Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 710)

Spring Hill

No Comment
Spring Hill

Homes for Sale – 11226 Captain Dr – Spring Hill, FL 34608-50 Homes for Sale – 4625 CHAMBER CT Ct – Spring Hill, FL 34609 Homes for Sale – 4252 Bayridge Ct # 0040 – Spring Hill, FL 3 Busch Gardens Theme Park in Spring Hill | Cool Springs TN News Busch Gardens theme park in Spring Hill ? Although the Cool Springs TN News has not confirmed it yet, Busch Gardens seems to be the likely candidate coming to Spring Hill Tennessee. New Theme Amusement Park in Nashville Area- Spring Hill called … I have to admit, I’m actually the one who is so excited about this announcement. What is the family-based amusement theme park coming to the Middle Tennessee area? All morning, I’ve been taking guesses about which Florida-based … “Festival Tennessee”. Spring Hill press conference recap. | The … Festival Tennessee plans · Festival Tennessee. Whatever is important to Spring Hill is important to The Bridge so Craig and I took our lunch breaks to roll over to the press conference on the rumored theme park in Spring Hill . … Nevada company unveils Spring Hill theme park plan : Post Business … Nevada company unveils Spring Hill theme park plan. By Geert De Lombaerde Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:13 pm. Big International Group of Entertainment, a Nevada-based company focusing primarily on the children’s and family markets, … Spring Hill Criminal Defense Lawyer: Wanting Drug Suspect Arrested … A wanted drug suspect was arrested and charged in Spring Hill this week (3/1/11). Click through for the full story from the Pasco County lawyers at Musca Law. HudsonKatie says: @savannahellis their opening some theme park in spring hill …so weird

Continue reading …
What Capitol Hill Sounded Like On March 1, 1975

enlarge Rockefeller and Ford – rather odd bedfellows. Click here to view this media This week of March 1, 1975 was an interesting one, not the least for vice-President Nelson Rockefeller’s famous quote about the possibility of running in 1980: Vice-President Rockefeller: “I don’t think anyone gives a good God-damn, if you’ll forgive me, about 1980 politics. And I think you make a tremendous mistake even thinking about it. I think it shows a loss of focus of the crisis proportion of the problems we face today, and I resent it as a politician that people think that all I’m interested in is politics when I’m trying to solve the problems, or help the President to meet the problems of today.” Aside from Rockefeller’s protests, the week was full of talk of compromise between Democrats and Republicans (naturally), the Gas Tax (naturally), The Energy Crisis (naturally) the emergency budget (that again), foreign aid to Cambodia and the prospects of Gerald Ford running for re-election in 1980 (he said yeah). All that and the month hadn’t even started yet. Here is the broadcast of Washington Week In Review with Neil Strawser and CBS News from March 1, 1975.

Continue reading …
Huckabee Rips Media for Calling Him a Birther: ‘They Must Be Afraid I Can Beat Obama’

