said about this report as part of the on going discussion on this issue?
4. Most troubling, a large number young urban lawyers in Pakistan are supporting the murder of a governor who advocated repeal of a blasphemy law. What hope is there for Pakistan when those who presumably are sworn to uphold the law, celebrate a cold blooded murderer.
Quck Hits- Contradictions
Contradictions abound:
1. How can we can we be for improving education and at the same time cut teacher compensation, benefits and rights?
2. Public employee unions -- if the right to bargain collectively is such a time honored embedded scared right supported by the President in Wisconsin, why don't his federal employees have those time honored sacred rights?
3. Why is what the Republican recently did in Wisconsin so undemocratic, but the Democrats fleeing the state to avoid a quorum on a vote is just fine?
4. How can Huckabee criticize Natalie Portman but not Bristol Palin?
5. How did we have a "no fly" zone in Iraq protecting the Kurds for many years before the war, but find it so difficult and dangerous to so in Libya?
6. How can we dramatically cut current spending at a time our economy has not yet recovered?
7. Why is it so unpalatable to our current seniors to raise the social security retirement age from 67 to 68 beginning 50 years from now?
8. Why did we create a bi-partisan commission to come up with ideas to deal with the deficit and then completely ignore its recommendations?
1. How can we can we be for improving education and at the same time cut teacher compensation, benefits and rights?
2. Public employee unions -- if the right to bargain collectively is such a time honored embedded scared right supported by the President in Wisconsin, why don't his federal employees have those time honored sacred rights?
3. Why is what the Republican recently did in Wisconsin so undemocratic, but the Democrats fleeing the state to avoid a quorum on a vote is just fine?
4. How can Huckabee criticize Natalie Portman but not Bristol Palin?
5. How did we have a "no fly" zone in Iraq protecting the Kurds for many years before the war, but find it so difficult and dangerous to so in Libya?
6. How can we dramatically cut current spending at a time our economy has not yet recovered?
7. Why is it so unpalatable to our current seniors to raise the social security retirement age from 67 to 68 beginning 50 years from now?
8. Why did we create a bi-partisan commission to come up with ideas to deal with the deficit and then completely ignore its recommendations?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)