Yesterday we mentioned the bi-partisan rackets and thugs of Fannie/Freddie.
Today we are reminded of the identity of one of the prominent players--who was made rich by virtue of Fannie's earnings-manipulations.
Jamie Gorelick, attorney-at-law, builder of "the Wall", and sanctimonious snot.
How did that work again? Oh, yeah:
The magnitude of Fannie's machinations is stunning, and in two key areas in particular they deserve to be better understood. By improperly delaying the recognition of income, it created a cookie jar of reserves. And by improperly classifying certain derivatives, it was able to spread out losses over many years instead of recognizing them immediately
...The target EPS for maximum payout was $3.23 and Fannie reported exactly . . . $3.2309. This bull's-eye was worth $1.932 million to then-CEO James Johnson, $1.19 million to then-CEO-designate Franklin Raines, and $779,625 to then-Vice Chairman Jamie Gorelick.
Nice reward from Bubba Clinton for her work in protecting terrorists all around the world, no?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Pawlenty? Meh
Pawlenty, despite the fervent tongue-bath of the late-afternoon RadioMouth in Milwaukee, is not going to make Conservatives happy.
He's a tree-hugger and anti-driller, and has a Huckabee-like economic outlook.
Another Yawn-candidate.
He's a tree-hugger and anti-driller, and has a Huckabee-like economic outlook.
Another Yawn-candidate.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Feingold: The Lying Liar Lies Again
You have to admit that Russ has chutzpah--he puts his lies in print before 300,000 readers (or so) of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
Too bad for Rusty that the JS also asked for a response from someone who actually knows something about the topic at hand.
So the fun begins.
Rusty, the Lying Liar: While the oil companies have tens of millions of acres of federal lands under lease, only a quarter of that land is actually producing oil. I thought I’d start out by asking these executives why that was. The oil executives had no explanation.
Erin Roth, Truth-Squad Leader: First of all, the term "oil" lease is a misnomer. It should be called an "access lease to determine whether oil is present."
Oil companies pay the government for a lease. These leases are not indefinite...they do expire. The companies are not allowed to determine the viability of a property until they actually have the lease. Once they have access, they undertake tests to determine if oil is present. If it is, they then have to determine if it is economically feasible to extract it.
...if the oil sits under 2,000 feet of granite, it probably isn't worth drilling for, even at $150 a barrel. If drilling is feasible, then the government must grant a permit, which does not always happen.
Rusty, the Lying Liar: More than 100 billion barrels of oil and gas resources are currently available on federal lands already leased or available for leasing by oil companies. (See above "feasible" and "permits required.")
• Between 1999 and 2007, the federal government increased the number of drilling permits by 361%. While the Bureau of Land Management issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land in the last four years, wells have not been drilled on over a third (9,822). (See above "feasible" and "Permits required." Also see "capital--derived from PROFITS--required")
Rusty, the Lying Liar: The truth is that current federal law allows oil companies to sit on leases for the entire length of the lease term, which is typically 10 years, and there are no requirements that they develop the lands
Erin, the Truth Squad Leader: No matter what occurs on the property, the government still receives billions of dollars in lease payments from oil companies, even if the land is dry
Rusty, the Lying Liar: After all, the quickest way to produce more oil is to develop lands already under lease since exploration is underway, leases and many drilling permits are ready to go and the infrastructure, including miles and miles of pipeline, is already in place (Like off the coast of California, Rusty, where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BANNED EXTRACTION and where the derricks are already in place? And, by the way, "permits are ready to go" is weasel-wording for "not yet issued," Rusty. Even 5th graders understand that one.)
Erin, the Truth Squad Leader: Every step of the way, huge amounts of time are needed to obtain the series of permits that allow this development. In short, leases are not "idle" while all the preparatory work goes on.
Rusty, the Lying Liar: I support responsible efforts to increase domestic production. (We know that "responsible" means only what you say it means, on that particular day, Rusty. By the way, Rusty, what have you done for nuclear power lately??)
Erin, the Truth Squad Leader: What should not be lost in this debate is the inescapable fact that access to additional federal lands is crucial to expanding available supplies
Rusty, the Lying Liar: Congress must provide the leadership to break the stranglehold that oil has over the lives of our citizens and our economy
Either that, Rusty, you Lying Liar, or the citizens will provide a stranglehold on Congressional throats. At least some Senators will then stop lying with every breath.
HT: Sykes
Too bad for Rusty that the JS also asked for a response from someone who actually knows something about the topic at hand.
So the fun begins.
Rusty, the Lying Liar: While the oil companies have tens of millions of acres of federal lands under lease, only a quarter of that land is actually producing oil. I thought I’d start out by asking these executives why that was. The oil executives had no explanation.
Erin Roth, Truth-Squad Leader: First of all, the term "oil" lease is a misnomer. It should be called an "access lease to determine whether oil is present."
Oil companies pay the government for a lease. These leases are not indefinite...they do expire. The companies are not allowed to determine the viability of a property until they actually have the lease. Once they have access, they undertake tests to determine if oil is present. If it is, they then have to determine if it is economically feasible to extract it.
...if the oil sits under 2,000 feet of granite, it probably isn't worth drilling for, even at $150 a barrel. If drilling is feasible, then the government must grant a permit, which does not always happen.
Rusty, the Lying Liar: More than 100 billion barrels of oil and gas resources are currently available on federal lands already leased or available for leasing by oil companies. (See above "feasible" and "permits required.")