As NewsBusters previously reported , advocacy media outlets such as MSNBC and the New York Times Tuesday cherry-picked comments by Mike Huckabee to make him look like a birther. On Wednesday, the former Arkansas governor went back on the Steve Malzberg radio show to address his accusors who he claimed are attacking him because they're afraid he “might end up getting some traction running for president and [beat] Barack Obama” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): MIKE HUCKABEE, FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: Some of these guys don’t seem to be able to read, because if they would read my book, they would know exactly what I said and what I intended. I clearly said that I misspoke when I used the word Kenya instead of Indonesia. But, I’ve never seen the media so completely desirous to write their story before they even found out what was actually said. STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: Well, Governor, the thing here is, and let’s take the New York Times first. They were one of the first to call over here and wanted the interview sent to them. As far as I know, we sent them the interview. I gave a statement to a girl who said, “Okay, let me start writing down.” And I said, “This is a bunch of nonsense.” And then they, we sent them the interview, they did their story, and I’m holding the headline of the story in my hand, “Huckabee Questions Obama Birth Certificate.” Now, that’s insane because you said completely the opposite. And it’s not just me that heard. They heard it because I sent it to them. HUCKABEE: Well, it’s really inexplicable because I have been very clear. I’ve said it on “Good Morning America,” I’ve said it on C-SPAN. I’ve said it in front of a room full of a hundred reporters in Washington last week when I spoke at the National Press Club. There were plenty of reporters, both cameras as well as audio there to capture it. I’ve said it in spite of the fact that it isn’t necessarily something that a lot of conservatives want to hear. But I’ve said it because that’s what I believe. I’ve written it that way in my book. I’ve answered the question every time I’ve been asked. But they are determined to say that I said something that I did not say. I’m just simply beyond myself to explain how to get them to get it. […] It’s hard for me to understand. I mean, Obama can talk about visiting all 57 states, and that’s just, “Gee, he’s tired.” You know, I’m doing 30, 40 interviews a day on the book tour. I’m going from five in the morning till midnight every night. And clearly what I wrote was about his childhood in Indonesia, about his Kenyan father and grandfather who he says was tortured by the Brits during the Mau Mau revolution. All of that is spelled out. Indeed. As Britain's Sunday Times reported in December 2008: Barack Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and brutally tortured by the British during the violent struggle for Kenyan independence, according to the Kenyan family of the US President-elect. Hussein Onyango Obama, Mr Obama’s paternal grandfather, became involved in the Kenyan independence movement while working as a cook for a British army officer after the war. He was arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison where, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence to extract information about the growing insurgency. “The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” said Sarah Onyango, Hussein Onyango’s third wife, the woman Mr Obama refers to as “Granny Sarah”. Mrs Onyango, 87, described how “white soldiers” visited the prison every two or three days to carry out “disciplinary action” on the inmates suspected of subversive activities. “He said they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down,” she said The alleged torture was said to have left Mr Onyango permanently scarred, and bitterly antiBritish. “That was the time we realised that the British were actually not friends but, instead, enemies,” Mrs Onyango said. “My husband had worked so diligently for them, only to be arrested and detained.” Mr Obama refers briefly to his grandfather’s imprisonment in his best-selling memoir, Dreams from My Father, but states that his grandfather was “found innocent” and held only for “more than six months”. This report was all the rage that month in 2008, even getting quoted by the far-left website the Huffington Post. As such, all Huckabee was citing in his book and repeated on Monday was established history of Obama’s family. Is this suddenly verboten? Was Arianna guilty of hate speech for mentioning Obama's Kenyan father and grandfather at her website? Or are only liberals allowed