Hal (a friend and frequent commenter on this blog) shared something with me and gave me his kind permission to post it here.  We've been discussing the war in the comments section of a recent post over the past few days and Hal offered this personal perspective on the war:

" I thought I'd mention that as we've been debating the last few days on the blog a very real story was playing out at our house.  Jill's brother (James) is deploying next week with Navy SEAL Team-3 for 7-months in Iraq.  Yesterday was his family's farewell party held at our house.  A very strange and surreal experience I've never had prior, sending a family member off to war.  When he finally had to leave there was not a dry eye in the house.

Of course as I'm sure you'd imagine, politics was definitely a subject of discussion yesterday.  James has been against this war since well before it started.  He has always been critical of Bush and clearly believes we have no business being there.  Yet, here he goes off to fight in a war he clearly does not believe in.  As he puts it, he's just doing his job.  He's a 14-year Navy veteran and is a Chief with SEAL Team-3 (if you're not familiar with Navy SEAL's, they definitely will be in combat situations).  At this point he wants to make his 20-years and get out with full retirement benefits.  He's only 32 years old.

Being against the war is something we all agreed upon on that blog thread yesterday (we only disagreed on how to end it).  Can you imagine being James right now? 

I can't imagine being James as he goes off to do his job, to fight in a war out of loyalty and duty to his country, putting aside his personal politics to fulfill a greater role.  Hal's story sobered me.  It reminded me that the political discussions we often have here--lively, spirited, engaging and challenging--all of them have human faces to them, real consequences.

God bless, James (and all of your fellow soldiers out there).

As promised, today’s fare is a little lighter than the heavy political discussion we’ve been having (many thanks to all the participants…I like the way the comments engender more thought, deeper response, better ideas).

Still, we all need a break now and then.  That’s what Dan and I had on Friday afternoon when we went to see 21, the new movie by director Robert Luketic, who previously brought us the comedies Legally Blonde and Monster-in-Law.

The plot surrounds a young, poor genius who must find a way to pay for Med School tuition.  He's recruited to a team of hipsters, fellow students all, who work for one of their college professors as card-counting players at Las Vegas casinos.  The game they're playing is, of course, 21.

There's an obligatory love story, lots of glitzy romanticization of Las Vegas, good guys, bad guys, betrayals of self and of others.  In other words, a fairly predictable plot acted by decent actors playing in a popcorn movie.

I always enjoy Kevin Spacey's performances (the professor) and he doesn't disappoint here, despite other reviews.  It's just that his part is thin, as is the whole movie.  That's a problem in a film that clocks in at 123 minutes (which feel more like 150).

As to the rest of the cast, Laurence Fishburne delivers a realistic performance as a casino security chief who is watching his craft fall to facial recognition programs.  Rounding out the cast are the lead character's two buddies (played by Josh Gad and Sam Golzari) who provide a welcome counterpoint to the beautiful people on the 21 squad both in acting ability and in delivering characters more of us can relate to.

Overall, I give the film a B-.  Good for a popcorn flick but it could have been (even should have been) more.

Oh those wacky greenies!

Turn out your lights from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm tonight.  It's okay to have the TV on, though.

http://www11.earthhourus.org/

Be green and prosper.

Well, if you're up for it, dear readers--here is my take on the presidential candidates' positions on Iraq.  Tomorrow, I'll veer into lighter fare with a review of 21.

Let's start with John McCain.  His plan for the Iraq war is essentially a call for more boots on the ground.  He explains that the increased number of American soldiers will clear out the insurgents, provide a more secure environment for economic and political reconstruction, halt sectarian violence and dismantle al Qaeda. 

It's interesting to note that he's been calling for more troops since 2003.  That makes it easier to understand why he remains committed to the idea that the only solution is to "win the war" with more fighting, more soldiers, more time.  

His proposal also makes clear that his prediction of U.S. involvement in Iraq extending into decades, if not centuries, is the logical conclusion of a strategy that sees force as the only way to stabilize Iraq.

On the other end of the political spectrum, both Clinton and Obama are calling for rapid withdrawal of American troops (although, since we were recently talking about spin on the comments to this blog, I found it amusing that Hillary's website calls withdrawals "redeployment").

Clinton's four-pronged plan is less detailed than Obama's.  In addition to a phased withdrawal, she proposes appointing a UN "peace broker" to work with the Iraqi government--securing peace among the various tribal factions; focusing on humanitarian aid (as opposed to funding the Iraqi government); and pushing a diplomatic initiative in the area designed to restrict outside interference, stabilize Iraq's independent status and aid in reconstruction.

By contrast, Obama's plan provides more in the way of reasoning for his proposed actions.  He grounds the entire plan in his enduring opposition for war in Iraq.  But he is not merely saying, "the war was wrong, so we should leave." 

He states that the current strategy (surge) is not working.  He notes that the Iraqi government is failing to meet its targets and promises.  Thus he proposes a rapid, phased withdrawal of troops to pressure the Iraqi government to step up. 