• Between 1999 and 2007, the federal government increased the number of drilling permits by 361%. While the Bureau of Land Management issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land in the last four years, wells have not been drilled on over a third (9,822). (See above "feasible" and "Permits required." Also see "capital--derived from PROFITS--required")
Rusty, the Lying Liar: The truth is that current federal law allows oil companies to sit on leases for the entire length of the lease term, which is typically 10 years, and there are no requirements that they develop the lands
Erin, the Truth Squad Leader: No matter what occurs on the property, the government still receives billions of dollars in lease payments from oil companies, even if the land is dry
Rusty, the Lying Liar: After all, the quickest way to produce more oil is to develop lands already under lease since exploration is underway, leases and many drilling permits are ready to go and the infrastructure, including miles and miles of pipeline, is already in place (Like off the coast of California, Rusty, where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BANNED EXTRACTION and where the derricks are already in place? And, by the way, "permits are ready to go" is weasel-wording for "not yet issued," Rusty. Even 5th graders understand that one.)
Erin, the Truth Squad Leader: Every step of the way, huge amounts of time are needed to obtain the series of permits that allow this development. In short, leases are not "idle" while all the preparatory work goes on.
Rusty, the Lying Liar: I support responsible efforts to increase domestic production. (We know that "responsible" means only what you say it means, on that particular day, Rusty. By the way, Rusty, what have you done for nuclear power lately??)
Erin, the Truth Squad Leader: What should not be lost in this debate is the inescapable fact that access to additional federal lands is crucial to expanding available supplies
Rusty, the Lying Liar: Congress must provide the leadership to break the stranglehold that oil has over the lives of our citizens and our economy
Either that, Rusty, you Lying Liar, or the citizens will provide a stranglehold on Congressional throats. At least some Senators will then stop lying with every breath.
HT: Sykes
Porn-Peeper Teacher Still Fired
The Appeals Court issued a unanimous ruling in the case of Zellner, formerly employed by the Cedarburg school district, and a very committed WEAC member.
The state Court of Appeals today upheld the firing of former Cedarburg teacher Robert Zellner, saying that his viewing of pornography on his school computer during off hours constituted immoral behavior and that immoral behavior is a basis for overturning an arbitrator's decision.
After the Cedarburg School Board fired Zellner in January 2006, he appealed to an arbitrator. The arbitrator ruled in his favor, saying Zellner should have been punished but not fired. Arbitrator's rulings generally are binding, but the case went to court after the School Board refused the arbitrator's order to rehire Zellner.
When Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Joseph McCormack upheld the School Board's decision on immorality grounds, Zellner appealed. In April, the appeals court asked the Supreme Court to take the case directly, saying it presented a legal issue that the high court should decide. But the Supreme Court refused to take the case, leaving it to the appeals court to decide.
In upholding the circuit judge's ruling, the appeals court said in today's ruling that Wisconsin has a strong public policy against immoral conduct in schools and that a judge can overturn an arbitrator's ruling that violates strong public policy.
The Waukesha-based appellate panel cited a statutory definition of immoral conduct as behavior "that is contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards and that endangers the health, safety, welfare or education of any pupil." The appeals judges wrote that "protection of children and the promotion of a safe education environment is a clear and compelling public policy."
Makes sense to me, both as parent and taxpayer.
Zellner's defense is the porn-peeper version of the "five-second rule," which in this case involves 67 seconds.
The state Court of Appeals today upheld the firing of former Cedarburg teacher Robert Zellner, saying that his viewing of pornography on his school computer during off hours constituted immoral behavior and that immoral behavior is a basis for overturning an arbitrator's decision.
After the Cedarburg School Board fired Zellner in January 2006, he appealed to an arbitrator. The arbitrator ruled in his favor, saying Zellner should have been punished but not fired. Arbitrator's rulings generally are binding, but the case went to court after the School Board refused the arbitrator's order to rehire Zellner.
When Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Joseph McCormack upheld the School Board's decision on immorality grounds, Zellner appealed. In April, the appeals court asked the Supreme Court to take the case directly, saying it presented a legal issue that the high court should decide. But the Supreme Court refused to take the case, leaving it to the appeals court to decide.
In upholding the circuit judge's ruling, the appeals court said in today's ruling that Wisconsin has a strong public policy against immoral conduct in schools and that a judge can overturn an arbitrator's ruling that violates strong public policy.
The Waukesha-based appellate panel cited a statutory definition of immoral conduct as behavior "that is contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards and that endangers the health, safety, welfare or education of any pupil." The appeals judges wrote that "protection of children and the promotion of a safe education environment is a clear and compelling public policy."
Makes sense to me, both as parent and taxpayer.
Zellner's defense is the porn-peeper version of the "five-second rule," which in this case involves 67 seconds.
Blogroll Addition
Unlike some others, (EGGSTER!!!) I add few--very few--blogs to the right-roll.
This young lady's work is spectacular. She can write, in English, (REAL English), and she can write exceptionally well. The snark is always gently humorous--and graceful.
Take her out for a spin.
This young lady's work is spectacular. She can write, in English, (REAL English), and she can write exceptionally well. The snark is always gently humorous--and graceful.
Take her out for a spin.
Rome to Lambeth: You're in Bad Shape
This is not your typical "church-speak" stuff.
...from Cardinal Dias's address to the conference yesterday evening:
"Much is spoken today of diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. By analogy, their symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's."
Damian Thompson, from whose blog the above was extracted, comments:
The comments by Cardinal Ivan Dias, Prefect of the Congregation for Evangelisation, must count as one of the rudest things a Vatican prelate has said to Anglicans since the dawn of the ecumenical era.
It can mean only one thing: Rome - and therefore the Pope - has given up on the Anglican Communion.
Umnnhhhh....yah. At some point in time, somebody had to say it; the Lefty Anglicans have walked out into the pond WAY beyond where the stones support them.
