Let's Learn the Right Lessons From This...

Anyone else notice the headlines today, proudly trumpeted by, among others, AP and Reuters, that Shia LaBoeuf's recent auto accident "wasn't his fault". Ok... good message to send people. Even though he was arrested for DUI... it wasn't his fault.

Good journalistic call there. Makes it sound like just because Mr. LaBoeuf did not cause the accident that it is ok to drive while under the influence.

How about emphasizing that if you are driving under the influence, and there is an accident, that it doesn't matter whose fault it was. The fact that you are driving DUI is going to end up with you going into custody and then before a magistrate on some sort of charge of DUI. The other fella, who was not drunk, will probably just suffer a ticket and maybe his insurance will go up from the accident. Then again, he gets a built in defense should you have to sue for his negligence.

So let's try this: Shia LaBoeuf is at fault for driving drunk. He also happened to have his car hit by someone else.

Good Grief

Throw up one little picture of Miley Cyrus and get 387 hits over three days. Sheesh.

Now that I am thinking about it, how many of those Miley Cyrus fans hate me for the implication of my little thought.

Oh well.

You only love me for my pictures. :)

Unpopular Thoughts

I have been watching the news, as I usually do. I have been seeing how the housing bubble has hurt people when they come to my office and I try to help them.

And when I can, I do.

But then I see what Congress and other legislatures are trying to do with the foreclosure the problem. Now, on an emotional level, I can sympathize with this. However, on the other hand, I look around and see no reason why we should be bailing anyone out.

The system that we have right now is broken. If it wasn't, then the economy would not be in the state that it is in. However, propping up the institutions that helped to cause this problem seems to be me to be counter-productive.

Not only does it seem to be counter-productive, but it denies people who have been waiting, needing a down-turn in the housing market, the chance to enter. The idea that the government will now start bailing out individual homeowners who failed to protect themselves by obtaining mortgages which were essentially gambles is an economic reward to them. It also will also keep the prices which, were inflated because of the lax rules for lending, unnecessarily high which makes it harder for young adults and new families to buy their own property.

Consider in the Bay Area that the median home price is $485,000 (incidentally the first time it has dropped below a half million in four years), in San Francisco itself it is $846,000. The average of the median incomes for counties closest to San Francisco is $88,718.88 (San Francisco: $79,423.00, San Mateo: $92,721.00, Santa Clara: $93,072.00, Contra Costa: $85,737.00, Alameda: $78,494.00, Marin: $102,866.00). So that breaks down to monthly income of $7393.24.

Now, if we take the medians (yes I know my average of medians is not perfect but if someone wants to send me better data, I will be happy to review my conclusions) of price and income, we see that a mortgage can run a family for the median price ($485,000) will require a monthly mortgage payment of $ 2,830.33. This assumes that they get the mortgage with no points, at a rate of 5.75% (which looking at FHA and VA loans might just be a pipe dream since the average rates that I am finding are 6.58% making the monthly payment $3,091.09.).

At either level, $2,830.33 or $3091.09, this does not seem to be too outrageous. But then consider what the family is bringing home each pay period. Each pay period, after the government takes its share, the people will have $2,685.37. Ooops, that is 52% of the median income if they can get the mortgage at the 5.75%. Whats that ? What about their savings that they use for a down payment? Unlikely considering that the average savings rate is -1% (that would be a negative number).

Want to buy a house in San Francisco or Alameda? In San Francisco, assuming the 5.75% 30 year rate, then it comes out to $4,937.03 (with a take home of $2,444.58 each pay period). Alameda homeowners could expect $4,214.12 (with a take home of $2,420.50 each pay period).

Even if people were to start saving up for down payments how much would they need to have in order to make enough of a dent in the mortgage? The rule of thumb for paying for housing is that a person should never spend more than 1/3rd of their income on their rent or mortgage. Now taking the medians for the Bay Area, that would mean spending no more than $1,772.35 per month on the mortgage. In order to do that, for a down payment, the family making the median would have to have a down payment of approximately $185,000.00.

Without resorting to crime, or having a trust fund etc to fall back on, this mythic median family would have $3,598.39 once it paid a rent that would put it living in some very dodgy area. Then after paying for luxuries like rent, car payments, gas, insurance, and food, as well as some saving for the future, they would have to put at least $1,000.00 a month a way. And that would mean all they would have to do is do that every month for 12 years. If they could put away $2,000 per month, they might get there in just over 6 years. (This is based on finding a bank willing to give a savings account with 3% interest).

So what is the point of this? Basically to point out that if we start saving people from the ravages of the market, it is going to end up prolonging other people's entry into the market. It will stabilize the prices at an inflated level. It will put more people in a situation where they cannot escape the rental market, thus increasing the power of landlords since will have essentially a captive market.

Of course, it is an election year. And the legislators want to look like they care. If they cared, what they would do is enact some reforms on the lending industry. They would actually regulate the markets in a way that made sense so that what happened in the last housing bubble is not repeated. But bailing out the companies that did this, bailing out the people who foolishly chose to gamble on their mortgages, is only going to end up hurting the next generation of homeowners.

What will happen if they lose?

This is what I have been wondering ever since the measure which would outlaw same-sex marriage (aka Proposition 8) was put on the ballot for this November. What will they say then?

