Welcome Back/The Housing Crisis

Well it was a heck of a Thanksgiving break and if you're like me, all you managed to accomplish was nothing.  Amidst more homework than ever before and an extremely uncomfortable bed at my girlfriend's mom's house, its hard to feel like we got any gains out of the too-late break.  However, there's only a couple weeks until finals so I guess we just have to get tough... To think we have two more years of this!

Anyway, down to brass tacks.  While the economy continues to make gains throughout the country with stocks rising and companies posting profits, the one area where gains are not being seen is the one that's most important to you and I: employment and the housing industry.

A recent NY Times article highlighted the unfortunate shortcomings of the current administration's program, Making Home Affordable.  The government incentives offered under the program clearly aren't pushing lenders any closer to permanent restructuring of loans and the rising unemployment continues to drag foreclosure numbers upward.

President Obama is feeling more pressure than ever to use the bully pulpit for good and Senators are looking at measures to restructure the Fed's current housing program to put more pressure on lenders for the good of delinquent borrowers.  Anti-government tea baggers heads' are spinning.

The following brief explanation sums up the article well:

From its inception early this year, the Obama administration’s program, called Making Home Affordable, has been dogged by persistent questions about whether it could diminish a swelling wave of foreclosures. Some economists argued that the plan was built for last year’s problem — exotic mortgages whose payments increased — and not for the current menace of soaring joblessness. Lawyers who defend homeowners against foreclosure maintained that mortgage companies collect lucrative fees from long-term delinquency, undercutting their incentive to lower payments to affordable levels.

Now at the end of the day, I think it's time to stop the bleeding.  The article suggests that one measure under consideration is mediated renegotiation of home loans by bankruptcy judges, putting pressure on lenders to cut their losses in lieu of financial stability.  While this will ultimately hurt the financial industry a bit, I am staunchly of the opinion that they've received quite enough of our money and this would help us by making them shoulder the burden for their deeds.

In the same breath, tighter controls need to be put in place to prevent the wild borrowing that lead people to default on their mortgages.  If we do not curtail both wild financial speculation by banks and unsafe borrowing practices by consumers, then we have learned absolutely nothing from this catastrophe.

The bottom line is this, flex muscle on lenders, relieve pressure on consumers, get money back into the economy, spur job growth.  Seems like a simple chain but as I'm sure Alex K will demonstrate, it probably isn't.

You know what to do cats and chicks.  Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.

Thanksgiving Break (Read: Get me the Hell Out of Iowa State)

Hey everybody!  Well it's that time of year again and I'll be in Marengo, IL for the coming week.  Posts will probably be sparse because the Mrs. and I will be rather busy carving turkeys and um... climbing... horses or something.

Anyway I just wanted to say that it's been an awesome couple of weeks and I think our little community is off to an awesome start.  Thank you to everyone who contributed and like I said in my email, if you have opinions you'd like published or even jokes you want posted, feel free to drop me a line any time.

With that, I leave you with this: Sarah Palin recently floated Glenn Beck as a potential running mate in 2012, to which John B proposed the following bumper sticker:

Palin Beck '12 - How fucking stupid are you?

 Happy holiday all and as always, feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

Constructive Profiling, A Rogue Strategy

Well done Ms. Palin, my head is spinning.



Now I hate picking on people and with my recent coverage of Sarah Palin, it feels like I am.  But when someone consistently provides comments like this with blatant disregard for human decency (or perhaps her own political career), she deserves several posts.

In the video, Ms. Palin speaks of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, claiming that it was "a fear of being politically incorrect that we did not...profile this guy."  She also claims that there were "massive warning flags" including evidence of his contact with Al-Qaeda.  This despite evidence that Hasan was self-radicalized, not an operative of Al-Qaeda, which would, through a conservative lens, make Fort Hood a terrorist attack.

"Profiling in the context of doing whatever we can to save American lives, I'm all for it then," she states with proud defiance, seemingly enticed by the idea of making "liberal heads...spin".

Now where do you start?  How about here: 93% of Fox News viewers believe that Hasan was a trained terrorist and that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack, which he and it were not.  Palin's remarks perfectly walk the line provided by the evidently defunct political machine posing as a journalism bureau Fox News.

