Monday, September 29, 2008

End of Hiatus

I must again apologize for the long hiatus from posting. I tried several times since Friday to post, and either fatigue or other obligations interfered. I was not home to see the presidential debate - I heard many Europeans watched it. I hope they found it enlightening, but right now I have no idea what happened, having been submerged since Friday in urgent matters.

I did hear about Paul Newman, a great actor (I temporarily suspend judgment on his politics). His death was expected, but you always hope that they can beat the odds. I will always admire The Verdict, a great tour de force for all the actors, but Newman was phenomenal. His earlier roles in Sweet Bird of Youth and The Hustler were also major accomplishments. He was good in everything he did. At the end of his life he performed on stage in Our Town, in the role of the Stage Manager, directed by Joanne Woodward. It was shown on PBS, and I realized he had come full circle: it immediately conjured up memories of his 1955 appearance in the same play when he took on the role of George Gibbs to Eva Marie Saint's Emily. Frank Sinatra was the Stage Manager then and the play was set to music by Jimmy van Heusen and Sammy Cahn. One of the songs that became popular was Love and Marriage. Unfortunately it was never preserved on video - I don't think there exists a kinescope copy of the single performance. But I was about 14 years old and have always remembered that performance.

As far as the financial "crisis" is concerned, even some French blogs have realized that it was primarily an affirmative action scam, orchestrated by the Bush administration, to give quality homes to immigrants and other unreliable people. The loans were thus granted under pressure, not to say at bayonet's point, by mortgage companies and banks that did the deed unwillingly. It may be more complicated that, but that is the crux of the matter. Else, why would so many default on their mortgages? Obviously they couldn't pay. And they couldn't pay because they were high-risk to begin with. Bush will never admit the truth, and I doubt McCain will either.

Three new posts will be put up within a few hours, with more to come. But next week-end will be another time of "limbo" for me, due to the hospitalization of a relative. Right now I'm trying to catch up with both French and American news from last week.



At September 29, 2008 9:50 PM, Anonymous dauphin_b612 said...

The idiotic and ignorant French media and press will of course blame Bush, but the Community Reinvestment Act goes way back to Democrat administrations, using Fannie May and Freddie Mac as aggressive tools and forcing banks to make housing loans available in poorer areas. Greedy and clueless firms on Wall Street, Europe and else where bought this bad paper as investment, and with the energy crisis effecting food, gas and heating prices, many people suddenly found themselves unable to make mortgage payments when their household budgets were strained.

Bush warned about this, McCain warned about this, and even Pres. Clinton admitted the Democrats in Congress didn't want to do anything about it. So it is amazing to me that Obama and the Democrats are gaining political advantage when they control the American Congress and chair committees that should have warned people.

As to Paul Newman, yes a very big loss. I have seen the play "Our Town" which is almost too poignant, and it must have been something to see Paul Newman in this.

Glad you are back, Tiberge, and best wishes and prayers for your relative.

At September 29, 2008 10:58 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ dauphin,

Thanks for your quick comment. The French blog in question was Le Salon Beige (I don't have the link handy) but they were (I think) using American sources. Of course it's a very complicated issue, and the immigrants cannot possibly be the only ones who defaulted on their mortgages. But there is an important message here - if someone cannot pay, don't give him a mortgage, even if he belongs to a minority and you want to prove you are not prejudiced. In other words, we have enough problems without adding to it with affirmative action. What you say in your comment about immigration is close to the same thing - jobs will be given to people who accept lower wages, but these people do not deserve the jobs and they will bring about a lowering in the quality of service. In hospitals this is disastrous. Many major hospitals in my city have shut their doors. Now, this may be due to poor management, but until the hiring practices changed the hospitals were an asset to the community. So various types of corruption seems to coalesce to bring about a collapse. Affirmative action is one of them, besides being a nation-destroying factor.

The firms that granted the mortgages had to unload them as quickly as possible because they knew they were bad, so they packaged them and sold them to I don't know who - investment companies? Anyway, everybody I think began hoping against hope that it would somehow work out. I'm not saying there wasn't greed, but that greed is not necessarily the prime element in this case.

The massive immigration both in Europe and America cannot but have disastrous consequences in many ways that are not foreseen.

