SOMETIMES THE GREEDY GUYS DO GET CAUGHT

"In a ruling that could escalate the mortgage problems facing banks, the Massachusetts Supreme Court on Friday voided two foreclosures because the banks failed to show the proper paperwork to prove they owned the loans.The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled against banks in foreclosure paperwork case.", written in the Washington Post by Ariana Eunjung Cha.  The issue involves robo-signing.  For the complete article, click here.  Be sure to watch the video on the site.

Consequences are far reaching since the decision is retroactive to other cases that fit the conditions.  Not only will it be that bankers don't own the homes they thought they did, but bank stocks went down significantly.  In a Reuters article, Jonathan Stempel and Dena Aubin, wrote: "In a decision that may slow foreclosures nationwide, Massachusetts' highest court voided the seizure of two homes by Wells Fargo & Co and US Bancorp after the banks failed to show they held the mortgages at the time they foreclosed.  "Analysts said the decision could make it harder to sell homes, and perhaps weigh on the nation's economic recovery."

Bank shares fell, weighing on broader stock indexes, on fears the decision could threaten lenders' ability to work through hundreds of thousands of pending foreclosures.  The carelessness of bankers foreclosing without proper review and documentation that they owned the properties they were seizing.

It is nice to think that someone might be back at work minding the store for the rest of us, isn't it?

 States attorneys-general are now questioning similar cases in all 50 states.  Mortgages were peddled, leaving the paper work behind.

TEAPARTY WOMEN GIVETHE FEMALE GENDER A VERY BAD IMAGE

Most people hear non-profit and don't realize that people are not all volunteers.  Many are highly paid and run non-profit organizations as their primary source of income.  Wikipedia writes:  Christine Therese O'Donnell (born August 27, 1969) is an American Republican Party politician who founded two advocacy organizations and has been an advocate for nonprofit clients and nonprofit causes for nearly 20 years.  She is currently being accused of mismanaging her campaign funds  For more on her, click here and click here. where you will re-read some of the craziest things she has said.  

Michele Bachmann, is another loose cannon.  A hint of her came out in an interview with Chris Mathews in  November 2010.  Click here.  Be sure to watch her on video in this post.   She behaves like a Joe McCarthy replacement in drag.  For whatever strange reason, Boehner has put her on the Intelligence committee.  As ridiculous as she was before her election, she did cite as the first order of business that taxes should not be raised (as part of her acceptance speech in November) loudly proclaiming that is exactly what the Democrats have in mind...raising taxes.

Timothy Dalrymple wrote  "Loser: Republican women, and women in general.:"   " Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman had a lot going for them: sophisticated, intelligent, competent, extraordinary experience as entrepreneurs and executives, with loads of money and strong connections in the business community.  At a time of financial peril, with California and Washington facing budgetary crises the likes of which we have not seen for a generation or two, with a maligned President of the opposing party — they still could not get elected."Angle and O’Donnell also lost, and their weirdness (together with that of Michelle Bachmann), played up ad nauseum in the media, arguably hurt the image of the conservative woman.  All were made out to be shrieking harpies.  2010 was billed as the rise of the conservative woman — and especially the conservative Christian woman.  Yet it was tough.  Angle lost by a surprising margin, O’Donnell lost by an unsurprising but very large margin, and Fiorina and Whitman also lost handily.  The Mama Grizzlies and the Mama CEO’s didn’t fare so well".  To read the entire Dalrymple article which is quite enlightening about feelings expressed and acted on about women, click here.

Clearly there are many men out there who believe most women don't belong in politics.  There is not a singular reason for that.   Some may be threatened, some women don't behave in a predictable 'old boy' manner, and some women prove they can do what men are unable to do in so many ways.

WHO WROTE BOEHNER'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH?

The speech spurred motivation for 'the people's interests', was well-written, and promised something other than what we have heard to date from the man who will not use the word 'compromise'.  For the full text of his speech, click here.

The House was referred to as 'the people's house' over and over again.  I'm not sure for  what that is a euphemism, but it has never before been the way all the politician's in it have treated before. In an Associated Press article By Stephen Hurst, he quotes Obama as saying, he expects Republicans to play to their base.  He adds:  "But I'm pretty confident that they're going to recognize that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people," he added. "My hope is that John Boehner and (Senate GOP leader) Mitch McConnell will realize that there will be plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012."

Kantor and Boehner are well noted in Washington as rivals.  However, at the moment, Boehner is the Speaker.  We can all sit back and watch how many lies or truths are in the acceptance speech and to whom he must first pay homage for getting the votes to become speaker.  I, for one, will be happy to see him stop licking McConnell's shoes and become his own person...as bad as that may be.  I cannot believe he can be any worse than as McConnell's 'yes' man.

Let's face it...anyone can buy an acceptance speech.  Just click here for details.

POLITICAL ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO REAL UNDERSTANDING BEHIND THEM

The Republicans target the Health Care Bill. ( A BBC headline) It seems they think they can roll back the clock on all bills passed for which they didn't all vote favorably.  It also seems that is not a very democratic way of thinking.

I was struck with that attitude when I heard Representative Phil Roe, a former M.D. from Tennessee.  As a doctor, says he, he thinks it is a terrible bill and went on to say that "We have looked at what we have given but we haven't looked at what we should have taken out". Now the assumption that we 'should have taken something out", before we offer a reasonable solution to the medical problems faced by so many Americans without jobs or ability to pay for medical insurance, boggles my mind.  It uses the same irony as the credit card companies who fine exorbitantly when people have no money to pay their bills; or banks that do the same when someone bounces a check for lack of funds.  It does seem that just shutting off a service with a minimal fine to get it reinstated might be a kinder and more realistic gesture, doesn't it?