to bring this up? But I digress: HUCKABEE: I immediately corrected it and said, “Let me clarify.” I don’t think he ever grew up in Kenya. But he did spend part of his formative years in Indonesia. But he did have a Kenyan father and a Kenyan grandfather. So I believe he was born in Hawaii. Stop the tape. Huckabee just clearly stated, “I believe he was born in Hawaii.” Doesn't sound like he's either a birther or pandering to them, does it? He continued: HUCKABEE: I have no reason to think otherwise personally. Others do. I’ve made that clear. Somewhere in the midst of all this, I’m considered guilty of hate speech, incompetent to be president. It’s really one of those things where it must be that there are people in the media who are afraid that I might end up getting some traction running for president and beating Barack Obama. I can’t figure out any other reason that they would be so exorcized over a verbal gaffe that I have immediately not only acknowledged but corrected and am in print being very clear as to exactly what I meant. […] I’m surprised by Joe Scarborough. I’ve known Joe. He’s a friend, and frankly he’s the kind of guy I think would have picked up the phone or sent me an e-mail and said, “Did you mean this?” But, you know, it’s a, it’s a fun story for them to blow up, but I, I think it really shows the sad state of American journalism when people fail to do a little source checking. I’ve had people call my office, and even when my staff said, “It’s in his book – read it,” and gave them the page numbers, they still called back and said, “Well, does he believe that he was born in Indonesia?” Nobody’s ever said that. […] It’s one thing for the bloggers, people who really aren’t journalists but they’re just opinion makers. But when you have what used to be legitimate organizations like the Associated Press and the New York Times who can’t get it right, who can’t even read a simple book that was written so simply that they could understand it, then I do worry about the future of journalism in this country. Indeed. However, Huckabee could have added MSNBC's Chris Matthews to this list, as for the second night in a row, the “Hardball” host attacked the former Arkansas governor. He even lead with this so-called story: CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Leading off tonight: The Huckster. When Mike Huckabee's spokesman says Huckabee didn't mean to say President Obama grew up in Kenya, that he really meant to say he grew up in Indonesia, it's a lot to swallow. First of all, both assertions are wrong. The president grew up, if you will, in the United States. He went to the best prep school in Hawaii. Second, Huckabee mentioned British imperialism. Well, the Brits were in Kenya, not Indonesia. And the Mau Mau revolution, that also occurred in Kenya. No, Mike Huckabee just joined the long list of discredited Republicans spreading the bogus story that Barack Obama's presidency is somehow illegitimate because he`s some kind of foreigner, the right's favorite propaganda that won`t die. That`s our top story. Later, with guests David Corn of Mother Jones and Salon's Joan Walsh in the studio acting as willing accomplices, Matthews proved Huckabee's point that this is all about liberals fearing he could actually beat Obama: MATTHEWS: This guy, Huckabee — we ought to put it on. He's leading the Republican polls right now… JOAN WALSH, SALON: He's leading. MATTHEWS: … in our latest poll. WALSH: I know. MATTHEWS: He's not some character offstage we're beating up here tonight. He's some guy who may well be the Republican nominee for president. And he walks out there and starts talking like this in the world, I think it's going to shake the — there he is, 25 percent. If you needed any more proof this about assassinating a possible threat to Obama, here's how Matthews ended this segment: It's scary, and I hope the rest of the world is not paying attention to Mike Huckabee. But that wasn't enough, for Matthews concluded Wednesday's program by going after Huckabee again: Thank you for proving Huckabee's point, Mr. Matthews. You're obviously scared to death that someone is going to emerge and actually beat the man that gives you a thrill up your leg. As a result, since Huckabee is suddenly leading in the polls as the GOP's front-runner, Matthews, ever the good little Democrat shill, has to take the Arkansas governor on over a simple mistake the man has already acknowledged and apologized for. You see, only Democrats like Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are allowed to make gaffes. As this episode once again clearly demonstrates, Republicans aren't. Sad state of American journalism indeed.

