|
|
|
Posts:
19,996
Registered:
10/13/03
|
|
(382 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 28, 2008 8:11 AM
|
> > I am a happy drinker. I never get mad or angry
> when I
> > drink.
> >
> > --
> > Standin' in front just shakin' your ass.
> > Take you back stage you can drink from my
> glass.
>
> lara,
>
> you're happy and mellow even when you're not
> drinkin!...lol
thanks Rainy, I try!
--
Standin' in front just shakin' your ass.
Take you back stage you can drink from my glass.
|
|
|
Posts:
21,724
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
|
Posts:
21,724
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(380 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 28, 2008 4:33 AM
|
July 24, 2008
Our own John Walcott wins first I.F. Stone Medal
We here at N&S, and throughout the entire McClatchy Washington bureau, are bursting with pride that our bureau chief, John Walcott, has won the first I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence.
The award, conferred by the Harvard-based Nieman Foundation, is a much-overdue recognition of John's role in directing the bureau's award-winning pre-Iraq War coverage -- we being the only mainstream news organization that consistently reported doubts about President Bush's case for invading Iraq, and the lack of planning for what would happen afterward.
In announcing the award, Nieman Curator Bob Giles said: "This is belated recognition of the powerful work done by Walcott in directing his colleagues in developing stories that were unappreciated and almost totally unnoticed at the time. Because so many journalists fell short in their pre-Iraq war coverage, there'€™s a real need to recognize this dogged editor who went about his business in a resolute way to challenge many of the justifications for the war that proved to be false."€
We couldn't agree more. John, congratulations!
Here is the full Nieman Foundation announcement. And below is the Associated Press' story this afternoon:
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) -- McClatchy's Washington bureau chief has won the Nieman Foundation's first I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence for pre-Iraq war coverage.
The foundation said John Walcott's reporting team stood out for its skeptical coverage of the Bush administration's rationale for the Iraq invasion. Nieman Curator Bob Giles called Walcott a "dogged" editor who challenged justifications for the war that later proved false.
Walcott was working as Knight Ridder's Washington bureau chief during the run-up to the war. Knight Ridder has since been bought by McClatchy.
The medal is given by the Harvard-based foundation to a journalist whose work it says shows independence and integrity. It will be presented at the Newseum in Washington D.C. in October.
|
|
|
Posts:
21,724
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(379 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 28, 2008 4:23 AM
|
Racist Predatory Lenders
Race and the Housing Crisis
Blacks and Latinos With Identical Credit Far More Likely than Whites to Receive Subprime Loans
By Mary Kane 07/25/2008 | 1 Comment
When troubled borrower Diane McLeod's debt problems made the front page of The New York Times earlier this week, she ignited a debate over borrowers, lenders and personal responsibility that shows no signs of slowing down.
Op-Ed columnist David Brooks took the opportunity to point out that McLeod's money problems were caused, in part, by her own behavior -- she shopped at the mall to relieve the emotional pain of her divorce and spent thousands on home shopping channels while recovering from surgery. But mortgage companies and credit card lenders also saw her as an easy target, he noted, marketing loans to her they knew she couldn't afford and most likely couldn't repay.
This was something of a revelation to Brooks, who recently wrote an entire column denouncing financial decadence in America without ever mentioning Wall Street's role in foreclosures.
Now with a belief that both borrowers and lenders share equal blame, Brooks predicted a cultural shift in attitudes away from the easy acceptance of debt:
After the Depression, a savings mentality set in. After the dot-com bubble, a bit of sobriety hit Silicon Valley. Now it?s the borrowers? and lenders? turn. As the saying goes: People don?t change when they see the light. They change when they feel the heat.
If only it were that simple. On Tuesday I talked with borrowers waiting in the soaring temperatures and long lines outside the Capitol Hilton in Washington for a chance to get their loans restructured through the Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, a housing advocacy group based in Boston. The first three women I chatted with all were from Prince George's County, Md., which The Washington Post describes as the nation's wealthiest majority black jurisdiction. It also has more foreclosures than any other Maryland community.
Is that a coincidence? Of course not. Even when their credit scores were similar, blacks and Latinos were far more likely to get subprime loans than white borrowers during the housing boom, report after report has shown. In majority black and Latino communities, nearly half of all mortgages made in 2006 were high-cost subprime loans, according to research by the Local Initiatives Support Corp.
I asked the women outside the Hilton if they had felt targeted by lenders, and they all laughed in unison - doesn't everyone know that? Brokers didn't just make repeated cold calls in Prince George's. It went beyond that. Mortgage lenders came to you. They mingled at church, and they showed up in person at your house with loan papers, they said. They were always at your door. That's not how loans get sold in upper-middle-class white neighborhoods.
