Who is Responsible for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Mess?

Indeed what is the short answer to the question - who is responsible for the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and consequently and subsequently, the giant brokerage firms' illiquid positions necessitating more bailouts?

This Fox News clip from YouTube gives a three-minute account. Is this the definitive irrefutable answer, easily understood by us laymen?



Here's another classic:


You be the judge!

Could There Be A Catholic Vote?

Update:

Cal Thomas ponders on this same issue in his article at Real Clear Politics, entitled Catholics & Abortion (Again).

As much as 23% declare themselves as Catholics, out of a total US population of 300 million. This translates to about 70 million Roman Catholics, owing loyalty and obeisance to the Pope and the Papacy seated in the State of the Vatican.

In a couple of states Catholics are the huge majorities like New Mexico (84%) and Rhode Island 63%). Massachusetts sits at 47% and the populous state of New York at 38%. But California with its over 35 million inhabitants, 34% declare themselves as Catholics. In numbers that would be about 12 million people. And other states like New Jersey, Vermont, etc., also boast of large considerable segments of Catholics.

With this huge bloc of devoted followers to a religion steeped in traditional practices and doctrines, can we say that there could be a Catholic voting bloc, given that many of the defining political issues partake of a religious or moral nature like abortion, just wages, stem cell research, and even lately the moral ramifications of the continued stay of illegal immigrants in the country?

Traditionally, the religious convictions of certain candidates for political office rightly or wrongly had always been given sufficient notice and evaluation by the pundits and the electorate, with certain religions, or the lack of it, being adjudged more politically viable than others. The less openly religious the candidate generally the better before the discerning eyes of the electorate. And in this slanted climate, the very traditional and at times archaic practices of Roman Catholicism had been more a disadvantage than anything else.

But the late JFK broke that stubborn religious ceiling by having himself elected as President while openly declaring that his allegiance to and practice of his religion would not in any way influence his governance of the country. He stands as still the one and only Catholic to become a US President. John Kerry came close, but no cigar. Currently many Catholics populate the congress and other appointive/elective offices, both federal and state. The SCOTUS has 5 members who are Catholic, out of a total of 9, thus constituting a majority.

In the current milieu, VP candidate Joe Biden is a Catholic. Sarah Palin was baptized Catholic as an infant, but changed religion as a teen in Alaska. The honorable Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is an avowed Catholic, I suppose in the grand Italian tradition.

In the past, Church authorities had been somewhat ambivalent in shepherding their faithful, most especially those in very visible public office, to the strict observance of their tight-fisted dogmas and doctrines. Thus, many Catholic politicians even on the national level could publicly contravene doctrine without much repercussion. Some may even say, could resist Catholic doctrine with impunity. Of particular contention has been the issue of abortion, which according to strict Catholic doctrine is legalized killing of human life.

But of late, certain interesting developments may bring out this issue more contentiously in the current campaign and may even draw deep and distinct, though under the surface, political lines, depending on how Catholics at present view their religion and its practice.

It was this Pope who as Cardinal finally laid down more unequivocally how Catholic politicians should regard their offices and their religion. It was this Pope who postulated that the public actions and policies of Catholic politicians should be congruent with their private religious beliefs. Should they espouse policies and programs that are incoherent with Church doctrine, the Church rules against them. Which may be interpreted to mean that if a politician cannot change his political choices, then he cannot continue to be a member of good standing in his church?

On the other side of the spectrum, with the weakened state of the Republican party, which traditionally has been pro-life or anti-abortion, the other party the Democratic, which has historically been represented as the vanguard of abortion rights, has of late become more publicly assertive about its stances on abortion, again openly defying those whose faith does not look kindly on those questioned practices. The party has wrested this golden opportunity to rally its people using the feminists’ clarion call of abortion and reproductive rights, or in the more nuanced pro-choice lingo, of women’s right of choice.

I foresee a clash between the two sides, though I cannot tell how it can develop sufficient legs given the very limited time frame between now and the November election.

This much we can deduce that the resurgence of the McCain campaign, who is himself a declared pro-choice candidate, can be attributed to the selection of Sarah Palin, his opposite on the abortion issue. With her in the ticket, the GOP is suddenly competitive. She is strictly anti-abortion, and as we have seen very traditionally so – like allowing the birth of her last son who had been early on diagnosed as suffering from Down syndrome; and allowing the continued pregnancy of his teenaged but still unmarried daughter. Her large family also helps solidify this qualification, a large family that is ever visible in her political sorties.

So we can then surmise that in the quiet of their solitude, whether at home or in the voting booth, earnest Catholics agonizing as they are with the difficult current choices of candidates, will also introduce in their inquiring minds the issue of abortion which clearly is against their Church’s teachings, emphatically brought to the fore by a Pope who has been unequivocal about it.

On the Democratic side you have a non-Catholic Christian Obama who is not only pro-choice but has taken positions considered more extreme compared with the mainstream of those espousing the same cause. Then you have Catholic Joe Biden who favors abortion and even through public pronouncements continues to deny or is unaware of the teaching of his Church on this issue.

On the Republican side, we have a John McCain, forever a maverick in his party taking the opposite stance on this issue. Then you have a Sarah Palin, once a Catholic but now a member of a Protestant denomination(s) but who is staunchly anti-abortion and presents unapologetically and unashamedly her large family as proof positive of her firm stance.

So where will the earnest Catholic vote stand, if indeed they could vote as a bloc?

Acknowledgment: Graphics from One Nation Under God site.