Continue reading …
Egypt’s revolution has been 10 years in the making | Hossam el-Hamalawy

Hosni Mubarak’s wall of fear began to crumble once people were able to see that others shared their desire for liberation In the 1990s, one could only whisper Hosni Mubarak’s name. Political talk or jokes were avoided in phone calls. This year, millions of Egyptians fought for 18 days against their ageing tyrant, braving the police troops firing teargas, rubber bullets and live ammunition. People in Egypt have lost their fear, but it did not happen overnight. The Egyptian revolution, rather than coming out of the blue on 25 January 2011 , is a result of a process that has been brewing over the previous decade – a chain reaction to the autumn 2000 protests in solidarity with the Palestinian intifada. Mubarak’s iron-fist rule and the outbreak of the dirty war between the regime and Islamist militants in the 1990s meant the death of street dissent. Public gatherings and street protests were banned and if they did take place, confronted by force. Live ammunition was used on strikers. Trade unions were put under government control. Only after the Palestinian intifada broke out in September 2000 did tens of thousands of Egyptians take to the streets in protest – probably for the first time since 1977. Although those demonstrations were in solidarity with the Palestinians, they soon gained an anti-regime dimension, and police showed up to quell the peaceful protests. The president, however, remained a taboo subject, and I rarely heard anti-Mubarak chants. I recall the first time I heard protesters en masse chanting against the president in April 2002, during the pro-Palestinian riots around Cairo University. Battling the notorious central security forces, protesters were chanting in Arabic: “Hosni Mubarak is just like [Ariel] Sharon.” The anger was to explode on an even larger scale with the outbreak of the war on Iraq in March 2003 . More than 30,000 Egyptians fought the police in downtown Cairo, briefly taking over Tahrir Square, and burning down Mubarak’s billboard. The scenes aired by al-Jazeera and other satellite networks of the Palestinian revolt or the US-led onslaught on Iraq inspired activists across Egypt to pull down the wall of fear brick by brick. It was in 2004 that pro-Palestinian and anti-war campaigners launched the Kefaya movement , which took on the president and his family. Though it failed to create a mass following among the working class and the urban poor, Kefaya’s use of both social and mainstream media helped shift the political culture in the country. Millions of Egyptians, while sitting at home, could watch those daring young activists in downtown Cairo mocking the president, raising banners with slogans that were unimaginable a decade before. In December 2006, workers at the biggest textile mill in the Middle East, located in the Nile delta town of Mahalla, went on strike . The action followed two decades of a lull in the industrial struggle, caused by repression and by an aggressive neoliberal programme that had the blessing of the IMF and the World Bank. Following their victory, which received widespread media coverage, a wave of strikes engulfed the textile sector, with workers in other mills demanding the same gains as those of Mahalla. The industrial militancy was soon to spill over into other sectors of the economy. Images of the strikes, aired via both social and mainstream media, meant millions of workers could gradually overcome their fears, and organise protests inspired by news of victories of strikes in other sectors. As a journalist covering the strike wave in 2007, I frequently heard from strikers: “We were encouraged to move after we heard of Mahalla.” Though scoffed at by some as only economic, the strike wave was political in essence . In April 2008, a mini revolt took place in the city of Mahalla over the price of bread. Security forces put down the uprising in two days, leaving at least three dead and hundreds detained and tortured. The scenes from what became known as the “Mahalla intifada” could have constituted a dress rehearsal for what happened in 2011, with protesters taking down Mubarak’s posters, battling the police troops in the streets, and challenging the symbols of the much-hated National Democratic party. Soon after, a similar revolt took place in the city of el-Borollos , north of the Nile delta. Though these uprisings were quelled, the country continued to witness almost on a daily basis strikes and sit-ins by workers, and smaller demonstrations by activists in downtown Cairo and the provinces. Protesting workers in the spring and winter of 2010 occupied the area around parliament, in what local columnists described as a “Cairo Hyde Park”. Those daily economic and political struggles against the state meant the legitimacy of Mubarak’s regime was rapidly eroding, if it ever really existed. By October 2010, there was definitely something in the air . It became normal to bump into a strike here or there while heading to work. Civil servants heading home from the office would pass by activists holding small protests in downtown Cairo. They looked, and very occasionally reacted. But they were witnessing visual displays of daily dissent . Tunisia then went through its own revolt, overthrew a tyrant, and, more importantly, the revolution was televised to millions of viewers in Egypt and elsewhere, largely via al-Jazeera again. This was only one of many catalysts – daily incidents of police brutality provided many others. The uprising that started on 25 January 2011 was the result of a long process in which the wall of fear fell, bit by bit. The key to it all was that the actions on the ground were visually transmitted to the widest possible audience. Nothing aids the erosion of one’s fear more than knowing there are others, somewhere else, who share the same desire for liberation – and have started taking action. Egypt Middle East Hosni Mubarak Protest Arab and Middle East protests Hossam el-Hamalawy guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
As Mike Tobin whines to O’Reilly about mean Wisconsin protesters, Fox runs footage from other union protests

Click here to view this media I received several emails last night about this clip from O’Reilly’s show which had on FOX reporter Mike Tobin, who has been claiming he was punched by union protesters. It looks like he was fibbing about it, which is bad enough — it’s clear this is yet another case of fake right-wing victimhood like Kenneth Gladney. ( Eric Boehlert has more. ) But on Monday night, Bill was trying to find out who these violent protesters were and where they came from and asked Tobin to supply the answers. You’d expect to see the bad weather of Wisconsin in the background as they ran their ‘union protest’ footage behind Tobin, right? Wrong. Think Progress : O’Reilly sent his ambush goon Jesse Watters out to badger people protesting Fox outside their studios in New York. On Monday during an interview with Fox News’ Mike Tobin, who is reporting from Wisconsin, O’Reilly was at it again, calling chants that “Fox lies” from pro-union demonstrators “some kind of organized deal.” But during the interview, Fox aired b-roll of some unknown protest that contained physical confrontations among demonstrators and simply labeled it “union protests,” as if it was coming out of Wisconsin. Update: The footage Fox aired during O’Reilly’s discussion of the Wisconsin demonstrations appears to have come from a union rally in Sacramento, CA last week. Digby writes: What’s wrong with this picture? If you guessed the snowless ground and palm trees in Wisconsin you win a big prize. Your sanity. It just galls them that the Tea Party rallies were so out of control and produced insane signs and wackaloons saying racist things on a consistent level, while in contrast the WI protests have been orderly, supported by the police and have featured impeccably crafted signs. I think it also galls them that the protesters’ chant: “Fox News Lies!” is hitting home, where it hurts. As the truth tends to do. This is what’s known as perpetrating a News Distortion on viewers and is strictly forbidden by the FCC. Fox News has done this type of distortion previously and I filed a complaint with the FCC and documented what they had done here. Where to go to file a complaint : News Distortion . The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. For additional information about news distortion, see http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html . Please submit a complain t against FOX News and The O’Reilly Factor I’d also call into FOX News and ask them to stop distorting the news. Address: News Corporation 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 852-7017 Fax: (212) 852-7145