Also, please remember that George Bush is a "rino" - Republican in name only. Also, Democrats always use the economy as a means to power - if the economy is in trouble at election time the Demos will likely win because that's how people are - they vote with their wallet, even if they are unwittingly sinking themselves and even if there are issues of much greater import.

At September 30, 2008 1:05 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ dauphin,

I just came upon this web page at Lawrence Auster's site. The original basis of the discussion is a radio show hosted by Mark Levin, which I did not hear. But you may want to follow the links, or at least read the first part of the (very long) discussion:

At September 30, 2008 1:14 AM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ dauphin and anyone interested

Here is still another (shorter) web page from Lawrence Auster on the crisis. He has really assembled a very knowledgeable group of readers who discuss this problem from various angles:

At September 30, 2008 6:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks dauphin for replying I had not visited here for a while but as soon as I saw this post blaming Bush I had to but the writer of this blog right on the origins of this crisis and you did it for me.

The CRA was started by Jimmy Carter and expanded greatly during the Clinton period, Bush tried to create an oversight body for Fannie Mac and Fannie Mae in 2003 and in 2005 McCain tried, both were blocked by Democrats.

This is not Bush's fault, however he needed to bubble to last longer to pay for Iraq and I think he did not move because of that, perhaps...

At September 30, 2008 2:22 PM, Blogger zazie said...

We all hope you and your relative will be OK ; a little prayer can help, Dauphin is right.

As to the blame being put on Bush only, it is pretty silly ; everybody knows about the Clinton Administration, except if they believe only in "mauvaise foi" ; and everybody knows too that the current VP plays an important part in the White House politics!
A more serious danger is lurking though ; I found on novopress.france an article that really shocked me by its antiamericanism ; some facts it cites are true of course (what country can be called innocent?), but I felt this article reeked with hatred inherited from the cold-war years ; and I do think that spreading such ideas among people facing an economical crisis is dangerous ; many people around me are on the look out for a scapegoat!
Meanwhile, take care of yourself!

At September 30, 2008 3:39 PM, Anonymous dauphin_b612 said...

@ tiberge

Thank you--a very interesting site, though the last part of the address did not copy and I'm not sure I found the exact discussion. I did however see related articles, and it is true that Bush and some Republicans also supported the idea of expanding home ownership, particulary among minorities. Who can be against that, after all? I still think if it were not for the energy crisis, things would not have come to a head so soon.

As to "affirmative action", yes I have seen people pushed through in academic programs, very worrying in areas like medicine, certainly. But I did have professors from India and Nigeria, who although perhaps accepting lower salaries, were absolutely brilliant and fully competent. But the only affirmative action I think is needed is for ethnic French or people who have been in France for a minimum of 3 generations who should receive 8 or 9 out of 10 places (assuming competence), the remaining places for others but only if competent.

Well, here is a video link I received about the financial crisis which you and other readers may find very amusing as I did:

@ zazie

Hope you are feeling better too. As to Cheney, people think he is behind every traffic jam in Paris--it's crazy! Yes, anti-Americanism is alive and flourishing with this new ammunition, as you say people look for a scapegoat!

At September 30, 2008 4:21 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ zazie and everyone,

The biggest problem is that when I talk about Bush I am talking about a person who IS a liberal, on most, if not all issues. Other people are much more inclined to see a difference between Bush and Clinton. Of course, it's a question of degree, but sometimes degress of difference don't mattter much, especially in a grave crisis.

Bush allowed in untold numbers of immigrants. He certainly wanted to make sure they had equal opportunities and granting lousy mortgages was one way - or at least closing his eyes to the granting of lousy mortgages. Even if he made some attempt to stop the process, he certainly (as far as I know) did not denounce the liberal ideology of racial and ethnic equality which can only be achieved through criminal methods, i.e. taking from the honest citizens and giving to those who are unreliable and who have not paid their dues. We did the same thing in the schools - we gave high grades, and diplomas, and scholarships to racial minorities and eveybody closed their eyes to the consequences. Now there is no school system worth a stool of pigeon doo-doo in the inner city and the other schools have all been degraded to some degree. The "better" schools, those used by "Republicans" may be somewhat more academic, but on the social issues, they are all multi-culti, feminized, downgraded institutions where teachers are bound by political correctness whether they admit it or not. A lawyer I know send his kids to a "good" school. He admits the teachers there "teach to the test", i.e. nothing unexpected is given in the test. Hence THERE IS NO TEST. This was a great school at one time.

