In the light, not too scary:
Our Scary Halloween House!
In the light, not too scary:
Should Rob Ford Sue The CBC?
Message to anyone considering a political career, the CBC is breaking new ground where you need to be on high alert 24 hours per day. You won't be safe in your homes. Why the f**k anyone would want a career in politics with this ridiculous standard is beyond me. I guess this kind of attack is perpetrated more often against right wing politicians, who are vilified at every opportunity. Every Conservative is "the worst person in the world", right?
I have to give two thumbs up to Ezra Levant for this comedy sketch. It was brilliant and made me laugh out loud.
The Art Of Winning An Unfair Election
The film is remarkably even handed, showing the interplay between conventional baseball wisdom, analysis of player statistics, and simple luck and superstition as the experiment plays out. As the team bounces back and forth between success and failure, you are left wondering how it could have gone if this or that change had been made, or if what we're seeing is part of some larger phenomenon that nobody can really explain. It's clear the new thinking broke ground and that traditional thinking was an obstacle to success, but there was a steep price to be paid and without smart application of the new strategy, things could have been very, very different.
Importantly, the numbers-based approach doesn't always work. When the team does well, Beane and his Yale-educated economist assistant Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill) are lauded on talk radio, by the fans, and by the players. When the team does poorly, the players are surly, fans are furious, and people call for Beane's head. Tense scenes between Beane and his family, his team's manager, his scouts, and his players abound as they try to get him to reconsider.
In the crucial 20th game of what could be a record-setting 20-game win streak, Beane- who never steps out on the field during a game- hears that his team is up 11-0 in the fourth inning and, ignoring his daughter's warnings not to jinx it, swerves off the highway and drives to the ballpark to watch the victory unfold. But as soon as he steps on the sidelines to watch, clouds roll in and the triumphant music stops. His team suddenly starts giving up runs, missing line drives. Before long they've blown the lead and head into extra innings with the game tied at 11-all.
Watching the (extremely well-done) scene, you feel the momentum break. Why is this happening to the team? Is it a sudden run of bad luck? Was the experiment doomed to fail from the start? Or did Beane actually jinx the team by walking out on the field? This question is never fully answered.
To great effect, you watch people offer explanation after explanation for what is happening only to be proven wrong, then right, then wrong again. And when the outcome is finally decided, a voice-over pipes in, giving you an I-told-you-so account from someone you never see, but who somehow knew all along what was going to happen. A voice we've all heard.
In the film's most affecting scene, Beane's daughter plays her guitar in the middle of a music store and sings a song to her father, a song which is repeated before the credits.
She sings the song about not knowing where to go, but he -the seasoned professional- could just as easily be singing the song to her. As could any of the self-professed experts in this film. She doesn't know. He doesn't know. They don't know.
I think you all see where I'm going with this.
Six months ago, things looked very different for the PCPO than they do now. And in six months, things may look different again. When they do, people will take credit for knowing all along how it was going to turn out, just like the Liberals are taking credit now. And when the moment comes that leads the Liberals to their downfall, they'll be just as much at a loss to explain why they didn't see it coming.
So, if we are smart, we will wait for that moment to happen while doing everything we can to make it happen faster than it would otherwise. Until then, enjoy the show like the song says.
Smoking Gun for the American financial crisis which spread around the world...
There is proof who was responsible and why. Democrats from FDR to Carter to Clinton and a signed document during Bad Boy Bill's period.
It started with FDR, but then Carter lowered the bar, then Clinton, who enjoys fine cigars with a certain flavour, lowered it to the floor.
McCain should have done his economic homework. Too bad he wasn't aware of the following, or perhaps he was and his strategists didn't want to open the can of worms.
But I do hope Herman, Mitt, or even Rick jump on this, because Obama's regime must be fully aware of this since Attorney General Holder is investigating banks, etc., about "racism". The anointed and his czars are trying to shift the egregious threat by government agencies to banks and mortgage brokers from 1994 to now.
Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis - Paul Sperry, Investor's Business Daily
President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a "broad-based frustration" among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.
"You're seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place," he complained earlier this month.
But what if government encouraged, even invented, those "abusive practices"?
Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.
At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.
Bubble? Regulators Blew It
The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.
The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.
"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.
Ludwig at the time stated the ruling would be used by the agen cies as a fair-lending enforcement "tool," and would apply to "all lenders" — including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies.
The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial "discrimination." But it was simply good underwriting.
It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower's credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.
The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants' net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.
When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.
Still, the study was used to support a wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards — the root cause of the mortgage crisis.
For the first time, Washington's bank regulators put racial lending at the top of their checklist. Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed in an era of frenzied financial mergers and acquisitions. HUD threatened to deny them access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it controlled. And the Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as racists in the press.
"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices," the official policy statement warned.