Continue reading …
A wide-eyed Megyn Kelly is wowed by sketchy Moonie Times report blaming ’08 economic crisis on (Chinese?) terrorists

Click here to view this media Probably the greatest blunder of the Obama White House over the past two years has been its abject failure to make certain the public understood that it was conservative misgovernance that was at the root of the great economic meltdown of 2008 — especially because it was that very downturn that propelled him into office. That failure has functionally given conservatives — the architects of the disaster — the ability to cover their tracks by erecting a narrative in which the blame was instead laid at the doorstep of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and minority-lending programs. And that narrative is now widely believed by over half the country. Now the Washington Times is trying to muddy the water even further, running a bizarre and thinly sourced piece claiming that perhaps terrorism — maybe even Chinese terrorists, colluding with radical Islamists, perhaps? — were actually behind the meltdown. Here’s the piece. Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system. The unclassified 2009 report “Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses” by financial analyst Kevin D. Freeman, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, states that “a three-phased attack was planned and is in the process against the United States economy.” But as you can see from reading the piece, Freeman presents no evidence other than the economic catastrophes themselves that these were terrorist attacks. Indeed, it’s nothing but unadulterated wild speculation from start to finish. Nonetheless, Megyn Kelly invited Freeman onto her Fox News yesterday and treated it as if it were potentially the biggest story in the whole wide world. She was duly wowed — even though, as you can see, Freeman couldn’t even tell her whether these were Chinese terrorists or Islamic radicals, or mebbe they were working in collusion! (As if!) No wonder everyone involved in analyzing the markets is pretty much laughing at Freeman and the reporters who gobbled up this nonsense so gullibly. Then, of course, Kelly capped it all off with the classic “minority lending programs did it” narrative as the safe story everyone believes: KELLY: But how could they have done it? Because, you know, I think the conventional wisdom in this country is, uh, you know, you had Fannie and Freddie giving out tons of mortgages that never should have been given out, then you had the Wall Street folks trading these so-called credit default swaps, basically doubling down on the bad investments, and ultimately things just started to implode in a way where, you know, we had to step in, the government bailed out those banks, and we all know the history that happened after there. That’s a pretty remarkably dense thicket of lies that have little or no relationship to reality whatsoever. Let’s try to unpack it a little: — Fannie and Freddie’s role in the economic crash was so minor as to be nearly farcical. As McClatchy explained at the time : As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. Commentators say that’s what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They’ve specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial problems. Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006. Federal Reserve Board data show that: * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics. The “turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,” the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday. Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages. “I don’t remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster,” said Neil Cavuto of Fox News. Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don’t lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. It’s a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more. This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares. But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party’s standard bearer, President Bush, didn’t criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership. The “Fannie and Freddie did it” narrative has been ridiculed from a number of market and economic experts. As Barry Riholtz put it: Some people (especially the political hacks) are focusing their energies in the wrong places. According to a recent investigation by Barron’s, Fannie’s biggest problem was not the subprime mortgages they bought — it was the better quality Alt A mortgages that caused their demise … The folks who want to place the entire crisis at FNM/FRE ‘s doorstep miss the point — and let me hasten to add that I was never a fan of the company, and we were short FNM from over a year ago, at $42+ — these people seem to miss all of the big picture issues, and are focsing on minor factor and outright irrelevancies. … While I understand that reducing the complexities of economic history into bumper sticker phrases is politically expedient, it does not help us understand the root cause of the problems. And, it gets in the way of helping us fashion a solution for the future. Hence, why I hold the weasels who are attempting to obscure reality and rewrite history in such disdain. For the non-partisan, non hacks amongst you, for the policy makers and academics and economists who are truly interested in how this came to pass, and what we can do to fix it, the bottom line remains: The CRA was irrelevant to the current crisis, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were mere cogs in a very complex financial machine, with many moving parts. But the primary cause of the mess? Not even close . . . Ritholtz — like hundreds of other economists and market experts who understand what happened — says the primary cause, in fact, were “a nonfeasant Fed, that ignored lending standards, and ultra-low rates.” This nonfeasance under Greenspan allowed banks, thrifts, and mortgage originators to engage in all manner of lending standard abrogations. We have detailed many times the I/O, 2/28, Piggy back, and Ninja type loans here. These never should have been permitted to proliferate the way they did. The fact that they did proliferate as they did, in fact, can be laid directly at the doorstep of conservative ideologues, whose mania for deregulation — particularly in the financial-services sector — is what led directly to the policies creating, condoning and even encouraging such dubious financial instruments. Though one might argue, in fact, that this kind of depredation committed by the oligarchical class, with working-class people taking the hit, and with little if any consequence whatsoever to the wealthy, is a kind of terrorism — economic terrorism against working Americans. But don’t expect the experts and anchors at Fox News to ever let you hear that. — Oh, and about those bailouts: Not only were they a success, they also wound up being a lot cheaper than everyone expected. That seems to be a bit of the “history” that never makes it onto Fox News, either.