I don't usually get into discussions of other religions' difficulties--because the Roman Catholic Church provides plenty of fodder all by itself, and as an RC, that's (kinda) my business.
Here, of course, we have a confluence, where Rome spoke to the Anglicans.
Sorry to have to blog about it, but it cannot be avoided, as Cdl. Dias has signaled.
...from Cardinal Dias's address to the conference yesterday evening:
"Much is spoken today of diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. By analogy, their symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's."
Damian Thompson, from whose blog the above was extracted, comments:
The comments by Cardinal Ivan Dias, Prefect of the Congregation for Evangelisation, must count as one of the rudest things a Vatican prelate has said to Anglicans since the dawn of the ecumenical era.
It can mean only one thing: Rome - and therefore the Pope - has given up on the Anglican Communion.
Umnnhhhh....yah. At some point in time, somebody had to say it; the Lefty Anglicans have walked out into the pond WAY beyond where the stones support them.
I don't usually get into discussions of other religions' difficulties--because the Roman Catholic Church provides plenty of fodder all by itself, and as an RC, that's (kinda) my business.
Here, of course, we have a confluence, where Rome spoke to the Anglicans.
Sorry to have to blog about it, but it cannot be avoided, as Cdl. Dias has signaled.
More "Racism" Slurs
So the word "thug" is now a racist appellation in Milwaukee, eh?
Well, there's a corresponding, but not identical, example from Canada.
Recently, an abortionist named Morgenthaler was awarded the Order of Canada (!!) which caused quite a stir; some prior recipients of the award returned their medals in protest; the Catholic Bishops went ballistic (in their erudite way), and pro-lifers generally are restive.
Following the reaction, a LeftyWonzo Canadian defends the award by playing the race-card.
Many years ago, Montreal Gazette cartoonist Terry Mosher, aka Aislin, published a cartoon that pictured Henry Morgentaler beside a handsome, waspish doctor with an Anglo-Saxon name and posited the question: Do you think if Henry Morgentaler looked like this, there would be this fuss?
We may never know how the debate on abortion might have unfolded if its leading proponent looked like George Clooney. Aislin, also named to the Order in 2003, made his point brilliantly, tacitly alluding to an unfortunate thread of anti-Semitism that also circulates about Morgentaler and his practice.
Of course, there is no "anti-Semitism" involved in the criticism--either of Morgenthaler, or of the twits who made the decision to give a Medal to a bloodthirsty baby-killer.
But apparently, the Left's new meme is to invoke racism no matter the underlying facts.
HT: Ignatius Scoop
Well, there's a corresponding, but not identical, example from Canada.
Recently, an abortionist named Morgenthaler was awarded the Order of Canada (!!) which caused quite a stir; some prior recipients of the award returned their medals in protest; the Catholic Bishops went ballistic (in their erudite way), and pro-lifers generally are restive.
Following the reaction, a LeftyWonzo Canadian defends the award by playing the race-card.
Many years ago, Montreal Gazette cartoonist Terry Mosher, aka Aislin, published a cartoon that pictured Henry Morgentaler beside a handsome, waspish doctor with an Anglo-Saxon name and posited the question: Do you think if Henry Morgentaler looked like this, there would be this fuss?
We may never know how the debate on abortion might have unfolded if its leading proponent looked like George Clooney. Aislin, also named to the Order in 2003, made his point brilliantly, tacitly alluding to an unfortunate thread of anti-Semitism that also circulates about Morgentaler and his practice.
Of course, there is no "anti-Semitism" involved in the criticism--either of Morgenthaler, or of the twits who made the decision to give a Medal to a bloodthirsty baby-killer.
But apparently, the Left's new meme is to invoke racism no matter the underlying facts.
HT: Ignatius Scoop
Rice Admits Volte-Face on Foreign Policy
First Things notes that Condi Rice admits that the Administration made a change in US foreign policy. It went all Wilsonian (over the serious and repeated objections of folks like PJ Buchanan, for example.)
“We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest,” writes Rice. “And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
As is well known, the Bush doctrine represents a remarkable about-face for an administration that initially swore off “nation-building.” Its repudiation of decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East—stability at the cost of freedom—has been no less astonishing
Yah. And the objections voiced in the essay is the best-known of them:
...the document leaves probing questions about America’s democracy agenda unanswered. Can a self-declared Islamic state, for example, support the political doctrines of equality, pluralism, and individual freedom? How can the United States promote democratic reform in societies that have little or no experience with these ideals?
Rice admits that "democratizing" is a challenge.
She admits that democratic development is “never fast or easy” and that “few nations begin the democratic journey with a democratic culture.” Instead, they must create and sustain it over time “through the hard, daily struggle to make good laws, build democratic institutions, tolerate differences, resolve them peacefully, and share power justly.”
OK. It's difficult even where it is established.
Of course, Rice was not exactly.....comprehensive.
What she doesn’t say, what the Bush administration has mostly failed to explain to the American people, is the fearsome difficulty—and the terrible frailty—of this task in states ravaged by despotic governments and religious extremism
"Bad habits are hard to break," like your Mom said, but writ large, I guess.
The essayist then reminds us of certain Machiavellian principles about leadership--that is, that the postulate is not 'whether' a leader should act morally, but 'WHEN' he should. Well....
The nut of the New Policy's dilemma is here:
“Our current course is certainly difficult, but let us not romanticize the old bargains of the Middle East—for they yielded neither justice nor stability.” True enough. But what sacrifices ought to be required from the American people to sustain these partnerships?
A question which has not been asked of Obama, by the way--but which McCain has (more or less) answered with his "100 years" remark.
Jos. Loconte, the essay's author, won't answer the question either. He does think that "Christian Realism" may provide some guidance.
