PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Zombie Lies Don't Die ... WSJ Spins Discredited Claim that Programs for the Poor Caused Housing Crisis
Posted by Staff, Media Matters for America on November 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM.

A November 13 Wall Street Journal op-ed claimed that loans made "under the pressure of" the Community Reinvestment Act helped to "fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen." The claim that affordable housing initiatives were responsible for the housing crisis is a widely discredited myth.

From Edward Pinto's Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Congress's goal was to force these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to purchase loans that had been originated by banks -- loans that were made under the pressure of another federal law, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to increase lending in low- and moderate-income communities.

From 1977 to 1991, $9 billion in local CRA lending commitments had been announced. CRA lending by large banks increased dramatically after the affordable housing mandate was in place in 1993, growing to $6 trillion today. As Ellen Seidman, director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a speech before the Greenlining Institute on Oct. 2, 2001, "Our record home ownership rate [increasing from 64.2% in 1994 to 68% in 2001], I'm convinced, would not have been reached without CRA and its close relative, the Fannie/Freddie requirements."

The 1992 GSE Act was the fuse, and the trillions of dollars in subsequent CRA and GSE affordable-housing loans would fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen. But who lit the fuse?

[...]

Fifty percent of the high-risk loans are estimated to be CRA loans, with much of the remainder useful to the GSEs in meeting their affordable-housing goals.

The flood of CRA and affordable-housing loans with loosened underwriting standards, combined with declining mortgage interest rates-to 5% in 2003 from 10% in early 1991-resulted in a massive increase in borrowing capacity and fueled a house price bubble of unprecedented magnitude over the period 1997-2006.

Now this history may repeat itself as many of the same community groups are pushing Congress to expand CRA to cover all mortgage lenders, credit unions, insurance companies and others financial industry segments. Are we about to set the stage for another catastrophe? [The Wall Street Journal, 11/13/09]

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

But What Does That 'Get a Brain Morans' Dude Think About All This?
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 14, 2009 at 9:54 AM.

I've had this nagging question bouncing around the old brain-pan for the past day or two.

It's about this dude:

You know him, you love feeling superior to him, he's clearly a superstar among liberal bloggers and their readers.

Booman referenced the iconic tea-partier* the other day, and something one of his commenters wrote got me thinking:

I am almost starting to feel sorry for that guy in the picture. Poor bastard.

He's probably too stupid to have a computer, but his kids will see their dad forever.**

Of course, an enormous number of stupid people own and use computers. Yet studies suggest that in terms of the websites we browse and the news media we consume, we are a deeply polarized nation. According to a Pew study, online users tend to "find and join groups that share their ideological, cultural, and lifestyle preferences."

And that widely-cited study of the political blogosphere during the 2004 elections (PDF):

... we found that liberal and conservative blogs did indeed have different lists of favorite news sources, people, and topics to discuss.... The division between liberals and conservatives was further reflected in the linking pattern between the blogs, with a great ma jority of the links remaining internal to either liberal or conservative communities.

We're also sorting ourselves out in the real world, living in communities of increasingly like-minded people. Who travels in moran-dude's circles? Well consider this: it's not just the hilarious misspelling that makes the image so rich, but also the knowledge that none of the people around him noticed. (You just know he proudly carried that sign around all morning as he anticipated sticking it to those smug hippie liberals.) So I think it's safe to assume that he and his pro-war fellow-travelers probably aren't big readers of Daily Kos or Talkingpoints Memo.

Which raises an interesting question: could a viral internet sensation like 'get a brain morans' dude -- a sensation only on our side of the information divide -- be splashed all over hundreds of thousands of web-pages and not even know it? Is he living his life, listening to Rush's soothing stream of grievances as he drives to and from his crappy mcjob, completely oblivious to the fact that he's brought countless smiles to the lips of millions of progressives across the country?

Is it possible in this wired era of social segregation to get your 15 minutes of fame and just miss them entirely?