The women I talked with didn't take out those loans to buy McMansions. They were refinancing, and they'd been in their houses for more than 25 years. And their situations weren't unusual. Most of Prince George's County foreclosures involve refinancings, not new home purchases, according to John McClain, deputy director of George Mason University's Center for Regional Analysis who has studied the neighborhoods there.
Some people in neighborhoods like this will get help from housing advocacy groups or refinanced by a lender. But many won't. The damage done will last for years -- ruined credit, neighborhoods marked by vacant houses, once-stable communities upset by comings and going, future loans that will become harder and more expensive than ever to get, a falling homeownership rate, and fewer chances to build up net worth for the future.
Even if you accept that borrowers and lenders are equally responsible for the housing mess, that doesn't mean the price they'll pay for it will be the same.
Yes, there are plenty of failed lenders on the Mortgage Lender Implode-o-Meter. But as Michael Hudson, who authored the Center for Responsible Lending's report on the failed bank IndyMac explained, you could be a minimum-wage grocery clerk during the housing boom and then suddenly find yourself with a six-figure income as a mortgage broker.
So when it comes to borrowers and lenders, and their share of the blame in this crisis, let's not call it even, just yet. Brooks and others who decry the nation's culture of debt need to press the issue even more.
They need to acknowledge that we won't fully understand the mortgage mess until we investigate the interplay of race and credit that occurred during the housing boom. Until we question why minorities ended up with so many subprime loans, and why they paid so much more for their mortgages. And until we care about what will will mean for their financial futures.
That hasn't happened yet, and it's not clear that it ever will. For now, there are just the images of what happened in Washington earlier this week: The almost absurdly long line of anxious people clutching loan papers in the brutal heat, desperate to hang on to their houses.
All of it just a few blocks away from the White House -- in the capital of the most prosperous country in the world. The people who are paying the price.
|
|
|
Posts:
21,724
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(378 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 28, 2008 4:10 AM
|
Jared Bernstein, Huff Post
The Right Questions
Posted July 27, 2008 | 08:32 PM (EST)
Thomas Pynchon said something like: if they get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about the answers.
With so many aspects of our current economy in trouble, we find ourselves back in the midst of that great debate over government's role in the economy. The problem is, we risk answering the wrong questions. Or, to be more precise, we risk not going nearly far enough in probing what's right and wrong with the American economy.
It is widely agreed that the pendulum has swung too far toward deregulated market fundamentalism. Market failures abound, and enough people have a sense that these failures are connected to their current stressors, from job losses to gas prices, that the status quo is under the microscope, if not on the run.
President Bush, a fierce adherent of YOYO (you're on your own) for the masses, socialism for the rich, is about to sign the new housing bill, with all its market corrections, including a taxpayer funded lifeline to Fannie and Freddie (if they turn out to need a solvency infusion). Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, has been advocating for more market interventions than a rabid Keynesian. The FDIC is spending its weekends arranging takeovers of failed banks, and the Federal Reserve, when they're busy with their own takeover matchmaking, is inventing new government-backed funding tools well beyond anything they've undertaken in the past.
The reaction to all this by the chattering classes, including yours truly, has been interesting as well. Bob Davis et al at the WSJ provide a useful overview, but it's in the opinion writing that you get the real sense of unease caused by all this market intervention. There may be a few true Milton Freidmanites out there ready to let even the alleged "too big to fail" institutions go down, but there are mostly nervous middle-grounders and faux fundamentalists.
The latter talk the anti-interventionist talk, but when the chips are down, they call for a lifeline from the government. I debate them on CNBC with great regularity. They endlessly tout the virtues of unfettered markets, demand endless deregulation, while constantly nudging the Fed to lean one way or the other, insisting that the government to "support the dollar" (see Wall St. Journal oped page), and, most recently, reluctantly agree to the taxpayer funded bail outs.
The nervous middle-grounders, like Roger Lowenstein over at the Times today, agree that we maybe need some new rules, but worry that as long as the government is underwriting risky investors, those investors will escape the market discipline so fundamental to the system.
That sounds reasonable, but doesn't really help anyone draw the line. All economies, advanced or otherwise, will experience market failures, and government will be tapped to offset them, which is as it should be. Lowenstein writes "The government should get out of the business of assuming risk..." But, as Peter Gosselin writes in his must-read new book, High Wire, government at its best has assumed all kinds of risk, from pension risk (Social Security), to market risk (SEC, Federal Reserve, FDIC), to medical risk (Medicare), to environmental risk. Government at its worst has ignored (most recently, market risks) or exacerbating these risks (environmental).