Are we faced, then, with a choice between Machiavellian cynicism and democratic idealism? Perhaps what’s needed is a revival of “Christian realism”—a hopefulness about the influence of American democratic values on the world stage, tempered by a severe realism about the moral ambiguity of human nature and human societies. Christian realism came of age in the 1930s, as American theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr rejected liberal schemes of appeasement in the face of fascist aggression. “Some of the greatest perils to democracy arise from the fanaticism of moral idealists who are not conscious of the corruption of self-interest in their professed ideals,” warned Niebuhr
Heh. Leaving aside facile snarks about 'Congressmen meeting their morning mirrors', what Niebuhr was endorsing was action to take out one A. Hitler. Not a bad thing, you understand, but are we talking about Perpetual War here? Eastasia?
Damn.
“We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest,” writes Rice. “And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
As is well known, the Bush doctrine represents a remarkable about-face for an administration that initially swore off “nation-building.” Its repudiation of decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East—stability at the cost of freedom—has been no less astonishing
Yah. And the objections voiced in the essay is the best-known of them:
...the document leaves probing questions about America’s democracy agenda unanswered. Can a self-declared Islamic state, for example, support the political doctrines of equality, pluralism, and individual freedom? How can the United States promote democratic reform in societies that have little or no experience with these ideals?
Rice admits that "democratizing" is a challenge.
She admits that democratic development is “never fast or easy” and that “few nations begin the democratic journey with a democratic culture.” Instead, they must create and sustain it over time “through the hard, daily struggle to make good laws, build democratic institutions, tolerate differences, resolve them peacefully, and share power justly.”
OK. It's difficult even where it is established.
Of course, Rice was not exactly.....comprehensive.
What she doesn’t say, what the Bush administration has mostly failed to explain to the American people, is the fearsome difficulty—and the terrible frailty—of this task in states ravaged by despotic governments and religious extremism
"Bad habits are hard to break," like your Mom said, but writ large, I guess.
The essayist then reminds us of certain Machiavellian principles about leadership--that is, that the postulate is not 'whether' a leader should act morally, but 'WHEN' he should. Well....
The nut of the New Policy's dilemma is here:
“Our current course is certainly difficult, but let us not romanticize the old bargains of the Middle East—for they yielded neither justice nor stability.” True enough. But what sacrifices ought to be required from the American people to sustain these partnerships?
A question which has not been asked of Obama, by the way--but which McCain has (more or less) answered with his "100 years" remark.
Jos. Loconte, the essay's author, won't answer the question either. He does think that "Christian Realism" may provide some guidance.
Are we faced, then, with a choice between Machiavellian cynicism and democratic idealism? Perhaps what’s needed is a revival of “Christian realism”—a hopefulness about the influence of American democratic values on the world stage, tempered by a severe realism about the moral ambiguity of human nature and human societies. Christian realism came of age in the 1930s, as American theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr rejected liberal schemes of appeasement in the face of fascist aggression. “Some of the greatest perils to democracy arise from the fanaticism of moral idealists who are not conscious of the corruption of self-interest in their professed ideals,” warned Niebuhr
Heh. Leaving aside facile snarks about 'Congressmen meeting their morning mirrors', what Niebuhr was endorsing was action to take out one A. Hitler. Not a bad thing, you understand, but are we talking about Perpetual War here? Eastasia?
Damn.
Buddhist? Christian?
G K Chesterton, with the observation abilities of George Carlin.
NO two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple. The opposition exists at every point; but perhaps the shortest statement of it is that the Buddhist saint always has his eyes shut, while the Christian saint always has them very wide open.
The Buddhist saint always has a very sleek and harmonious body, but his eyes are heavy and sealed with sleep. The medieval saint's body is wasted to its crazy bones, but his eyes are frightfully alive. There cannot be any real community of spirit between forces that produced symbols so different as that.
Granted that both images are extravagances, are perversions of the pure creed, it must be a real divergence which could produce such opposite extravagances. The Buddhist is looking with peculiar intentness inwards. The Christian is staring with a frantic intentness outwards.
QED
HT: VeniSancte
NO two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple. The opposition exists at every point; but perhaps the shortest statement of it is that the Buddhist saint always has his eyes shut, while the Christian saint always has them very wide open.
The Buddhist saint always has a very sleek and harmonious body, but his eyes are heavy and sealed with sleep. The medieval saint's body is wasted to its crazy bones, but his eyes are frightfully alive. There cannot be any real community of spirit between forces that produced symbols so different as that.
Granted that both images are extravagances, are perversions of the pure creed, it must be a real divergence which could produce such opposite extravagances. The Buddhist is looking with peculiar intentness inwards. The Christian is staring with a frantic intentness outwards.
QED
HT: VeniSancte
The Rackets and Thugs: Fannie and Freddie
Paul Gigot hits a grand-slam.
...it illustrates the perverse nature of Fannie and Freddie that has made them such a relentless and untouchable political force. Their unique clout derives from a combination of liberal ideology and private profit. Fannie has been able to purchase political immunity for decades by disguising its vast profit-making machine in the cloak of "affordable housing." To be more precise, Fan and Fred have been protected by an alliance of Capitol Hill and Wall Street, of Barney Frank and Angelo Mozilo.
In fact, Fan/Fred have purchased the loyalty of all the players who count. There is no better prototype for G K Chesterton's "Hudge/Gudge" duo than these crooks.
And there's more. Gigot's editorialists were on to the Fan/Fred scams back in 2003--and paid the price, as did others who asked questions.