The warrant-less tap on his email would have been a gross invasion of civil liberties and while it might have saved the victims of Fort Hood, we cannot lose our humanity in order to save human lives.  It has been clear since the attack on September 11th that Fox-Republicans are willing to sacrifice civil liberties and rights provided under the clearest articles of the constitution for the sake of catching this unknown and unseen enemy, "the terrorist."  The finger pointing and disregard for the law coupled with rampant paranoia is borderline McCarthyist.

Radical is apparently a word for "not my" when juxtaposed with beliefs in the Fox-right camp.  Though Hasan was a muslim, his rampage was fueled more by psychological unrest than with belief in someone other than Jesus.  Of course, the ultimate irony is that while Ms. Palin condemns the mentally ill for having "radical" (read: non-Christian) beliefs, she herself just released "Going Rogue" which proclaims how much different she is from the typical Republican.  Different?  Rogue?  Radical perhaps?

And finally, yes my head is spinning since you used the term profiling Sarah, but only because the treatment of Muslims in this country has been blatantly racist under the guise of constructive profiling the whole time.  The idea that we should allow and accept undue profiling of Muslims in defense of Americans is, again, losing our humanity to save human lives.

I apologize for the rant since I know that all of us understand just how absurd her remarks are.  Heck, all of us understand how absurd her presidential bid is.  But when millions of Americans listen to her errant statements and accept them as fact, her comments need to be responded to.

Anyone else as mad as I am?  Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

I No Longer Know Who To Blame

Growing up we all learn to believe in certain things.  Things that become unshakable, the bringers of justice and peace in a world full of chaos and wobbly foundations.  For me, one of those things, was the Federal Reserve.

In hindsight, it was a silly assumption but as a kid growing up, is it hard to believe that the one thing I believed in was the economy?  The ubiquity of capitalism, the penetration of the dollar into our hearts and our conversations, and furthermore the body that regulates all that all seemed like pretty immovable objects to my uneducated brain.

And even in hindsight, maybe I was right to believe in their unstoppability.  The capabilities of the Fed and the apathy that most Americans graced it with did lead it to become that unflappable, unstoppable entity of capitalism.  They were powerful and, most importantly, they had full faith from the American people (or at least the standing administration).

So here we are today: I'm all growed up and after a decade of blind faith, the Fed may have put us in the mess that we're in.  My childhood hero is shattered.  But is it there fault?  Or was it Obama's?  Was it Gramm-Leach-Bliley or Goldman Sachs alone that tipped the house of cards off the table?  Was it Bush's deregulatory policy or the current administration's coddling of "too big to fail" banks?

I no longer know what to believe in but worst of all, I no longer know who to blame.  But I do know this: you guys probably do.

Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

We All Need This One (At Least I Do)

Say it, say that I post Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert too much.  Well guess what.  I had a really crappy day yesterday, and last night, and this morning.  So here's something to lighten the mood and get everybody talking about today's upcoming post.

I personally support same-sex burials.  Boy, that sounds terrible without context.

Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

So Much for Compromise

When Obama was elected, he did so on a platform of Hope.  Hope for peace, hope for an end to societies ills, and, most optimistically, hope for bipartisanship in a country whose divide between the left and right is deepening every day.

Let's be honest with ourselves, if we all step off of our respective political soapboxes, we can probably find the best action for policy through compromise.  Somehow through that daily gnashing of teeth, the Democrats and the Republicans (at some time I'm sure) have eeked out bipartisan agreements for the better of the country.

Not to pick on them, but Republicans obviously do not agree.

According to a recent NY Times article, Republicans are experiencing extensive party infighting that threatens to divide them into moderate and far-right camps.  Even the candidates that the RNC recently elected (in what they purport is the most poignant referendum on the Obama agenda yet) are in danger of falling victim to the party's mechanics:

Conservatives counter that Republicans have become Democrats’ enablers in bigger deficits and bigger government, and that the way to win is to sharpen the distinctions between the parties.

And there you have it folks.  Conservatives and Republicans.  Now I know its politically reductionist to lump them into the same camp but for at least the past eight years they've both run under the same banner.  Furthermore, if compromise is the best road to productive legislation, it appears that the right will have nothing of productivity.

