Couldn’t Help But Notice (111607)
After seeing this (HT Hot Air), I’m starting to wonder if the list of audience questions for Hillary Clinton that aren’t planted is shorter than the list of those that are.
___________________________________________
Saddam could have had nukes by 2007, says Scott at Flopping Aces. Yeah, easily.
___________________________________________
Benny Peiser has a great piece at BBC on globaloney and other doomsday-predicting, with a great term: neo-catastrophism.
___________________________________________
Yeah, this was tough to predict: “Hillary Clinton Takes Cash From Recipients of Husband’s Controversial Pardons” (HT Instapundit).
___________________________________________
Wow (”Dems: No More Transparency”). This congress really does want to see if they can bring their approval ratings down into single digits. William “Cold Cash” Jefferson is doing his part too, as he attempts to dodge convictions on bribery charges (bold is mine):
Jefferson has based a major portion of his defense on the vagueness of the current definition. He said that while he might have been paid to exert influence as a member of Congress — including writing letters, visiting foreign dignitaries, appearing before a federal agency on behalf of a business client — his actions didn’t amount to “official acts” within the meaning of the bribery law.
The freezer where he had $90,000 in cash stashed must not have been an “official” freezer.
___________________________________________
It’s official: Trying to do somehting charitable for soldiers overseas in Cambridge, Massachusetts is considered a pro-war action (HT Weasel Zippers via Instapundit).
___________________________________________
David Wessel, in a subscription-only column at the Wall Street Journal, on dealing constructively with foreclosures:
So the public-policy questions are: Who should be helped, and how?
Some folks should lose property if they can’t make payments: those who lied on applications or speculated by buying properties for investment (although tenants may deserve help). Temporarily cutting mortgage payments for those who never will be able to afford houses they bought is unwise and doomed to failure.
It’s the folks in the middle who need and deserve help from the industry and, if need be, the government: those who are making payments, would have refinanced easily if not for the housing bust and dysfunction of mortgage markets and can’t afford the reset payments.
Douglas Elmendorf, a Brookings Institution economist, argues that government “should encourage and subsidize refinancing” for households that can keep their homes “with a modest amount of help,” even though “many might not own homes today if risks had been recognized fully” when the mortgages were made.
I don’t disagree with any of that, or with exploring the idea of making bankruptcy laws a bit more lenient for people in situations where the mortgage loan balances are higher than the value of the home itself. What I do object to is treating everyone in the lending business as presumptive criminals, making getting into the lending business so difficult that you have to provide fingerprints (seriously) just to be in it, and imposing impossible-to-comply-with regulations on new loans that will keep all but the most golden of potential of borrowers on the sidelines. All of that will lead to industry consolidation, less competition, higher rates, and higher fees.
_____________________________________________
Matt at RAB is right: Marc Dann owes Ohio Christians and all Ohioans of good will an apology for his “Jesus had it better on Good Friday” message to a staff member. That Governor “Preacher Ted” Strickland doesn’t seem to think so is unfortunately not surprising.