Palin Smear: Done By Pros?

Before getting to bed last night, had a quick last look at Memeorandum to try to spot any breaking news.

This fresh item was included on the right sidebar titled New Item Finder and showed that it had been posted 15 minutes ago.

It immediately piqued my curiosity so read this rather long expose way past my bedtime, Pacific Time.

I was completely stunned by the revelations, with videos and pictures, and had wanted at that very second, to start a little blog entry linking to the story.

Inertia got the better of me and decided instead to wait for the morn.

Lo and behold! When I woke up this morning the story had hit the ceiling. Other blogs were linking to the original story and/or adding their own insights. And expectedly like clockwork, sudden deletions of videos, accounts, and comments were noticed and noted, clearly actions of persons guilty as charged.

I recommend your visiting the linked sites to get updates on this developing story. Let us see how the MSM handles, or tries to ignore, this story.

Here's the smear video yanked out from YouTube by the party who originally uploaded it:


Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Palin Does Florida!

On a solo flight, VP Candidate Palin goes to Florida and attracts a crowd of about 60,000.

Read the reports of two eyewitnesses, here, and here.

Acknowledgment: Picture taken from one of the above blogs. More pics available there.

Pilin’ On Palin

For the second week in a row, the concerted efforts from the prominent sectors of media to pile on the candidacy of Sarah Palin continues not only unabated but rather intensified, all in the honorable and avowed purpose of “the public’s right” to know about its VP candidates. Though never in the almost 30 years that I have been in this country has such grating scrutiny been so deep and personal. I suspect that before all this is over, count the less than 50 days before the election, this young hapless candidate’s life will have been quartered and filleted to such minute detail that no stone will have been left unturned and not publicly revealed. The revelation of a tanning bed in her mansion is but a tiny sliver of the tip of the iceberg.

The print media, talk radio, both broadcast and cable TV, and the great cloud that is the blogosphere in the WorldWideWeb, all these have floor to ceiling coverage on Palin, majority of them negative, a good number downright malicious, and many it would appear uninhibitedly and without subtlety intended to smear, embarrass and dash that daring lady’s hopes to serve government. Without as much as providing a thin cover for what appears to be a bald-faced disdainful intent to skewer this unknown lady from rural Alaska because she dared to elevate herself as a candidate on the national stage. How dare she do that, came out wailing cries in their hearts from the mostly elitist segments of biased media. For they cannot countenance this bold challenge to their self-proclaimed roles as august gatekeepers of intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom in all things appertaining to politics, economics, civil rights, etc., and yes, even with regard to what hairdo or glasses are appropriate to wear.

Now a columnist from the once-venerable NYT has elevated this shamefaced condescension of her, with intellectual words like “ ultimate sources of wisdom”, “knowledge and experience,” And yes, including the moral intellectual virtue of “prudence”. Pontificating that prudence is acquired only through rigorous experience, and thus by extension, only older and seasoned politicians can govern properly, and definitely not this young upstart from rustic Alaska.

In the first place, the same could also be aptly said of the Democrats’ candidate for president, and maybe even more so. After all, the lady is running for he vice-presidency only. Okay, there is the possibility she gets to sit as president, but isn’t the Speaker of the highly unpopular House, in this instance Rep. Nancy Pelosi, also in line for succession to the presidency in case….? But enough of that.

But mention of the cardinal virtue of PRUDENCE raised my hackles because on the same day I also read a co-blogger’s support of Obama couched in the other cardinal virtues of TEMPERANCE and FORTITUDE. That Obama fares better in intellectual fortitude and emotional temperament. Thus, the only other cardinal virtue left unsaid was JUSTICE.

Now some words about these commendable moral virtues which have now ungainly entered the realm of political discourse.

I do not pretend to know what exactly Mr. Brooks meant when he used the term “prudent”, but I am going to assume it is a description of one who practices prudence.

Prudence is concerned with the right ways to do or perform man’s truly human acts, and those are what we call his free acts. Since free acts emanate from free will, then prudence is dependent on the goodness of the will. It is self-evident then that the ability to act prudently is not dependent on one’s life experiences. But on the will. No amount of experiences can straighten a man whose will is bent askew. One does need to acquire the virtue of prudence, but in other ways not necessarily from experiences. Let me not count the ways for there are many that the Lord has made available.

So who is to say that a younger, less experienced person like a Sarah Palin cannot be sufficiently prudent in the discharge of her duties? It is a bit arrogant to arrogate prudence to the exclusive realm of older and more “seasoned” individuals. Might not these persons be exposed more and thus more susceptible to the wily and corrupting allures while fraternizing and enjoying themselves in the corridors of power, fame, and fortune?

Now a word on FORTITUDE, which essentially is needed to strengthen the appetites or passions in man in pursuing “difficult” good. A man steeped in fortitude is one who has gone through the gauntlet of extreme human suffering and formidable challenges in his life. So which, candidate has any semblance of having gone through extreme physical challenges and still came out of it, fazed, broken, but unbowed?

A man with balanced emotional temperament juggles the virtue of TEMPERANCE in his pursuit of human perfection, trying to curb or rein in at times runaway irascible passions that tend to go awry and get the better of him. Again a man who has exercised inner emotional strength in his conduct with regard to his sense appetites which is naturally askew toward personal gratification and fulfillment.

In fine, if we are earnestly urging voters to judge candidates, or we ourselves judge them, based on these cardinal virtues, at least be aware of the size and markers of the measuring sticks that we are measuring them up or against.