The other components of his plan include a call for the government to redraw the constitution to include Sunnis (thereby reducing sectarianism); diplomatic pressure to keep Iran and Turkey out of Iraq as we withdraw; and focused spending to address humanitarian issues.

Both Clinton and Obama address the need to deal with Iraqi refugees but Obama specifically calls for us to live up to our pledge to accept 7000 refugees in the U.S.

Since Hal and I've been talking a bit about Biden's plan, I thought it worth providing a link to his proposal even though he's no longer in the race.  I don't think his plan was much different than Hillary's or Barack's in terms of rapid withdrawal, focus on reconstruction and job formation, and internationally-based diplomacy.

Where his plan does merit special attention is in the idea of dividing Iraq into sectarian regions, locally managed, under a strong federal government.  As part of that plan, he included a redrawn constitution that would include the currently disenfranchised Sunnis by guaranteeing them a percentage of the country's oil profits.  That's where Biden's experience on the Foreign Relations Committee allows for a type of proposal that more generalized (and less experienced) candidates lack.  I hope whomever the Democratic nominee is, he or she will bring Biden into the fold for advice and discussion.  He'd be an interesting idea for Secretary of State.

So that's it.  If you're for more boots on the ground--vote for McCain.  Of the two democrats currently running, I give Obama a slight edge for depth of reasoning and a more nuanced grasp of (or communication of) the entire situation.

I just hate it when the candidate I favor proposes policies I think are flawed.  That's just what's happened with Obama and the current mortgage crisis.

To put things in perspective, California had 57,000 foreclosure filings in January.  (A foreclosure filing is where the borrower is not making payments as agreed and so the bank files to take the property back.  It can be voluntary or involuntary as far as the borrower's concerned.)  That's 4/10ths of 1% of all the houses in the state or one in every 227 homes.  Pretty big number, but we're among the worst hit states because we had a rapid run-up in property values.

Also, before I pick Obama's plan apart, I should point out that at least he has a plan--rather than McCain's wait and see approach.  

However, as I mentioned yesterday, I agree with McCain's opinion that the government should not bail out either the banks that made bad lending decisions nor the individuals who made bad borrowing decisions.  Obama (and Hillary) disagrees with me.

His plan is based on the Dodd-Frank proposal, calling for creation of a government entity (with a $10 billion price tag) to do two things:

1.  Offer incentives to lenders for writing down the principal balance of mortgages where the loan balance is higher than the value of the property.

2.  Provide lower-cost financing for borrowers of those reduced mortgages.

(As a minor plus to this bad idea, Obama proposes that the borrower be taxed on the forgiven portion of the debt--a capital gain to the borrower.)

I don't favor this course of action for two reasons.  The first I covered in yesterday's blog.  We should keep the responsibility for these decisions with the people who made them and not spread it out to all taxpayers. 

Second, I don't think it addresses the actual problem.  Foreclosures are not triggered by upside-down property value to loan ratios.  They are triggered by a borrower's inability to make a monthly payment as promised.  If any aid should be given to borrowers, it would be better utilized in the form of refinanced loans that reduce payments and lock in interest rates.  Borrowers who choose to walk away from their homes because they're worth less than the mortgage, despite being able to pay the monthly payment, should face the consequences of that decision.

There are several other facets of Obama's housing/economic stimulus plan.  Three of them are good ideas.  He calls for:

--extending unemployment payments (necessary as unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment continues to rise);

--streamlining oversight of banks and financial institution by matching the overseeing entity with lines of business rather than type of institution;

--providing a mortgage tax credit for middle-income earners who don't itemize.

If it weren't for the bailout portion of the plan, I'd be fairly happy with Obama's proposal.  As it stands, it doesn't discourage me from supporting him, but it does highlight a key area where I tend to disagree with Democrats.

John McCain was in Orange County on Tuesday and he addressed the housing/mortgage crisis.  Although he didn't outline any specific strategies (and although listening to him speak is not at all a pleasant experience...making me long for Obama), I did agree with a few things he said.

1.  "It's not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly whether they're big banks or small borrowers."

2.  "Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: Don't lend money to people who can't pay it back."

I agree that we should not be bailing out banks and mortgage lenders who bet on the market by providing no document, no down loans to folks who could not otherwise qualify for a loan.  These banks and lenders were counting on an ever increasing valuation to protect them from losses.

In a similar way, borrowers were convinced that the housing market would go up, up, up--allowing them to reap big gains from appreciation without the need for much investment.

Both parties were wrong.

I don't agree with some in congress who've called for forgiveness of the portion of the mortgage that is over current market value.  Would we expect the borrower to pay more on a mortgage when the market value goes up?  Why would we expect the bank to assume such a loss, then?

I do agree with McCain's call to mortgage industry leaders to work with their borrowers, focusing on keeping them in their homes by helping them to restructure their debt.

There will be people who lose homes in this process.  There will be banks who lose money.  That's the natural cost of "betting on the margin." 

If we don't allow people or corporations to suffer the consequences of their actions, how can we expect anyone to act with integrity and accountability?