The next big question is, what effect will this have on the midterm elections next year?  Democrats are, as a historical trend, poised to lose seats in the next election, but will this new found infighting between conservatives, Republicans, Fox News, and the RNC have an effect?

You know what to do.  Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

Happy Weekend Everybody!

Hey guys, I'm shutting down for the weekend but feel free to jot down any pertinent thoughts on here in between sessions of napping and open mouthed TV drooling.  I won't be back until Monday so have a good weekend!

I leave you with one final thought for the week:



Although I've personally never liked Highlander.

Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.  But don't expect me to answer them.

GOP Infighting Caused by...FOX?

A recent MediaMatters post was quoted a-thusly:

In other words, in just the last 12 months, the balance of power within the conservative movement has completely swung in the direction of the right-wing press, which is stoking the flames of the GOP civil war. It's a partisan press corps that no longer documents internal Republican squabbling; it initiates the infighting.

That's right boys and girls.  Fox News, the bastion of Republican all-that-is-good has become the harbinger of their demise.  All hyperbole aside, Fox was largely responsible for ousting Scozzafava and allowing a Democrat to be elected in NY District 23 where Republicans had held office since the Civil War.

The article is a short read, depicting Fox's inability to get their men/women elected while at the same time destroying the chances of the men/women who have actually have a fighting chance!  My thoughts: Glenn Beck's haircut is the one to blame.

Good news for all you egg fans, because they yoke's on the red states!  Feel free to leave your comments at the desk.  Unless they have to do with bashing that hilarious joke I just made.

Credit to John B for the lead.

Stewart Responds to Hannity's Apology

I barely have to preview Jon Stewart's clips before posting them.  I mean come on, it's Jon Stewart, talking about Sean Hannity, with his mouth.



The best part about Fox News is they always give you something to write about.  Feel free to leave your comments at the front desk.

The Stupak Injustice

In lieu of responding to Alex K's extensive response to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (We discussed most of it in my kitchen anyway) I've decided to address an issue that's got me really going.  Hang on to your hats kids.

Recently I submitted a letter to the editor of the ISU Daily descrying the Stupak amendment's invasion in a woman's right to choose.  For those of you who haven't read the amendment, it can be found here.  I'll be posting my editorial here in the coming day but here I'll summarize the argument for space sake.

A little history: The Hyde amendment, passed in 1976, banned the practice of abortions funded by federal dollars.  Basically, as long as the government wasn't paying for them, women could use their own money to purchase an elective abortion under a private health care insurance provider.

In the past few days however, namely over the weekend as the health bill was passing through the House, Bart Stupak (D-MI) added the Stupak amendment to the already lengthy bill.  The Stupak amendment extends the restrictions under the Hyde bill to a level they've never been before.  The Daily recently posted an editorial here, claiming that the "most essential clause" of the bill is that on page 2, which reads:

“No funds authorized or approved by this Act [or an amendment made by this Act] may be used to pay for any abortion to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

They go on to voice their support of the amendment, claiming that it "...does a good job of balancing a hot-button issue with the role of government."

In the mean time, my editorial on the issue has been shot down for print for the second straight day and the fact is, I wouldn't be so upset about it if they weren't leaving out the section on page 3.

If they had bothered to turn the page, they would have read this:

(b) Option to Purchase Separate Supplemental Coverage or Plan - Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as -
(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this act; and
(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased using -
(A) individual premium payments required for a Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(B) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

I've italicized the important section.  The bill does provide the same restrictions passed under the Hyde amendment but it then goes further to extend those restrictions to health insurance plans purchased on the national insurance exchange.  This means that women, for financial reasons, would be forced into choosing more expensive plans outside the Exchange.

Okay, begin rant: it's on the next page Daily Editorial Board!

End rant.  My editorial argues about the implications of such an act, calling it a gross invasion of civil liberties, perpetrated by the same people who brought you "the Public Option is a government takeover of health care."

The fact is that if a woman is going to have a right to choose, the Stupak amendment is not going to get her there.  The amendment has gone in one ear and out the other of right-wingers and with great joy.  Further and further they tighten the vice on civil liberties so that a religious institution and some nut jobs can have there way.

Starting to feel like your rights are less important than their beliefs?  Feel free to leave comments at the front desk.