Same in the financial world. Give gifts, ask for little or nothing in return, and the whole thing will collapse. Inevitable. Bush's educational plan - No Child Left Behind is a LIBERAL plan. His immigration policies are LIBERAL.

Of course, this may have started under Carter and Clinton, but Bush was supposed to at least make a major show of conservative strength by undoing the damage, not by compounding it.

I don't understand how anyone can look at him and not see a "rino". The same thing is true in France. For me Sarko is and has always been a socialist. He is WORSE than Ségolène Royal because he muddies the waters more with his pretenses of being a reformer, all the while continuing socialist policies and initiatives.

Of course, if you feel that putting the Socialist Party in power is too horrible because of its connection to a violent and evil past, that is understandable. But how anyone can call Sarko a man of the "Right" is also beyond me.

Now Bush is one thing, his party is something else. There may still be enough better people in the GOP to still save us from total socialism. I just don't think McCain is one of them. I think Tancredo or even Romney would have been vastly superior. Mrs. Palin should be somewhere in the government, but not president.

At September 30, 2008 4:49 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ dauphin

"Who can be against expanding home ownership to minorities?" But that depends on how you do it and how many people you are talking about. When we speak of minorities, we are not talking about your teachers from Nigeria. In the public schools, they at one time brought in highly educated Africans to teach Swahili! The kids couldn't have cared less and walked all over these men who got out as soon as they could. There was no comparison between the black kids and the British-educated Africans. That is not affirmative action. Affirmative action is when you give those rowdy do-nothings in the class a scholarship to Harvard! Or at least artificially inflated grades. And when you allow their low-class manners and culture and music to become a NORM for society, so that we all have to listen to their horrible music wherever we go. Affirmative action is when large numbers of poor people are given bad mortgages for the purpose of "equalizing" the social landscape. If they are working poor, and American citizens born here, some kind of subsidy may be OK - though I'm not sure of that. But when very large numbers of persons known to be high-risk are given mortgages because the gov't has to "equalize", that is something else.

FDR started many socialist programs, of which only a few have survived. The people who benefited from these programs were mainly decent and honest people - victims of the financial crisis. But they only wanted the hand-out long enough to get back on their feet. They were much more "American" than the people to whom these bad mortages were granted. Back then in the 30's people were embarrassed to be on welfare and wanted to get off of it ASAP.

At September 30, 2008 5:29 PM, Anonymous dauphin_b612 said...

@ tiberge

You are right. Politicians have become basically panderers for power, and because more and more want to be pandered to, every party has to pander to keep votes, but support basically the same policies.

As to my question, "Who can be against expanding home ownership to minorities?" It was rhetorical, just to show the mindset, but I agree with you.

At October 01, 2008 10:55 AM, Blogger zazie said...

OK, Bush is a liberal and Sarko is a crypto-socialist ; I should have expressed my idea differently, I suppose ; I only wanted you to know about that article so biased against all Americans, not only against the American Government, today or in the past.
Sorry, if I have hurt your feelings.

At October 01, 2008 11:14 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ zazie,

You have certainly not hurt my feelings. You and everyone else are perfectly entitled to your opinions on Bush. Most people see him as a "conservative." But for me he only wears the label. He is really half and half: on some bioethical issues he is conservative partly because the Left has gone so far into depraved notions of sexuality and euthanasia, that he has to maintain a saner attitude. But on immigration, Islam, Turkey in Europe, the EU, and the Utopian idea that democracy is for everybody, even terrorists, he is not in the conservative tradition at all. Europeans of course see in him a right-wing religious fanatic. So does the American Left. Because to them, a person of religious convictions, who is against embryonic stem-cell research is automatically an extreme right-winger. And of course they see an "oil-man." So I think it depends on what aspects of the man we are talking about. He is probably more conservative than Sarkozy.

Regarding the Novopress article I did not know which one it was - Novopress has several articles on the crisis. Do you remember the title?

Again, please do not think you or anybody else hurt my feelings. Also, I am not trying to persuade anyone to think like me. I just try to explain how I see things.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home