Podcast Enjoys Fictional Explody Goodness

edit Tom Paine, Brian of London and others 2008-10-06 11:25 UTC 7 comments  ·  ·  ·

In this week's edition of Shire Network News, our guest is Australian writer John Birmingham, who has just published a book in which the Left gets it's oft-stated wish that the world wakes up one day and America is simply not there anymore. It's called "Without Warning", and we must warn prospective readers, it contains plenty of what  John Birmingham calls "explody goodness".

We hear disturbing evidence of the cult-like worship of the Dear Leader, Obama, patron Saint of Hopeful Change and helmsman of all our destinies, Slow Joe Biden does a passable impersonation of Grandpa Simpson and alerts us all to the real danger we're in from....er....corn syrup. So it looks like that long-awaited carpet bombing of Iowa is getting the green light from Washington on Inauguration Day then. That'll teach those Iowans not to dis Delware's most famous Senator on Caucus night.

 The BBC gets a caning from Muslim clerics for not bending over and saying "thank you sir, may I have another" enough, Muslims get to hold religious events on state property and the ACLU doesn't dare utter a sound, and the one-eyed nature of Saudi religiosity is finally revealed for all the world to see.

Meryl Yourish says Sarah Palin is making Democrats go a little funny in the head, and Evan Sayet is not surprised that the endorsement of Sarah Palin by the chair of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organisation of Women has apparently slipped down the memory hole as far as the media is concerned.

Doug Payton arises like Lazarus from a bed of pain to talk about political philosophy, but honestly it's way more interesting and relevants than that sounds.

Go and see "An American Carol" this week please, in fact we are hoping to be able to speak to the film's director, David Zucker, on the podcast next week. Oh, and if you're holding off on helping the McCain campaign because you figure he's "not conservative enough" for your personal tastes, how would you feel about four years of "The Jimmy Carter Presidency, Part Two - This Time He's Black, Not That It Makes The Slightest Difference To His Incompetence And Instinctive Desire to Appease the Enemy?

I lived through the 70's, trust me on this, you do NOT want a re-run of that. Besides, disco sucked hard enough the first time, and the thought of having to endure constant jihadi suicide attacks on our major domestic population centers while having nothing but Bee Gees tribute groups or KC and the Sunshine Band retrospectives to listen to on the radio is simply too much to bear.

Comment #1Joanne

2008-10-08 06:32:38

When I heard the subprime mortgage crisis attributed to a program dating from the late 1970s, I was confused but intrigued. I had thought the problem was due to deregulation, and to the fact that many institutions bought funds and securities not knowing that these contained holdings of bundled sub-prime mortgages.

So I Googled the CRA and came up with an article that said the following:

"Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA...

"Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley...

"Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose..."

This article is from that notorious left-wing magazine called...BusinessWeek. I'm sorry about the insulting language at the beginning of the article, but I do think it's worth a read for a different perspective; and it's not a long article, either.

Here's the link:

 http://tinyurl.com/3q6pa3

Comment #2Doug Payton

2008-10-09 18:09:40

Well, with all due respect to Aaron Pressman's credentials, this goes back a lot farther than 2004.  Even Bill Clinton has noted that additional regulations proposed by Republicans and voted down by Democrats in the 1995 timeframe should have been passed.  Video of him saying that, along with Democrats in full voice saying that there was no problem and that housing prices would keep going up abound on the 'net.

So looking only at the last 4 years is like blaming the Challenger shuttle disaster on the 2 minutes of flight time rather than looking further back and finding the decisions made that gave us a faulty O-ring.  Loans made according to extremely relaxed CRA standards were a big part, but certainly not all of, the bad loans Freddie and Fannie bought up.  I mean, just by its very definition, the loans made to CRA standards are more risky; nothing down, no credit check, no income check. How could they not be riskier?

There's just some common sense things that Mr. Pressman is ignoring that make me question his analysis.  Again, I'm not questioning his credentials, but so much is missing that this really sounds incomplete, and purposefully so.  His blame on Republican Congresscritters and administrations is all well and good; lots of blame to go around, that's for sure.  But his myopia vs Republicans smacks of partisanship rather than sober consideration of the issue.  See my blog post here, and continue forward in time, for the other side of the story.

Comment #3Doug Payton

2008-10-09 19:12:37

Some more interesting information:  5 million illegal immigrants have illegal mortgages.  Brings illegal immigration into the picture as well.  Good thing Democrats built that wall.

Comment #4Richard

2008-10-11 02:38:24

Joanne, thanks for the interesting link.

Personally, I think the case seems pretty straightforward, the CRA, which seems to have been a vague and leftish "nice" act was exploited by ACORN to push for reduced standards of lending with complacent Democrats enabling this push. Once FM/FM reduced their standards (meaning banks could sell to FM/FM), this pushed the market bubble in subprime loans.

I'm not going to accuse the Democrats of some malign agenda, I rather suspect political shortsightedness is the more likely culprit.
Doug is right about the Democrats blocking enquires and regulations of CRA and FM/FM. I suspect the motives were a combination of wanting to protect a leftish programme and emotional attachment to the ideal at the heart of CRA. To my mind, this is akin to the Labour Party refusing to tackle the unions in the 1970s and wanting to retain the nationalised industries, despite the clearly failing nature of those industries.

Comment #5Mark

2008-10-14 02:57:50
Hey guys,

I liked the interview and getting to hear John Birmingham.  I enjoyed his books, but near the end I began to feel a bit uncomfortable with the actions of the people from the future.  Instead of being open about their intentions to change American society and debating it like a true democracy, I felt they were putting together a George Sorros operation.  A bit disappointing.

A great interview though.   Please keep up the great work.

 

Mark 

Comment #6geo

2008-10-15 20:25:11

...and HERE's a link to a piece discussing a column from that notorious right-wing scandal sheet, the New York Times, discussing EXACTLY what has happened ... in 1999. Amazing. Not only did they forsee the crisis, they foresaw it before the causes even came into existence in 2004.

Comment #7geo

2008-10-15 20:27:08

Add Comment