Continue reading …
A wide-eyed Megyn Kelly is wowed by sketchy Moonie Times report blaming ’08 economic crisis on (Chinese?) terrorists

Click here to view this media Probably the greatest blunder of the Obama White House over the past two years has been its abject failure to make certain the public understood that it was conservative misgovernance that was at the root of the great economic meltdown of 2008 — especially because it was that very downturn that propelled him into office. That failure has functionally given conservatives — the architects of the disaster — the ability to cover their tracks by erecting a narrative in which the blame was instead laid at the doorstep of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and minority-lending programs. And that narrative is now widely believed by over half the country. Now the Washington Times is trying to muddy the water even further, running a bizarre and thinly sourced piece claiming that perhaps terrorism — maybe even Chinese terrorists, colluding with radical Islamists, perhaps? — were actually behind the meltdown. Here’s the piece. Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system. The unclassified 2009 report “Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses” by financial analyst Kevin D. Freeman, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, states that “a three-phased attack was planned and is in the process against the United States economy.” But as you can see from reading the piece, Freeman presents no evidence other than the economic catastrophes themselves that these were terrorist attacks. Indeed, it’s nothing but unadulterated wild speculation from start to finish. Nonetheless, Megyn Kelly invited Freeman onto her Fox News yesterday and treated it as if it were potentially the biggest story in the whole wide world. She was duly wowed — even though, as you can see, Freeman couldn’t even tell her whether these were Chinese terrorists or Islamic radicals, or mebbe they were working in collusion! (As if!) No wonder everyone involved in analyzing the markets is pretty much laughing at Freeman and the reporters who gobbled up this nonsense so gullibly. Then, of course, Kelly capped it all off with the classic “minority lending programs did it” narrative as the safe story everyone believes: KELLY: But how could they have done it? Because, you know, I think the conventional wisdom in this country is, uh, you know, you had Fannie and Freddie giving out tons of mortgages that never should have been given out, then you had the Wall Street folks trading these so-called credit default swaps, basically doubling down on the bad investments, and ultimately things just started to implode in a way where, you know, we had to step in, the government bailed out those banks, and we all know the history that happened after there. That’s a pretty remarkably dense thicket of lies that have little or no relationship to reality whatsoever. Let’s try to unpack it a little: — Fannie and Freddie’s role in the economic crash was so minor as to be nearly farcical. As McClatchy explained at the time : As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. Commentators say that’s what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They’ve specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial problems. Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006. Federal Reserve Board data show that: * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics. The “turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,” the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday. Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages. “I don’t remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster,” said Neil Cavuto of Fox News. Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don’t lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. It’s a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more. This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares. But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party’s standard bearer, President Bush, didn’t criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership. The “Fannie and Freddie did it” narrative has been ridiculed from a number of market and economic experts. As Barry Riholtz put it: Some people (especially the political hacks) are focusing their energies in the wrong places. According to a recent investigation by Barron’s, Fannie’s biggest problem was not the subprime mortgages they bought — it was the better quality Alt A mortgages that caused their demise … The folks who want to place the entire crisis at FNM/FRE ‘s doorstep miss the point — and let me hasten to add that I was never a fan of the company, and we were short FNM from over a year ago, at $42+ — these people seem to miss all of the big picture issues, and are focsing on minor factor and outright irrelevancies. … While I understand that reducing the complexities of economic history into bumper sticker phrases is politically expedient, it does not help us understand the root cause of the problems. And, it gets in the way of helping us fashion a solution for the future. Hence, why I hold the weasels who are attempting to obscure reality and rewrite history in such disdain. For the non-partisan, non hacks amongst you, for the policy makers and academics and economists who are truly interested in how this came to pass, and what we can do to fix it, the bottom line remains: The CRA was irrelevant to the current crisis, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were mere cogs in a very complex financial machine, with many moving parts. But the primary cause of the mess? Not even close . . . Ritholtz — like hundreds of other economists and market experts who understand what happened — says the primary cause, in fact, were “a nonfeasant Fed, that ignored lending standards, and ultra-low rates.” This nonfeasance under Greenspan allowed banks, thrifts, and mortgage originators to engage in all manner of lending standard abrogations. We have detailed many times the I/O, 2/28, Piggy back, and Ninja type loans here. These never should have been permitted to proliferate the way they did. The fact that they did proliferate as they did, in fact, can be laid directly at the doorstep of conservative ideologues, whose mania for deregulation — particularly in the financial-services sector — is what led directly to the policies creating, condoning and even encouraging such dubious financial instruments. Though one might argue, in fact, that this kind of depredation committed by the oligarchical class, with working-class people taking the hit, and with little if any consequence whatsoever to the wealthy, is a kind of terrorism — economic terrorism against working Americans. But don’t expect the experts and anchors at Fox News to ever let you hear that. — Oh, and about those bailouts: Not only were they a success, they also wound up being a lot cheaper than everyone expected. That seems to be a bit of the “history” that never makes it onto Fox News, either.