Obviously it's a balancing act, but instead of complaining about vagaries, we need deeper thoughts about what went wrong and what it will take to reset the balance between government and market risk. As I said in this space last week, the time to worry about moral hazard is not the weekend when the bank is failing. It's now, when many in the public, along with policy makers from both sides of the aisle are connecting the dots between failing markets and the economic pain caused by job and wage losses, the housing bust, the energy crunch, and the financial market turmoil.
In testimony last week, I ticked off a bunch of ideas -- not all my own by any means; most of this is conventional wisdom -- to re-regulate financial markets, and these ideas were well received by the members of Congress on the Joint Economic Committee. But, having read a bunch of the analysis, including my own, I have a nagging feeling that we're missing the big picture.
We're arguing about slight moves down a continuum, necessary moves designed to offset the bubble and bust economy of the past few cycles, and inject some overdue oversight needed to ratchet down obvious excesses, like the trashy loan practices in the subprime housing market, or the off-balance-sheet entities held by investment banks. It's a measure to just how limited our debate has become that even these moves bring cries of "French socialism," the end of Reaganism, with accompanying visions of the invisible hand in shackles.
All that any of this re-regulation will do, if it works, is to diminish damaging excess. If it prevents bubbles from inflating, it will keep the macro-economy more on track. These rules might prevent some bank failures and unscrupulous lending; they might provide some transparency that investors need to price risk.
They won't reconnect the living standards of the middle class to the growth in the economy. They won't reverse the slide in health and pension coverage. They won't lift the bargaining power of workers unable to claim their fair share of growth they themselves are creating. They won't get us any closer to the investments we need to make in our children, our environment, our public infrastructure. They won't rebalance the risk shift that underlies much of today's economic insecurity.
They'll make the gears deep inside the machine of capitalism turn more smoothly, and that is a good thing. But the question is, what comes next? Once we get a little common sense back into the system and hopefully shut down the bubble machine that's characterized the last few cycles, will we take the steps to craft the economy we want? Will we do everything we can to ensure the occurrance of that which has eluded too many for too long: broadly shared opportunity and ultimately, prosperity?
These are the questions we should be asking McCain and Obama over the next few months. And the one with the right answers deserves first, your vote, and second, your scrutiny to make sure they walk the walk once they win.
|
|
|
Posts:
21,724
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(377 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 28, 2008 12:17 AM
|
> I am a happy drinker. I never get mad or angry when I
> drink.
>
> --
> Standin' in front just shakin' your ass.
> Take you back stage you can drink from my glass.
lara,
you're happy and mellow even when you're not drinkin!...lol
|
|
|
Posts:
21,724
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(376 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 28, 2008 12:16 AM
|
> > > Oh damn. I love watching these
> > fights....especially
> > > when I'm not in them myself. LOL.
> > >
> > > I like Rainy, though, even if there's some
> > things we
> > > don't agree on, she's always been very nice
> and
> > > respectful to me in our disputes, even
> when
> > they've
> > > been quite heated. I can't imagine her
> getting
> > so
> > > abusive without provocation.
> >
> >
> > I think its a timing thing. It seems as the
> night
> > goes on, her posts become nastier.
> >
> > I think she likes to drink...a lot.
> >
> > Not that there is anything wrong with that. I
> like to
> > drink a lot too.....I just don't get nasty. I
> just
> > become even more incoherent.
>
> I don't know about drinking a lot but she did say
> here on the board that she does drink. That's no
> excuse.
>
> --
> Edited by ronnie at 07/27/2008 6:37 PM PDT
ronnie,
How can you live with yourself being such a complete and utter twit. Jesus! I drink socially when we're out with our adult friends doing adult things like going to dinner, music and dancing. We have a great time. Even then I don't get 'drunk', I get happy, relaxed and playful. You should try it once in a while.
It's not that I drink while posting online. The people here who are aggravating creeps sometimes make me WANT a drink but I just tough it out. Go back to spreading negative gossip about Michelle Obama
|
|
|
Posts:
21,724
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(375 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 28, 2008 12:11 AM
|
> 4b
>
> You're not even close, in your pathetic analysis.
Thank, Jet 
|
|
|
Posts:
21,724
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(374 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 28, 2008 12:10 AM
|
> Oh damn. I love watching these fights....especially
> when I'm not in them myself. LOL.
>
> I like Rainy, though, even if there's some things we
> don't agree on, she's always been very nice and
> respectful to me in our disputes, even when they've
> been quite heated. I can't imagine her getting so
> abusive without provocation.