Right now, alot of conservatives have been criticizing the decision by the California Supreme Court in the In re Marriage Cases, where the court found that the law discriminated against same-sex couples by refusing to allow them to be married in the same fashion as heterosexual couples. The critcisms have generally fallen into the category that the Justices of the California Supreme Court were being activists, imposing their will on a populace which had voted overwhelmingly to the contrary.

But since the court's decision, the polls have been showing that Prop 8 is unlikely to win. Now yes, this is only a poll. And yes, Prop 8 has seen an increase since the first poll taken 2 months ago in May. On the other hand, that 2 percent is within the margin of error.

What will the conservatives who oppose gay marriage say if the voters fail to approve it? (Other than the usual that Californian are [insert derogatory comment here].) This time a plebiscite will have been had. Will they then try and find ways around the Full Faith and Credit Clause?

I think we will definitely see a full fledged effort to get a constitutional marriage amendment to the constitution at the very least. Although, when we have amended the U.S. Constitution to include a provision denying people the ability to do something, that has not always worked so well.

Should A Celebrity Really Be Saying Such Things?

I mean really. Miley Cyrus is proclaiming that she will remain a virgin until marriage. That has just worked so well when teen pop idols make those proclamations. Just ask Britney Spears.

How about she say something a bit more intelligent, than a program which tends not to be as successful as the religious conservatives would hope it would. I mean, how else do you explain the fact that STD rates of those who take the pledge and those who do not take the pledge are about the same? Or that those who make personal promises to themselves, as opposed to those who make open formal pledges, are more successful at staying a virgin?

I am sure that bookies are now taking bets on when she breaks this promise.

A Sad Day

How many people in this photo are still alive?


From left to right, the people in this photograph are Einat Haran (approximately age 4 in this picture), Danny Haran (approximately age 31) and Yael Haran (approximately age 2). This picture was probably taken in December 1977, probably on December 13th judging by the Chanukah menorah on the table. So guesses ready?

And what about the people in these photos?

On the right is Sergeant Ehud Goldwasser. On the left is Sergeant Eldad Regev. Both were kidnapped from Israel in a raid by Hezbollah terrorists on July 12, 2006.

No one in the above pictures are still alive. The Harran family memebers all died on the same day, April 22, 1979. Their mother wrote,

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

Who did this? Who caused a mother to have accidentally smother her daughter? Who chose to make a little girl watch her father be shot before having her head caved?

Apparently he is someone who has been hailed as "the hero" by President Abbas of the PA, and a "political prisoner" by others. Funny how that works. An American military service-member who accidentally kills civilians is branded a baby-killer. But kill a Jewish man and his daughter, and apparently they are a "hero" and a "political prisoner". I wonder how Natan Sharansky, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Ghandi, feels about lumped in with the likes of Samir Kuntar (pictured below in 1978 on the far left with mustache).

Samir Kuntar was captured after a shootout with Israeli police that claimed the life of one officer and two of Kuntar's compatriots. He, unfortunately, survived to stand trial in an Israeli court. Because Israeli law allows for the use of the death penalty for only two classes of convicts (those guilty of treason and those who are Nazis convicted of crimes against humanity during the Second World War), the maximum sentence possible was life. He was convicted and sentenced to 532 years.

In a recent letter, Kuntar wrote, "I give you my promise and oath that my only place will be in the fighting front soaked with the sweat of your giving and with the blood of the shahids, the dearest people, and that I will continue your way until we reach a full victory[.]" Sounds like a lack of remorse. The closest he has ever come to showing remorse for what he did was when he attempted to retract his confession that he had shot either Danny Haran or Einat Haran and that they were killed by friendly fire during the shoot-out with Israeli police. (Something contradicted by both the physical and eyewitness evidence.)

For almost 30 years, this murderer sat in an Israeli jail. While his victims lay in the ground, he earned a series of degrees, including a Ph.D.

And then today, in a misguided policy decision, the Israeli government of Ehud Olmert negotiated with terrorists. The result of those negotiations was a promise to return Sergeants Regev and Goldwasser (tho no promise as to their condition). In exchange, the Olmert government would hand over Kuntar, Khader Zidan, Maher Qurani, Mahmad Srour, and Hussein Sleiman (all Hezbollah members captured in action during the 2006 fighting), as well as the bodies of approximately 1,000 terrorists who had died either in Israeli jails or in attacks on Israeli civilians.

In exchange for the live terrorist criminals, Israel received,


Apparently the bodies were in such bad condition, they had to be identified forensically. They will recieve military burials soon. Unfortunately a third Israeli soldier may still be held as a hostage by the terrorists. Gilad Shalit may still be alive. But then again, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups have yet to turn back over a live Israeli soldier after taking them hostage alive.

Kuntar, on the other hand, was feted when he arrived back in Lebanon. According to Al-Jazeera, the murderer stated, "

I would like to thank God the almighty who gave this country this great resistance ... I would like to thank God for reaching this day, this day of victories...I returned today from Palestine but believe me I will not return until I go back to Palestine. ..."I promise my people and dear ones in Palestine that I and my dear comrades in the valiant Islamic resistance are returning.

In the West Bank and Gaza, there were celebrations and candy was given to children.

I think I preferred it when Israel did not negotiate with terrorists.

And Then I Find This Commentary on Senator Obama's Speech

So after finally finishing my last post, I found a much more succinct response to Senator Obama's speech. Senator Liberman reportedly stated,

Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.

Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.

Too bad the rest of the Democrats don't have the same sort of principles that I have seen from Senator Lieberman. Then again, I doubt that I will see a lantsman in the White House any time soon.