There are scales in our lives which must be balanced but this does not seem one of them.  That to give some people medical care, we must take it away from others seems absurd.  He specifically mentioned Medicare and Social Security.  There are certainly not many categories of recipients to anything who need services more.  He would like all entitlements gone, disabled go out and get a job like everyone else? (Especially since not even the able bodied can find jobs right now!)   Is that what he means?  Are we a country who will continue to let our people die while we save lives everywhere else in the world?

Meanwhile, we seem to have found a new Joseph McCarthy in Darrel Issa,  He bears watching carefully and seems to me to be quite dangerous to our democratic way of doing things.

WHEN THE MEDIA IS PROPERLY USED

The average person cannot know whether they are being told the truth or are are hearing and being told lies.  If one listens carefully to all sides of a position, on can use discretion about where the source of the most believable information exists.  Our problem is that half of our population is below average, many speak little English, and many more have average and below intelligence.

One that most people quickly recognize from the past was an era for which we can remain ashamed with Joseph McCarthy.  Despite his clear problem with paranoia, he was not really challenged until it was too late for too many whom he had destroyed.  Nevertheless, we could expect that the media would monitor itself.  Alas, not so.  The media is greedy, as many of our  country seems to have become, though occasionally Diogenes might find an honest person even in the United States

Bill Carter and Brian Stelter wrote in the NY Times on 12/28 in which they likened the Daily Show (during which Jon Stewart made a plea for the firemen injured by 9/11 to receive the medical care they were promised before it is too late for any more of them).  "That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian’s effort to right what he called “an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.”    While Stewart insists he is not a journalist, it reminds me of the people who say , "I'm not a psychologist" and then go on to prove that one does not always have to have a degree and a label to do a job.  Jon Stewart proved that for himself that evening as he has many other evenings.  He also minimizes another excellent quality he has.  Teaching practice asserts one cannot learn on the defensive as easily as in a non-threatening environment listening to one for whom they feel respect.  More people can hear Stewart because they have learned to respect and trust him.  To read the NY Times article, click here.

NATURE'S TERRORISM AND VIOLENCE

From the News Tribune in Washington City, Missouri:  "A series of tornadoes in the south and mid-western US kills seven people, injures several others and causes power cuts for thousands"

 In Kansas, there were tornado shelters that I saw in movies and read about as I was growing up.  Our way of life no longer has us out on our farms where we can easily do that any longer.

We try to protect ourselves against the damage man can do but ar we doing enough to protect against Nature?  Should we be building homes on slopes that are known for mudslides?  Should we continue to build homes directly on the seashores?  Should we continue to ignore the lwarnings that Nature is giving us constantly?

It seems we invest vast amount of money on security from a human enemy, but is it not equally important to secure ourselves against Nature's destruction somehow?  There are, indeed, some things against we cannot protect but, for example, we have failed to protect ourselves from drug lords.  If drugs were legalized and the monies used to fight the 'drug war' were spent elsewhere, would it not be put to better use to save more lives?

Why is it that American priorities are so skewed?  Governor Jan Brewer preferred spending millions on prisons in Nevada while refusing transplants to the two  fathers of several children.  What is wrong with the choices made when politicians have life and death power of their constituents?

HOW AGE HAS EFFECTED MY THINKING

When young, believing I was next to immortal, I used to watch concert pianists and think, "I could do that."  In fact, I might have been able to do lots of things, but I never followed up on them with the kind of practice it takes to do things really well, professionally well.  As I watched Yang Yang Play in Avery Hall with the NY Philharmonic (on TV), I realized that I was enthralled and never once  thought , "I could do that."  I now know what I can do and what I will never do.  I also know I want to spend the rest of my life practicing those skills I've already learned.


TV held more interest when I was exhausted by my job and needed to  'veg' out.  I no longer need that as, admittedly, much of this was before computers became such a large part of my day. Sitting that long seems unnecessary to me.  In fact, sitcoms bore me as do most movies.  The awareness of time limit to my life becomes a real issue and I get too 'antsy' to hold still for boring stuff.  This includes spectator sports. emails with a spiritual message and flowery thoughts as well as all  boring conversations, in person or on phone..

Since I never had lessons on getting old, I am having to write a new script and am trying to figure out how  it will run.  Needs and body have changed..  My cranium CPU has had its last upgrade.  Data storage sill have to be in an external drive..  Retrieval of names of people and things.


has slowed.  Yet I am forever learning and enjoy every minute of it.  However, being told what I should think or believe is not a learning experience for me.  I try to avoid religious discussions about after-life because I feel sadness for the people who think 'their life will improve after death'.  'Life after death' has an oxymoron quality to it.

Instead, I live every day to its fullest available to me and when I have the urge to do the physical things I used to do, I pick up a book and read until the urge passes..  I laugh a lot, interact with lots of people and recall my deceased mother-in-law who had to have a daily 'event' .  I guess I think of life that way, too.  My event, however, may be at home and consist of a job done, a repair completed, or a comforting book read.  I've faced the reality that to be happy when old is not a replacement of things you can do and like for the things you used to be able to do and those you had to do but didn't like.