...Freddie's accounting fiasco became public in 2003, while Fannie's accounting blew up in 2004. Mr. Raines was forced to resign, and a report by regulator James Lockhart discovered that Fannie had rigged its earnings in a way that allowed it to pay huge bonuses to Mr. Raines and other executives.
Such a debacle after so much denial would have sunk any normal financial company, but once again Fan and Fred could fall back on their political protection. In the wake of Freddie's implosion, Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida held one hearing on its accounting practices and scheduled more in early 2004.
He was soon told that not only could he hold no more hearings, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert was stripping his subcommittee of jurisdiction over Fan and Fred's accounting and giving it to Mike Oxley's Financial Services Committee. "It was because of all their lobbying work," explains Mr. Stearns today, in epic understatement. Mr. Oxley proceeded to let Barney Frank (D., Mass.), then in the minority, roll all over him and protect the companies from stronger regulatory oversight. Mr. Oxley, who has since retired, was the featured guest at no fewer than 19 Fannie-sponsored fund-raisers.
Hastert, the Land-Deal King of South BumF&^%, Ill. Imagine that!! Not only was he a witless twerp; he was complicit.
And it gets close to home, too:
Or consider the experience of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, one of the GOP's bright young lights who decided in the 1990s that Fan and Fred needed more supervision. As he held town hall meetings in his district, he soon noticed a man in a well-tailored suit hanging out amid the John Deere caps and street clothes. Mr. Ryan was being stalked by a Fannie lobbyist monitoring his every word.
On another occasion, he was invited to a meeting with the Democratic mayor of Racine, which is in his district, though he wasn't sure why. When he arrived, Mr. Ryan discovered that both he and the mayor had been invited separately -- not by each other, but by a Fannie lobbyist who proceeded to tell them about the great things Fannie did for home ownership in Racine.
When none of that deterred Mr. Ryan, Fannie played rougher. It called every mortgage holder in his district, claiming (falsely) that Mr. Ryan wanted to raise the cost of their mortgage and asking if Fannie could tell the congressman to stop on their behalf. He received some 6,000 telegrams. When Mr. Ryan finally left Financial Services for a seat on Ways and Means, which doesn't oversee Fannie, he received a personal note from Mr. Raines congratulating him. "He meant good riddance," says Mr. Ryan
Now Gigot makes it plain, joining Tim Carney (author of The Big Ripoff) in his indictment.
...about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannie's left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing
It bears repeating, but I will edit Gigot's remark slightly to include such cretins as Hastert:
Fannie'sleft-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing.
The abiding lesson here is what happens when you combine private profit with government power. You create political monsters that are protected both by journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street, by liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans
If you think that this story is significant, it is. And the reason has nothing whatsoever to do with mortages, gross overcompensation, fraudulent accounting, foreclosures, or taxpayer-financing of all of the above.
The reason the story is significant is this:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are prototypes for what Gummint Health Care will be.
Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
HT: FoxPolitics
...it illustrates the perverse nature of Fannie and Freddie that has made them such a relentless and untouchable political force. Their unique clout derives from a combination of liberal ideology and private profit. Fannie has been able to purchase political immunity for decades by disguising its vast profit-making machine in the cloak of "affordable housing." To be more precise, Fan and Fred have been protected by an alliance of Capitol Hill and Wall Street, of Barney Frank and Angelo Mozilo.
In fact, Fan/Fred have purchased the loyalty of all the players who count. There is no better prototype for G K Chesterton's "Hudge/Gudge" duo than these crooks.
And there's more. Gigot's editorialists were on to the Fan/Fred scams back in 2003--and paid the price, as did others who asked questions.
...Freddie's accounting fiasco became public in 2003, while Fannie's accounting blew up in 2004. Mr. Raines was forced to resign, and a report by regulator James Lockhart discovered that Fannie had rigged its earnings in a way that allowed it to pay huge bonuses to Mr. Raines and other executives.
Such a debacle after so much denial would have sunk any normal financial company, but once again Fan and Fred could fall back on their political protection. In the wake of Freddie's implosion, Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida held one hearing on its accounting practices and scheduled more in early 2004.
He was soon told that not only could he hold no more hearings, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert was stripping his subcommittee of jurisdiction over Fan and Fred's accounting and giving it to Mike Oxley's Financial Services Committee. "It was because of all their lobbying work," explains Mr. Stearns today, in epic understatement. Mr. Oxley proceeded to let Barney Frank (D., Mass.), then in the minority, roll all over him and protect the companies from stronger regulatory oversight. Mr. Oxley, who has since retired, was the featured guest at no fewer than 19 Fannie-sponsored fund-raisers.
Hastert, the Land-Deal King of South BumF&^%, Ill. Imagine that!! Not only was he a witless twerp; he was complicit.
And it gets close to home, too:
Or consider the experience of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, one of the GOP's bright young lights who decided in the 1990s that Fan and Fred needed more supervision. As he held town hall meetings in his district, he soon noticed a man in a well-tailored suit hanging out amid the John Deere caps and street clothes. Mr. Ryan was being stalked by a Fannie lobbyist monitoring his every word.
On another occasion, he was invited to a meeting with the Democratic mayor of Racine, which is in his district, though he wasn't sure why. When he arrived, Mr. Ryan discovered that both he and the mayor had been invited separately -- not by each other, but by a Fannie lobbyist who proceeded to tell them about the great things Fannie did for home ownership in Racine.
When none of that deterred Mr. Ryan, Fannie played rougher. It called every mortgage holder in his district, claiming (falsely) that Mr. Ryan wanted to raise the cost of their mortgage and asking if Fannie could tell the congressman to stop on their behalf. He received some 6,000 telegrams. When Mr. Ryan finally left Financial Services for a seat on Ways and Means, which doesn't oversee Fannie, he received a personal note from Mr. Raines congratulating him. "He meant good riddance," says Mr. Ryan
Now Gigot makes it plain, joining Tim Carney (author of The Big Ripoff) in his indictment.