I mean, surely that guy's as well known as this one ...

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Media Fail: 2nd Cop, not Kimberly Munley, Brought Down Ft. Hood Shooter
Posted by Staff, AlterNet on November 14, 2009 at 9:44 AM.

On Friday, the New York Times ran an interview with Sgt. Mark Todd, the police officer who, contrary to previous reports, ended the Fort Hood rampage by shooting Nidal Hasan.

Sgt. Kimberly D. Munley has been applauded as a hero across the nation for shooting down Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan during the bloody rampage at Fort Hood last week. The account of heroism, given by the authorities, attracted the attention of newspapers, the networks and television talk shows.

But the initial story of how she and the accused gunman went down in an exchange of gunfire now appears to be inaccurate.

Another officer, Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, 42, said in an interview Thursday that he fired the shots that brought down the gunman after Sergeant Munley was seriously wounded. A witness confirmed Sergeant Todd’s account.

Over at Editor and Publisher, Greg Mitchell chides the media for once again buying a story of singular heroism by a sympathetic individual without independently confirming the account.

First, it was the "death" of Major Hasan, not corrected for many hours. Then, for days, the story of how a female cop brought down the shooter, even as she was receiving serious wounds. Yet I noticed just hours after the attack that scattered eyewitnesses, via the Web and Twitter, were saying that the killer re-loaded after Sgt. Kimberly Munley went down.

How could he have done that if she had just plugged him four times, supposedly ending the rampage? Some of those witnesses said they yelled at the second cop to shoot Hasan--which he did, and then went up and kicked his gun away...

Most news outlets for days labeled Munley "the" (singular) Fort Hood hero. She was the "Mighty Mouse." It wasn't until two days ago that Sgt.Todd got feature billing, although in a secondary role. Now, in the past day, he is finally getting his due as the original account begins to fall away. The cop most responsible for saving the day, it turns out, is a black man, not a white woman.

We recommend reading Mitchell's whole piece here.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

National Review Bedwetters Wet Bed Over Terror Trial
Posted by Booman, Booman Tribune on November 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM.

The main reason that supporters of Bush's anti-terror policies are wetting their pajamas is pretty clear from a look at National Review Online:

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

No doubt the defense attorneys will try to exclude evidence obtained while these defendants were being tortured in black prison sites. But, the DOJ isn't going to rely on any of that evidence. No judge is going to allow a self-defense argument, so our policies are not going to be on trial. The indictments will be based on information obtained legally. The right is afraid that these folks will be convicted and sentenced to death for a crime that can proven without resorting to torture. And, then, what will be left of their justification for despoiling our country's reputation for upholding human rights?

Their continued expression of fear at the prospect of having these terrorists present on American soil is pathetic. They ought to spend the rest of their days huddling in their 1950's-built nuclear bombshelters. The only thing they fear more than terrorist attacks is having to face up to the pointlessness of what has been done with their support.

Tom Tancredo "Fully Intends to Run" for Governor of Colorado
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 14, 2009 at 4:27 AM.

The Denver Post reports that, “while he has yet to formally declare his candidacy or fill out paperwork with the secretary of state’s office,” Tom Tancredo told a reporter that he “fully intends to run” for governor. When asked if he is running for Governor, Tom Tancredo told another local news station, “That is exactly what I anticipate doing.” After a brief run for President in 2008, Tancredo has been polishing his credentials over the past year by doing his part to coarsen the political discourse on television:

– Said he “didn’t know” if Obama “hates white people.”

– Argued Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the “Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses” and that she “appears to be a racist.”

– Claimed Obama may “indeed” be “a racist” because he nominated “Sonia Mayer” for the Supreme Court.

After Tancredo resigned from Congress, he told the press that he regretted being known for being anti-immigrant. A few months later, the proud nativist told a young Republicans gathering that he’d be open to halting all immigration to the United States.