It’s all about where you draw the line

The mere existence of people such as this are the reason I believe in the death penalty.

I found a few interesting quotes regarding the financial crisis. Let’s take a look at what people (that is, Democrats) are saying Now, versus what they were saying Then.

Now:

The fundamental issue is we have got to put an end to this situation in which there is no sensible regulation, and irresponsible individuals in the private market, or unwise individuals in the private market can incur the kind of risks that put us in a threatening situation.

Barney Frank (D-MA), September, 2008

Then:

These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems…the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

Barney Frank, (D-MA) Sept 11, 2003
source: New York Times

What was Frank responding to? From the same NYT article:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

That is, Bush was pushing for oversight in the increasingly risky portfolio (i.e. mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them). The legislation, introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was blocked by the Democrats in Congress. Barney Frank at the time was the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Harry Reid, on the same legislation:

The legislation from the Senate Banking Committee passed today on a party-line vote by the Republican majority, includes measures that could cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding home ownership. While I favor approving oversight by our federal housing regulators, to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process.

Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Leader
Press Release, July 28, 2005
(also quoted here and here)

The Republicans saw it coming, and Democrats blocked their efforts to avert disaster. (Of course, by “expanding home ownership”, he means giving out mortgages to as many people as you possibly can — give out zero down, interest-only mortgages so people can “own” a house.)

That same bill reappeared as S-190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, sponsored by Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE], and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole [R-NC], John Sununu [R-NH], and (wait for it…) John McCain [R-AZ].

Now:

8 years of de-regulatory zeal by the Bush Administration, an attitude of “The market can do no wrong” have led us down the short path to economic recession. From the unregulated mortgage brokers, to the opaque credit default swaps market, to aggressive Short Sellers who were driving down the price of even healthy financial institutions based on innuendo, this Administration has failed to take the steps necessary to protect both Main Street and Wall Street.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY), September 2008

Then:

With the benefit of hindsight, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposed a new regulatory framework on all public companies doing business in the U.S., also needs to be re-examined. Since its passage, auditing expenses for companies doing business in the U.S. have grown far beyond anything Congress had anticipated. Of course, we must not in any way diminish our ability to detect corporate fraud and protect investors. But there appears to be a worrisome trend of corporate leaders focusing inordinate time on compliance minutiae rather than innovative strategies for growth, for fear of facing personal financial penalties from overzealous regulators.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York)
“To Save New York, Learn From London“, Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2006

In their infinite wisdom, they were arguing to reduce the regulations passed after the fall of Enron.

They’re liars. All of them.

But remember: it’s all Bush’s fault.

[cribbed from Smallest Minority]

[Significant Update Sept 27: Added source links in quotes; added additional excerpt from NYT, and rewrote some text.]

Ah, what our wonderful welfare state has wrought.

A New York woman, pregnant with her fourth child, is so sure of her inherent right to demand that others provide for her that she has threatened to blow up her local welfare office after they told her she was ineligible for more benefits.

Deep breath. Repeat after me:

You cannot call something a “right” if someone else has to give it to you.

Note: This article appears backdated because it was delayed by technical difficulties.

A week or so ago I received a phone call from a polling organization. I donate money from time to time to political organizations, including various conservative organizations and candidates, and the NRA, so I get lots of political mail soliciting more donations, and for the past few years, the occasional phone call.

This one was asking me for my opinion. It sounded like your average poll — “Do you support X Very Much, Somewhat, Somewhat Against, or Very Much Against?” and so forth.

This one was unusual, though, for a couple reasons. First, it was unusually long. They asked several general questions about what causes and ideas I support, and then they moved into a section regarding two local candidates for Congress.

This last part was the interesting part, because it’s where the poll suddenly veered into the realm of dirty politics. The guy said “Okay, I’m going to give you arguments why you might vote against [the Democrat]. These are reasons given by his opponents. Tell me if this reason would influence you a lot to support the candidate, somewhat to support him, somewhat against him, or a lot against him.” There were a whole bunch of these , probably fifteen or twenty. Then he moved on to reasons to vote for the Democrat — these of course being the arguments made by his supporters. Again with the range of for/against for each argument. Then he moved on to the reasons to vote against the Republican, and finally…

“Okay, that’s the end of the questions. Thanks and you have a good night.”

Did you notice the problem there? I think the idea is that they ask you so many damned questions that by the time he says he’s done, you’re happy to hang up. What he’s hoping you didn’t notice what that he never got around to naming any of the reasons people give to vote for the Republican. First, against the Dem, then FOR the Dem, then AGAINST the Republican. This completes our impartial poll. ‘Night folks!