...about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannie's left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing
It bears repeating, but I will edit Gigot's remark slightly to include such cretins as Hastert:
Fannie's
The abiding lesson here is what happens when you combine private profit with government power. You create political monsters that are protected both by journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street, by liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans
If you think that this story is significant, it is. And the reason has nothing whatsoever to do with mortages, gross overcompensation, fraudulent accounting, foreclosures, or taxpayer-financing of all of the above.
The reason the story is significant is this:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are prototypes for what Gummint Health Care will be.
Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
HT: FoxPolitics
Understanding the Bank Bailout
Most of us could add that we did not contribute $150K to any Jesse Jackson shakedown dinners.
HT: BigPic
"Kill Deer" or "Stun Bunny"--Your Choice
Neat.
A gun that fires variable speed bullets and which can be set to kill, wound or just inflict a bruise is being built by a US toy manufacturer. The weapon is based on technology used to propel toy rockets.
...The new weapon, called the Variable Velocity Weapon System or VWS, lets the soldier to use the same rifle for crowd control and combat, by altering the muzzle velocity. It could be loaded with "rubber bullets" designed only to deliver blunt impacts on a person, full-speed lethal rounds or projectiles somewhere between the two.
Send a warning or send "good-bye."
HT: Lott
A gun that fires variable speed bullets and which can be set to kill, wound or just inflict a bruise is being built by a US toy manufacturer. The weapon is based on technology used to propel toy rockets.
...The new weapon, called the Variable Velocity Weapon System or VWS, lets the soldier to use the same rifle for crowd control and combat, by altering the muzzle velocity. It could be loaded with "rubber bullets" designed only to deliver blunt impacts on a person, full-speed lethal rounds or projectiles somewhere between the two.
Send a warning or send "good-bye."
HT: Lott
L'Homage a Headless
Stolen from Clay Cramer, posted for the local science guy.
The Thermodynamics Song
(tune: Battle Hymn of the Republic)
Heat content and fugacity revolved within his brain,
Like molecules and atoms that you never have to name,
And logarithmic functions that revolved within his dreams,
And partial molar quantities devouring chocolate creams.
(chorus)
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
We'll pass you by and by.
They asked him on the final if a mole of any gas,
In a bottle with a membrane through which hydrogen could pass,
Were compressed to half its volume, what its entropy would be,
If two thirds of delta sigma equals half of delta phi.
(chorus)
He said he guessed the entropy would have to equal four,
Unless the second law might bring it up a couple more,
It might be almost seven if the Carnot law applied,
And it maybe might be zero if the delta T should slide.
(chorus)
The professor read the paper with a corrugated brow,
For he knew he had to grade it but he didn't quite know how,
And then an inspiration from his cerebellum smote,
And he grabbed his trusty fountain pen and this is what he wrote.
(chorus)
As you have guessed the entropy, so I must guess your grade,
Though the second law won't raise it to the mark you might have made,
It might have been a hundred if your guesses had been good,
But I think it must be zero 'till they're rightly understood.
(final chorus)
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
We'll try again next year.
Reminds me of another Engine-house (DeltaDeltaDelta) ditty which cannot be posted here.
The Thermodynamics Song
(tune: Battle Hymn of the Republic)
Heat content and fugacity revolved within his brain,
Like molecules and atoms that you never have to name,
And logarithmic functions that revolved within his dreams,
And partial molar quantities devouring chocolate creams.
(chorus)
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
We'll pass you by and by.
They asked him on the final if a mole of any gas,
In a bottle with a membrane through which hydrogen could pass,
Were compressed to half its volume, what its entropy would be,
If two thirds of delta sigma equals half of delta phi.
(chorus)
He said he guessed the entropy would have to equal four,
Unless the second law might bring it up a couple more,
It might be almost seven if the Carnot law applied,
And it maybe might be zero if the delta T should slide.
(chorus)
The professor read the paper with a corrugated brow,
For he knew he had to grade it but he didn't quite know how,
And then an inspiration from his cerebellum smote,
And he grabbed his trusty fountain pen and this is what he wrote.
(chorus)
As you have guessed the entropy, so I must guess your grade,
Though the second law won't raise it to the mark you might have made,
It might have been a hundred if your guesses had been good,
But I think it must be zero 'till they're rightly understood.
(final chorus)
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
Glory, glory, dear old thermo,
We'll try again next year.
Reminds me of another Engine-house (DeltaDeltaDelta) ditty which cannot be posted here.
The Guilt of the Anti-Gun Newspapermen
Wonder why the NYTimes is so anti-gun?
It's a guilt complex.
I've read that the New York Times ordered up some Gatling guns to protect the newspaper during the New York City Draft Riots, during the Civil War, when enraged antiwar protesters upset about the draft murdered hundreds (some say, thousands) of blacks, burning down black orphanages with the children inside. A few years back, an acquaintance who invited me to speak at Columbia University told me that he had actually seen a photograph of a Gatling gun on the roof of the New York Times building. I was a bit skeptical, but I now have considerable evidence that the Gatling gun was on the roof only because the strafing run hadn't yet been invented.
All the following sources agree that the New York Times had Gatling guns set up to deal with rioters; using the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to protect the First Amendment right of a free (non-smoldering) press. ...
(Clay Cramer)
Them's some powerful weapons...
It's a guilt complex.