Continue reading …

Ottawa Senators

No Comment
Ottawa Senators

Bruins arrive for their pre-game warm-up at the Bruins @ Senators hockey game (part 4) Milan Jurcina nails Zack Smith Game file: Boston Bruins at Ottawa Senators on March 1, 2011 … They outplayed and outworked a road-weary and seemingly disinterested Boston Bruins team for most of the night, but couldn’t find the back of the net. WATCH TV Ottawa Senators vs Boston Bruins,01.03.2011,ICE HOCKEY … WATCH TV Ottawa Senators vs Boston Bruins,01.03.2011,ICE HOCKEY USA / Canada NHL WATCH TV Ottawa Senators vs Boston Bruins,01.03.2011,ICE HOCKEY USA / Canada. Sens Hockey – Ottawa Senators recall Greening, Smith from … Ottawa Senators recall Greening, Smith from Binghamton – Press & Sun-Bulletin The Ottawa Senators recalled Colin Greening and Derek Smith from their American Hockey League affiliate in Binghamton Tuesday morning. … Chicago Blackhawks News – Ottawa Senators pick up former Gophers … Ottawa Senators pick up former Gophers forward Ryan Potulny from the Chicago Blackhawks – Pioneer Press The Ottawa Senators took another step in dismantling their roster, trading defenseman Chris Campoli to the Chicago Blackhawks for … Young Sens fall short against B's | Hockey | Sports | Ottawa Sun Ottawa Senators Chris Phillips battles with Boston Bruins Nathan Horton in front of Sens goaltender Craig Anderson during second period action at Scotiabank Place on Tuesday. (ERROL MCGIHON/QMI Agency): Buy This Photo from Sun Media … ThomasKaunzner says: Tuukka Rask earns 2nd shutout in Boston Bruins 1-0 win at Ottawa Senators and now has 2.67 GAA and .921 S%. #NHL

Continue reading …
Bill O’Reilly discounts poll showing support for unions, since union workers shouldn’t be counted in polls