It’s called a “push poll“. It’s illegal in some areas, though not mine, and incredibly unethical. Admittedly, this one was a bit more subtle than most. It’s a new tactic I haven’t heard of before — the poll would have been legit if they’d only balanced the equation.

Illinois politics is such a goddamned embarrassment. Still these hypocrites get elected. Vote early and vote often, as they say.

(in case you didn’t get the title….)

It’s not too hard folks….

(more…)

Via TJIC:

So, you get a gun.

You get ammunition.

You load the gun.

You call a cab to pick you up at the end of a dead end street … even though you don’t need to go anywhere.

When the cab arrives, you point the gun at the driver’s head and say something like “give me your money or I’ll kill you”.

And then - “even though you didn’t mean to” - an “accident” happens, and the gun “goes off”.

Ooops!

The post title contains pretty much everything I have to say about this. “Accident” my ass — what, you weren’t expecting him to struggle or something?

Even if he didn’t intend to actually pull the trigger in the end, that distinction is inconsequential.

Interesting post from Maynard over at Tammy’s place. A story from the Old Testament, and an interesting take on modern politics.

A manipulative advisor had convinced the King to issue an edict to exterminate the Jews. Upon realizing his error…

7 King Xerxes replied to Queen Esther and to Mordecai the Jew, “Because Haman attacked the Jews, I have given his estate to Esther, and they have hanged him on the gallows.

8 Now write another decree in the king’s name in behalf of the Jews as seems best to you, and seal it with the king’s signet ring — for no document written in the king’s name and sealed with his ring can be revoked.”

Quick show of hands: Who knows what the new decree was?

Interesting to note that the Jews actually have a holiday to celebrate this.

Go read.

Everything you think you know about Love Canal is wrong.

Citizens: Eek - there is goo in our front yard! And in the playgrounds! Aiiii!

Local Government: Well .. I’ll be a monkey’s uncle! We had no idea.

National Government: We’ll save you ma’am, from the folly of short-sighted businessmen in the pursuit of the almighty dollar! Take THAT you fiend (POW) and that (KA-BLAM)!

Citizens: Thanks God for the government, the righter of wrongs and the leveler of playing fields!

That’s the end of the story. It’s the beginning part that’s interesting.

Go read.

Why I will, never, ever promote or support any type of gun control, “reasonable” restrictions, or waiting periods….
(more…)

Jeff comments on a recent kerfuffle in which a Fox affiliate station in Texas did an “ambush” report on a gun owner. The video has been making the rounds in blogs, and the station has since tried very hard to clamp down on it — threatening legal action against people who show or distribute it. He states:

Claiming that “they’re trying to send it down the memory hole” or saying that “this is the video they don’t want you to see” utterly fails to justify your act of theft.

When you make a copy of that video, you’re stealing the television station’s property. Just as surely as you would be if you broke into their studio and stole the videotape.

I think there’s a distinction here, Jeff.

Fox was doing a report on gun owners. In the process, the report itself became news. People aren’t distributing this for the subject of the report (that is, guns), but because of the manner in which it was reported.

I see this entirely as fair use. If I post an appropriate clip of the video and talk about my opinion of their “ambush”, I am reporting about Fox itself.

“Here’s a report about gun control” would be stealing it. “Look at how they did this report” is fair use. Yes, context does matter. Invoking copyright to cover up something you did wrong doesn’t fly — or shouldn’t.

It reminds me a bit of Scientologists copyrighting their sacred texts, and then suing the crap out of anybody who says anything publicly about them. (Because to comment on them you actually have to show them to someone, and that violates their copyright….) (And as a side note: any religion that jealously hides what exactly it is they worship is deserving of suspicion.)

The NFL has (or had) a disclaimer on their broadcasts that claimed that (among other things) restating the events of the broadcast without permission was prohibited by copyright law. This is legally absurd, as you cannot copyright an event. That is, you can’t copyright something that happened. A law professor made a short documentary commenting on the legal absurdity of that disclaimer, and showed the disclaimer itself. They immediately sued her for copyright violation, for having shown the copyright statement.

In the United States, copyright is, legally speaking, not there for the sake of the creators directly, but for the good of society in advancing the creation of creative works.

Showing that newsclip might not be good for Fox’s business, but not for reasons covered by copyright. It’s bad because it harms their reputation, not because it steals their creative effort.

Or to put it another way, copyright is there so that creators can have the benefit of their creation, not so they can hide from their actions.