I've read that the New York Times ordered up some Gatling guns to protect the newspaper during the New York City Draft Riots, during the Civil War, when enraged antiwar protesters upset about the draft murdered hundreds (some say, thousands) of blacks, burning down black orphanages with the children inside. A few years back, an acquaintance who invited me to speak at Columbia University told me that he had actually seen a photograph of a Gatling gun on the roof of the New York Times building. I was a bit skeptical, but I now have considerable evidence that the Gatling gun was on the roof only because the strafing run hadn't yet been invented.
All the following sources agree that the New York Times had Gatling guns set up to deal with rioters; using the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to protect the First Amendment right of a free (non-smoldering) press. ...
(Clay Cramer)
Them's some powerful weapons...
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Afghan "Surge"
A month or so ago, we attended a wedding and during the reception spoke with two active-duty military types.
They both remarked that 'the buildup was on' in Afghanistan at that time.
It's likely, then, that the Afghan troop-buildup had been going on for about 90-120 days, meaning that it was planned 180 days ago or so.
We learned in the last few days that The O-and-Savior, while campaigning in Iraq, thinks that an Afghan buildup should be executed.
Well, good, Obama. I'm sure that's noted someplace.
They both remarked that 'the buildup was on' in Afghanistan at that time.
It's likely, then, that the Afghan troop-buildup had been going on for about 90-120 days, meaning that it was planned 180 days ago or so.
We learned in the last few days that The O-and-Savior, while campaigning in Iraq, thinks that an Afghan buildup should be executed.
Well, good, Obama. I'm sure that's noted someplace.
More on "We're Taking Him Out" Silliness from GWB
The OTHER McCain notes that John McCain has little use for GWB's silly attitude, and supplies history.
The possibility of defeat is among the reasons why war should be avoided if possible. I am reminded of Nicias, the Athenian general who argued against undertaking the fateful Sicilian expedition in the Pelopponesian War but who, once the decision was made to undertake the expedition, insisted that it be made with all available force. Athens could afford the expedition, but could not afford defeat.
John McCain has indicated his disdain of Bush's jocular "f--- Saddam, we're taking him out" attitude -- an attitude he says the president manifested a year before the invasion. But McCain has steadfastly insisted that, if we were going to fight in Iraq, we make the fight full-strength. Fight to win, or don't fight at all.
Bush's decision was made long, long before the Administration began its propaganda campaign; but Rummy's "Lean-War" stupidity damn near made Iraq into another Vietnam.
At least it can be said that Bush owned up and fixed the problem with the surge.
The possibility of defeat is among the reasons why war should be avoided if possible. I am reminded of Nicias, the Athenian general who argued against undertaking the fateful Sicilian expedition in the Pelopponesian War but who, once the decision was made to undertake the expedition, insisted that it be made with all available force. Athens could afford the expedition, but could not afford defeat.
John McCain has indicated his disdain of Bush's jocular "f--- Saddam, we're taking him out" attitude -- an attitude he says the president manifested a year before the invasion. But McCain has steadfastly insisted that, if we were going to fight in Iraq, we make the fight full-strength. Fight to win, or don't fight at all.
Bush's decision was made long, long before the Administration began its propaganda campaign; but Rummy's "Lean-War" stupidity damn near made Iraq into another Vietnam.
At least it can be said that Bush owned up and fixed the problem with the surge.
AmEx Warns
You can take your signals from the Administration, or you can take your signals from actual in-the-trenches businesses.
Like M&I Bank, American Express is conservative in its lending practices. And like M&I, it's taking hits and sending signals.
“The severe decline in home prices and the marked rise in oil prices have had a fundamental impact on consumer budgets and behavior. Not just as it relates to mortgages and home-related spending, but also across the full spectrum of the consumer economy
...as I showed you on the slide package, we saw our credit deteriorate in June beyond our expectations as the write-off rates rose and roll rates within the portfolio deteriorated versus prior months
...we now believe the economic weakness in the US will likely worsen throughout the remainder of the year and negatively impact credit and business trend ... we now expect that our lending write-off rate in the third and fourth quarter will be higher than June levels.”
So far, not particularly exceptionable, except that AmEx is adjusting their earnings projections mid-year.
But this statement is a bit jarring:
"... this fallout was evident across all consumer segments, even our longer-term super prime card members.”
Keep your head down, folks.
HT: Calculated Risk
Like M&I Bank, American Express is conservative in its lending practices. And like M&I, it's taking hits and sending signals.
“The severe decline in home prices and the marked rise in oil prices have had a fundamental impact on consumer budgets and behavior. Not just as it relates to mortgages and home-related spending, but also across the full spectrum of the consumer economy
...as I showed you on the slide package, we saw our credit deteriorate in June beyond our expectations as the write-off rates rose and roll rates within the portfolio deteriorated versus prior months
...we now believe the economic weakness in the US will likely worsen throughout the remainder of the year and negatively impact credit and business trend ... we now expect that our lending write-off rate in the third and fourth quarter will be higher than June levels.”
So far, not particularly exceptionable, except that AmEx is adjusting their earnings projections mid-year.
But this statement is a bit jarring:
"... this fallout was evident across all consumer segments, even our longer-term super prime card members.”
Keep your head down, folks.
HT: Calculated Risk
Killing Choice by a Thousand Cuts
Owen picked this up last night.
WEAC supports legislation to hold private and religious voucher schools to the same standards as public schools, including:
Minimum hours of instruction; background checks on teachers.
Those two items are not particularly controversial.
The rest of their demands are simply contentious or polemical, and designed to increase the costs of Choice education or impugn Choice schools without evidence of harm. (Surprise!!!)
Licensure of all instructional staff; grade advancement, high school graduation, attendance and parental involvement requirements and standards; administration of required state standardized tests and testing required under the so-called “No Child Left Behind” law, including public reporting requirements; prohibition of forced religious activity; nondiscrimination standards; enforcement by the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) of rules and regulations;
certified reading specialists and reading programs.