CBaz,
It's because you're not a jerk, hon. We disagree but you're a nice person. I'm a passionate woman in general and emotional and when I get mad I cuss. We're on the HBO boards not at Sunday School for 2nd graders. If my cussing so offends the delicate sensibilities of posters here, they surely shouldn't be watching HBO.
|
|
|
Posts:
19,996
Registered:
10/13/03
|
|
(373 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 27, 2008 9:40 PM
|
I am a happy drinker. I never get mad or angry when I drink.
--
Standin' in front just shakin' your ass.
Take you back stage you can drink from my glass.
|
|
|
Posts:
21,944
Registered:
9/5/01
|
|
(372 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 27, 2008 9:36 PM
|
> > Oh damn. I love watching these
> fights....especially
> > when I'm not in them myself. LOL.
> >
> > I like Rainy, though, even if there's some
> things we
> > don't agree on, she's always been very nice and
> > respectful to me in our disputes, even when
> they've
> > been quite heated. I can't imagine her getting
> so
> > abusive without provocation.
>
>
> I think its a timing thing. It seems as the night
> goes on, her posts become nastier.
>
> I think she likes to drink...a lot.
>
> Not that there is anything wrong with that. I like to
> drink a lot too.....I just don't get nasty. I just
> become even more incoherent.
I don't know about drinking a lot but she did say here on the board that she does drink. That's no excuse.
--
Edited by ronnie at 07/27/2008 6:37 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
7,930
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(371 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 27, 2008 9:35 PM
|
> > > > > Oh damn. I love watching these
> > > > fights....especially
> > > > > when I'm not in them myself.
> LOL.
> > > > >
> > > > > I like Rainy, though, even if
> there's
> > some
> > > > things we
> > > > > don't agree on, she's always been
> very
> > nice
> > > and
> > > > > respectful to me in our
> disputes,
> > even
> > > when
> > > > they've
> > > > > been quite heated. I can't
> imagine
> > her
> > > getting
> > > > so
> > > > > abusive without provocation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think its a timing thing. It seems
> as
> > the
> > > night
> > > > goes on, her posts become nastier.
> > > >
> > > > I think she likes to drink...a lot.
> > > >
> > > > Not that there is anything wrong with
> that.
> > I
> > > like to
> > > > drink a lot too.....I just don't get
> nasty.
> > I
> > > just
> > > > become even more incoherent.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > who the hell are you
> again??????????????///
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > *hic*
> >
> > Dean Martin.
>
>
> handsome and funny! Thats Amore
>
|
|
|
Posts:
19,996
Registered:
10/13/03
|
|
(370 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 27, 2008 9:34 PM
|
> > > > Oh damn. I love watching these
> > > fights....especially
> > > > when I'm not in them myself. LOL.
> > > >
> > > > I like Rainy, though, even if there's
> some
> > > things we
> > > > don't agree on, she's always been very
> nice
> > and
> > > > respectful to me in our disputes,
> even
> > when
> > > they've
> > > > been quite heated. I can't imagine
> her
> > getting
> > > so
> > > > abusive without provocation.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think its a timing thing. It seems as
> the
> > night
> > > goes on, her posts become nastier.
> > >
> > > I think she likes to drink...a lot.
> > >
> > > Not that there is anything wrong with that.
> I
> > like to
> > > drink a lot too.....I just don't get nasty.
> I
> > just
> > > become even more incoherent.
> >
> >
> >
> > who the hell are you again??????????????///
> >
>
>
>
> *hic*
>
> Dean Martin.
handsome and funny! Thats Amore
--
Standin' in front just shakin' your ass.
Take you back stage you can drink from my glass.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,930
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(369 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 27, 2008 9:33 PM
|
> > > Oh damn. I love watching these
> > fights....especially
> > > when I'm not in them myself. LOL.
> > >
> > > I like Rainy, though, even if there's some
> > things we
> > > don't agree on, she's always been very nice
> and
> > > respectful to me in our disputes, even
> when
> > they've
> > > been quite heated. I can't imagine her
> getting
> > so
> > > abusive without provocation.
> >
> >
> > I think its a timing thing. It seems as the
> night
> > goes on, her posts become nastier.
> >
> > I think she likes to drink...a lot.
> >
> > Not that there is anything wrong with that. I
> like to
> > drink a lot too.....I just don't get nasty. I
> just
> > become even more incoherent.
>
>
>
> who the hell are you again??????????????///
>
*hic*
Dean Martin.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,930
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(368 of 382)
Re: NYTimes--Fair and balanced?
Jul 27, 2008 9:33 PM
|
> Uh Oh Jet, Bee is going to get offended and have your
> post deleted.
>
who...mine?
why...do they like to drink to excess as well?
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