Click here to view this media I was wondering if Bill would even mention the new NY Times/CBS poll which clearly states that Americans are siding with public union workers over Scott Walker’s plan to strip them of collective bargaining. The poll even sided with unions over Governers, but O’Reilly found a new way to try and confuse his audience so that the results didn’t count. You see, BillO used his opening segment to say that 20% of the people that were polled were union workers so the poll is not fair. Huh? O’REILLY: Americans are now caught up in a very important conflict: cost-cutting vs. union benefits. According to a new CBS poll, 37 percent of Americans favor cutting pay or benefits for public union employees, but 56 percent oppose that. The New York Times headline on Tuesday was: “Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector.” But the poll is misleading because 20 percent of the respondents say they are from union households. If you subtract them, those who favor cutting benefits win the poll. That’s some kinda logic there, BillO. You know, the Wisconsin police union members who were on The Ed Show yesterday identified themselves as mostly conservative, yet said they are standing with the public union workers because they feel Gov. Walker is wrong even if they are exempt from Walker’s mad plan. So, does that mean conservatives shouldn’t be counted in polls that are about issues Republicans support? Should Democrats be exempt from polls trying to gauge President Obama’s approval rating? Maybe we should cut out Southern states when asking about race issues. How about we eliminate Progressives from polls when asking questions about Social Security? I got it. How about we only poll cats and dogs and cows so we get a real, unbiased view of America? I know piranhas would side with the Koch Brothers, so they can’t be counted either. See, in BillOTopia, union workers aren’t real Americans. Public employees aren’t even considered taxpayers by Republicans. Bill forgot to mention that the poll also demonstrated that Americans would rather have their taxes raised to reduce the deficit . Tax increases were not as unpopular among those surveyed as they are among many governors, who have vowed to avoid them. Asked how they would choose to reduce their state’s deficits, those polled preferred tax increases over benefit cuts for state workers by nearly two to one. Given a list of options to reduce the deficit, 40 percent said they would increase taxes, 22 percent chose decreasing the benefits of public employees, 20 percent said they would cut financing for roads and 3 percent said they would cut financing for education. Did you hear that, all you deficit hawks? Raising taxes isn’t anything close to messing with the real third rail in politics. It’s absurd. Where’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster when you need him?

Continue reading …
Bill O’Reilly discounts poll showing support for unions, since union workers shouldn’t be counted in polls

Click here to view this media I was wondering if Bill would even mention the new NY Times/CBS poll which clearly states that Americans are siding with public union workers over Scott Walker’s plan to strip them of collective bargaining. The poll even sided with unions over Governers, but O’Reilly found a new way to try and confuse his audience so that the results didn’t count. You see, BillO used his opening segment to say that 20% of the people that were polled were union workers so the poll is not fair. Huh? O’REILLY: Americans are now caught up in a very important conflict: cost-cutting vs. union benefits. According to a new CBS poll, 37 percent of Americans favor cutting pay or benefits for public union employees, but 56 percent oppose that. The New York Times headline on Tuesday was: “Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector.” But the poll is misleading because 20 percent of the respondents say they are from union households. If you subtract them, those who favor cutting benefits win the poll. That’s some kinda logic there, BillO. You know, the Wisconsin police union members who were on The Ed Show yesterday identified themselves as mostly conservative, yet said they are standing with the public union workers because they feel Gov. Walker is wrong even if they are exempt from Walker’s mad plan. So, does that mean conservatives shouldn’t be counted in polls that are about issues Republicans support? Should Democrats be exempt from polls trying to gauge President Obama’s approval rating? Maybe we should cut out Southern states when asking about race issues. How about we eliminate Progressives from polls when asking questions about Social Security? I got it. How about we only poll cats and dogs and cows so we get a real, unbiased view of America? I know piranhas would side with the Koch Brothers, so they can’t be counted either. See, in BillOTopia, union workers aren’t real Americans. Public employees aren’t even considered taxpayers by Republicans. Bill forgot to mention that the poll also demonstrated that Americans would rather have their taxes raised to reduce the deficit . Tax increases were not as unpopular among those surveyed as they are among many governors, who have vowed to avoid them. Asked how they would choose to reduce their state’s deficits, those polled preferred tax increases over benefit cuts for state workers by nearly two to one. Given a list of options to reduce the deficit, 40 percent said they would increase taxes, 22 percent chose decreasing the benefits of public employees, 20 percent said they would cut financing for roads and 3 percent said they would cut financing for education. Did you hear that, all you deficit hawks? Raising taxes isn’t anything close to messing with the real third rail in politics. It’s absurd. Where’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster when you need him?

Continue reading …