Requiring "licensing" of faculty is no different than the big-business tactic of demanding "regulation" of business. It's designed to push out the small guys, generally by requiring cost additions. Good principals know who good teachers are; they hire them. They also fire bad ones, regularly. Imparting knowledge does not require magic, and it certainly does not require "School of Education" pixie-dust.
"Parental involvement" standards? Really! What might THEY be?
"Standardized testing" is another cost-imposition. You want tests? How about acceptance into high-schools, or colleges? Those are tests which actually measure achievement.
What's a "forced" religious activity? What are "non-discrimination" standards? These bullets are pure polemic; one is supposed to infer that the Little Darlings are being brainwashed, or that there is active 'discrimination.' If WEAC thinks that is the case, they should cite verifiable instances.
"Certified reading....." is another cost-addition which, by the way, hasn't exactly pushed MPS' scores to the top of any achievement lists. Why force it on schools which are successful?
The Choice program was created to provide education which is NOT defined by WEAC and State bureaucrats (I know that's redundant.) Allowing WEAC to define the playing field contradicts the purpose.
It's not 'the children' WEAC cares about. Never forget that.
WEAC supports legislation to hold private and religious voucher schools to the same standards as public schools, including:
Minimum hours of instruction; background checks on teachers.
Those two items are not particularly controversial.
The rest of their demands are simply contentious or polemical, and designed to increase the costs of Choice education or impugn Choice schools without evidence of harm. (Surprise!!!)
Licensure of all instructional staff; grade advancement, high school graduation, attendance and parental involvement requirements and standards; administration of required state standardized tests and testing required under the so-called “No Child Left Behind” law, including public reporting requirements; prohibition of forced religious activity; nondiscrimination standards; enforcement by the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) of rules and regulations;
certified reading specialists and reading programs.
Requiring "licensing" of faculty is no different than the big-business tactic of demanding "regulation" of business. It's designed to push out the small guys, generally by requiring cost additions. Good principals know who good teachers are; they hire them. They also fire bad ones, regularly. Imparting knowledge does not require magic, and it certainly does not require "School of Education" pixie-dust.
"Parental involvement" standards? Really! What might THEY be?
"Standardized testing" is another cost-imposition. You want tests? How about acceptance into high-schools, or colleges? Those are tests which actually measure achievement.
What's a "forced" religious activity? What are "non-discrimination" standards? These bullets are pure polemic; one is supposed to infer that the Little Darlings are being brainwashed, or that there is active 'discrimination.' If WEAC thinks that is the case, they should cite verifiable instances.
"Certified reading....." is another cost-addition which, by the way, hasn't exactly pushed MPS' scores to the top of any achievement lists. Why force it on schools which are successful?
The Choice program was created to provide education which is NOT defined by WEAC and State bureaucrats (I know that's redundant.) Allowing WEAC to define the playing field contradicts the purpose.
It's not 'the children' WEAC cares about. Never forget that.
Editing for Obama
Who's in the tank for The O-and-Savior?
Here's the JSOnline headline:
It takes about 45 seconds to read the story and realize that the accurate headline would be:
Obviously it's a slow news day for Steve Walters, who couldn't find this story even though Owen Robinson had it last night. I mean, when the state teacher's union is attempting to kill off the Choice program, it sounds like news to me. But not to Walters, nor to his editors.
Wonder why circulation continues to drop like a rock?
Here's the JSOnline headline:
Guard veterans back Obama over McCain
It takes about 45 seconds to read the story and realize that the accurate headline would be:
TWO Guard veterans back Obama over McCain.
Obviously it's a slow news day for Steve Walters, who couldn't find this story even though Owen Robinson had it last night. I mean, when the state teacher's union is attempting to kill off the Choice program, it sounds like news to me. But not to Walters, nor to his editors.
Wonder why circulation continues to drop like a rock?
Aborting Planned Parenthood in South Dakota
Maybe there were 'technical problems.' But the abortuary was closed.
A state law that requires abortionists to inform women – before an abortion – that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" apparently has done what no other pro-life protest has been able to accomplish – the closure of Planned Parenthood's abortion facility.
...pro-life protesters gathered from several different organizations at the Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood business, as did several women who apparently had appointments.
However, a spokesman for the protest groups said no abortionists arrived and the women left after being counseled by the pro-lifer sidewalk counselors.
"I think Planned Parenthood cannot figure out a way not to comply with the law,"
South Dakota's legislation is specific.
The new law requires abortionists to explain to women that:
The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
A description of all known medical risks of the procedure including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide
Previously, pro-lifers lost a battle over a state law which would have banned abortions outright. This legislation, upheld by the 8th Circuit, is the pro-life response to that defeat.
Some Leggie ought to start the ball rolling in Wisconsin.
A state law that requires abortionists to inform women – before an abortion – that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" apparently has done what no other pro-life protest has been able to accomplish – the closure of Planned Parenthood's abortion facility.
...pro-life protesters gathered from several different organizations at the Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood business, as did several women who apparently had appointments.
However, a spokesman for the protest groups said no abortionists arrived and the women left after being counseled by the pro-lifer sidewalk counselors.
"I think Planned Parenthood cannot figure out a way not to comply with the law,"
South Dakota's legislation is specific.
The new law requires abortionists to explain to women that:
The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
A description of all known medical risks of the procedure including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide
Previously, pro-lifers lost a battle over a state law which would have banned abortions outright. This legislation, upheld by the 8th Circuit, is the pro-life response to that defeat.
Some Leggie ought to start the ball rolling in Wisconsin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