I may not be voting for McCain, but he got this one right.

For the first few months of the year, I was stressed because I wasn't getting enough work done.  Not on the novel, not on the house, not on the ever-mounting-pile-o'-papers on my desk.  But these last few weeks, I've been settling into the idea that this time with Dan is to be treasured and enjoyed. 

Soon enough, there will be days and weeks and months when his work makes us hoard our moments together.  When time must be rigidly structured and diligently guarded.  We will have to share weekends with others instead of making them up out of weekdays (when things are less crowded...especially on the golf course).  I will have great swaths of time to write, to whittle down paper piles, to finish up household projects.  Soon enough.

So I've decided to enjoy this mini-retirement.  To that end, we're  golfing together once a week (in addition to my Thursday nine holes with Renee').  We spent a lovely morning on a local executive course--Casta Del Sol in Mission Viejo.  I shot an 86 and Dan shot a 72.  We played with two women (Sue and Hilda) who used to play at Lake Forest but have graduated to the 18-hole, 3,400 yard course.  I suspect Renee' and I will be doing the same thing soon.

After golf, we went to breakfast.  On the way to The Corner Bakery, American Express called, wanting to check on some recent charges.  None of which were mine.  So I should have a shiny new Amex card tomorrow.  Dan's happy because it means I can't buy anything today.

Although I did take him to Costco so he could buy things.  But if it's not on my bill, it doesn't count, right? 

I had a request to post my poem about Dan's grandmother, Maria.  I've posted two of them--Erosion and Afternoon at Villa Bonita.

Appropriate, somehow on a day when I learned that our aunt Nettie (my Dad's sister) sick in bed for so many years now, has passed away.  Godspeed, Aunt Nettie.  I'm sure Maria will be there to welcome you, released from her chair as you are now from your bed.

There was a disturbing article in today's LA Times about Medi-Cal, the program funded by State and Federal government to provide health care for disabled and poor California residents.

As part of his solution to the California Budget crisis, Arnold has proposed 10% across the board cuts to California programs, including Medi-cal.  It sounds like a reasonable choice on its face, but when you factor in the issues surrounding Medi-Cal...well, it just doesn't make sense.

There are very few doctors who accept new Medi-Cal patients these days.  The primary reason?  The program does not reimburse them adequately for the cost of services provided.  I'm not talking about greedy doctors here who want more...I'm talking about a program the pays substantially less than the doctor's out of pocket cost.

When you tell those doctors (some of whom care for our relatives with great compassion and professionalism) that these inadequate payments are going down--well, it's not surprising that many of them are not taking new patients.  A few are even withdrawing from Medi-Cal altogether.

Which leads me to the question I'm pondering these days.  Is there such a thing as a "right" to medical care?  If so, what does that right entail?

My stab at an answer is that emergency medical and surgical care is something we should provide for all residents.  Other basic care should also be provided--regular physicals, dental care, treatment of acute illness, eye care.

Do you agree?  Disagree?

Dan and I had a wonderful trip to San Diego.  We talked about it all the way home today.  We got to see three of the four Baldridge boys (Dean, Dale and Darrell in order of visits).

We also spent time with David--two and a half is such a great age.  He's inventive, articulate, playful, not too demanding and a general delight to be around.  The same day we spent with him, Dan and I golfed in the morning.  Then we joined Dale for lunch and had a great, relaxed talk with him. 

For dinner, Dan, Dad, Sally, David and I met up with Dean and Donna at a great little restaurant called A Taste of Italy.  The food was delicious.  Talk centered around Deanna's upcoming wedding and life in general.  Deanna and her friend, Diana, joined us for cocktails at the end of our evening and the beginning of theirs.

From dinner, we went by and saw my niece, Amy.  We were required to give David back for some reason.  She seems happy and in love with being a Mom and wife.  It's so good to see these "kids" as adults--and fine adults to boot!

On Saturday, Sally and I spent the morning together while Dan and Dad went out.  It was so good to just sit together and chat.  Darrell, Dad and Dan joined us for a delicious lunch after which we whiled away the afternoon with talk and jokes aplenty.  Sally's daughter (and my sister) Pamela showed up in the later afternoon and we had the special treat of seeing her dress choices for Sarah's wedding.  (Sarah is Pamela's daughter and she will be married in June.)

Then as capper for the day, Sarah showed up in the flesh.  We got to talk about wedding details, children, families and politics.  A straw poll showed that five out of the six of us are leaning toward Obama.  One is leaning McCain.  Sarah showed us a couple of fun Youtube videos (click here and here) and then we grabbed dinner at Outback.

We arrived home an hour ago...weary but so very grateful for our blessings this Easter.  I am grateful for the reconciliation offered by Christ so long ago.  I am inspired by the hope of a new generation's maturation and solidity.  I am thankful for my most excellent family (both seen and to be seen).  I am humbly grateful for a husband who loves me and my family completely, including our very human foibles.  And I am brimming with joy at every precious, gifted moment from this past week. Thank you one and all for making time for us.  Let's do it again, soon.