The regulatory missive, which had the effect of law, advised lenders to bend "customary" underwriting standards for minority homebuyers with poor credit.
"Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible," it said. "In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible."
To that end, lenders were directed to "make changes in marketing strategy or loan products to better serve minority segments of the market." They were also advised to "change commission structures" to encourage brokers and loan officers to "lend in minority and low-income neighborhoods" — a practice Countrywide Financial, the poster boy of the subprime scandal, perfected. The government now condemns the practice it once encouraged as "predatory."
FDIC warned banks that even unintentional discrimination was against the law, and that they should be proactive in making "multicultural" loans. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," the agency said in a separate advisory.
Confronted with the combined force of 10 federal regulators, lenders naturally toed the line, and were soon aggressively marketing subprime mortgages in urban areas. The marching orders threw such a scare into the industry that the American Bankers Association issued a "fair-lending tool kit" to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a "fair-lending" contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.
HUD also pushed Fannie and Freddie, which in effect set industry underwriting standards, to buy subprime mortgages, freeing lenders to originate even more high-risk loans.
"Lenders should ensure that their loan processors and underwriters are aware of the provisions of the secondary market guidelines that provide various alternative and flexible means by which applicants may demonstrate their ability and willingness to repay their loans," the policy statement decreed.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not infrequently purchase mortgages exceeding the suggested ratios" of monthly housing expense to income (28%) and total obligations to income (36%).
It warned lenders who rejected minority applicants with high debt ratios and low credit scores to "be prepared" to prove to federal regulators and prosecutors they weren't racist. "The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority."
It took a little more than a decade for the negative effects of the assault on prudent lending to be felt. By 2006, the shaky subprime mortgages began to default. In 2008, the bubble exploded.
Clinton's task force survived the Bush administration, during which it produced fair-lending brochures in Spanish for immigrant home-loan applicants.
And it's still alive today. Obama is building on the fair-lending infrastructure Clinton put in place.
As IBD first reported, Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a witch hunt vs. "racist" banks.
"It's a more aggressive fair-lending enforcement approach now," said Washington lawyer Andrew Sandler of Buckley Sandler LLP in a recent interview. "It is well beyond anything we saw during the Clinton administration."
Tom Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, recently testified that his division "continues to participate in the federal Interagency Fair Lending Task Force." And he and the task force are working with the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to "enhance fair-lending enforcement."
The fair-lending task force's original policy paper undercuts the notion the financial crisis was all about banker "greed," though it certainly played a role after the fact. Rather, it offers compelling evidence that the crisis evolved chiefly from government mandates and threats to increase lending to applicants who could not afford them.
Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=589858&p=1
Time for Coup De GrĂ¢ce? Try Coup De Greece.
Greek referendum ignites German anger
European politicians complained that Athens was trying to wriggle out of the rescue deal agreed only last week, concerned not so much about the fate of Greece as the possibly dire consequences for the entire currency union.
Translation? The Greeks decided to jump off the ship only to realize the water was colder then expected. They began demanding others pay the price for their stupidity and insisted on other passengers to stop what they are doing and throw them a raft. The Greeks were about to say, 'thank you for bailing us out', but then realized they are the socialist party and began to ask instead if the other nations could find a larger boat...after all, rafts are not that durable.
The socialists have rejected their remedy (if you can be naive enough to call a bailout a remedy) because austerity violates their core principles. They would rather go bankrupt spending, then realize the stupidity of socialism. I guess that's possible when another core principle of socialism (abdication of personal responsibility) works so deep in the mind of it's citizens.
The Greeks are plying Russian roulette with a fully loaded chamber...the odds don't look good. Drop the gun and run for austerity, personal responsibility and a huge does of humility.
Canada, watch Greece fall and take note. Socialism does not work, it's a diseased cow that needs to be shot for it's own good.
Greeks, you whine, cry foul and demand...with no security on your debts and no revenue to pay. You are looking at a life line from 'bailout nation' and are spitting on it because it means forgoing your socialist agenda?!
Germany, France shoot the wounded solider and walk away from the deal. Give them up to their own selfish vices. Unless Greece tears it's clothes in sackcloth and ashes, begging for mercy...let them realize the fruit of their choices. If there's one thing a prosperous socialist nation does well, is prevent people from realizing the consequences to their choices. If there's one thing a broke socialist nation does well, is let everyone see the misery of their economic philosophy by losing freedom, wealth and employment. If the Greeks truly see/feel and experience the latter, perhaps they will learn that there are consequences to choices. This is the 'mercy killing' the wounded Greeks are actually begging for, regardless if they know it or not. We were not built to whine, cry, play the victim and demand something for nothing. When the Greeks see this (hard way if needed), all will be better off.
I don't feel good telling it like it is, but I take solace in this message reaching the Greeks and them one day thanking me for caring enough to let them know there are better options.
