Slashdot Mirror

It isn't that simple. See my response to the GP.

The Federal Gov'ts massive tinkering in 1993 and 1995 with the CRA created a secondary market that acted as a smoke screen. Specifically, your argument that the majority of the subprime loans were "made" by firms not even subject to the CRA is the red herring. "Originated" is the correct term, which means they acted as a broker between the borrower and the bank who actually financed the loan. Even the Minneapolis Fed report makes note of this, which is what the blog on Businessweek glosses over. While the originators of the loans weren't covered by the CRA, just about EVERY LOAN was sold to a bank covered by the CRA so those banks could meet their quotas for "loan diversity".

And I'm not blaming the "poor" or "minorities". The ALT-As also included many middle-class folks who simply were buying WAY too much house for their income stream. A couple making $50K + $35K / year have no business buying $300K+ homes.

I stand by my original evaluation that much of this mess was caused specifically by government, not regulating, but their ham-handed attempts at social and economic engineering.

There was quite a lot of politics and govt regulation *directly* feeding the problem over the years:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307061229501695

Tragi-comical version:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/03/subprime-mortgage-blues.html

I believe this is the summary you're looking for. You'll have to dig a bit deeper to see the actual questions.

A Rasmussen report on just the NYT favorability ratings. Lots of interesting numbers in that one, none of which looks good for the Times.

A Rasmussen poll specificall about this election: 49/14 Media will actively try to help Obama/McCain

Here's a Zogby poll summary from last year: results 64/28 liberal/conservative bias.

From the Pew report. The Times is rated at 18% for credability.

Another Rasmussen report that shows over 50% believe the media tried to activly hurt Palin.

A write up of a Harvard study with some other studies referenced at the bottom.

These studies are not too hard to find. Just Google media bias and they pop up all over the place. The Media bias Wiki page also references some more studies.

That article is a hackjob. The environmentalists in the lower 48 haven't a clue what is going on in Alaska's environment. She does.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300668510518137

If you want some scary stuff about Obama, check site out

I have no idea how true it is, but it seems well-researched.

I also find it interesting that the Democratic Party, while meaning well, is a far bigger abuser of the Constitution. Its just that they seem smaller because they are better intentioned.

Oh, Barack's made a few http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301792142700714 of his own. Not that I approve of using such trivialities to select a president.

Well, most of this information is buried in dry industry and government reports. So save you some hunting I will link you to some articles that I got the quotes from that ALSO have links to the reports in them:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020571.php

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/despite-energy-crisis-dems-vow-no-new.html

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=296435488187160

http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=d4b72449-7edb-493d-88ff-76bfe669e0f2

Enjoy!

You'd have to prove:

*Human activity doesn't produce gases like CO2 and SO2 *Those gases have a radically different absorption spectra than science currently understands *The sun doesn't actually provide energy for the Earth

etc.

Tell me, does one have to prove a single one of those items, or all from the list? If the latter, I'm really worried about the "etc." part, because that looks like a ripe opportunity for one to shove goalposts around. If the former, consider this little tidbit and the devastating consequences for the models which forecast so much doom. There's no question in my mind that humans pollute, and that some of that pollution might impact the climate in addition to the air quality. But how much? On what scale? You seem reasonably well-informed on this issue, so I'm sure you know when you focus on CO2 that CO2 is a marginal greenhouse gas, contributing very little to the overall warming of the planet. And while we're talking about CO2, how much has it risen in New York City? Or any small town in Iowa? Or central Canada? You won't be able to tell me that, because CO2 records are maintained for only one place on the planet ... the side of a volcano in Hawaii!

Anthropogenic global warming is based on basic physical facts like those. Of course, if the only thing you know about the issue is what you're hearing from the deniers, you'd naturally think that scientists sit around and say "damn, we're making a fortune off the global warming industry, what else can we assert is responsible?" Which is pretty fuckin' stupid when you think about it. Climatology isn't exactly making people rich. Al Gore still makes a lot more off his political connections than on the royalties off Inconvenient Truth. Of course, there's a fortune to be made denying anthropogenic climate change, but don't let that fact get in the way of your ignorance.

How much money was spent on Climatology thirty years ago? Back in the seventies, a number of states in the U.S. were closing down their state climatology departments. How much is being spent on it now? How about those "carbon offset credits" ... where does the money go that is spent on those? Someone is making a profit there. How much money has been flooding into environmental groups because of the heightened awareness of global warming and the need to do something about it (2005 IRS 990 filings: Greenpeace: $15,636,026, Sierra Club: $85,183,485, World Wildlife Fund: $120,910,695)? You're following the dollars on one side of the argument, but blind to the other. I have no doubt that money from oil companies is interfering with the scientific and public discussion of this subject ... but but how much of a hit will environmental and other activist groups take if the biggest environmental danger of the 21st century turns out to be a bust? You can't tell me they don't have a financial incentive to lie and cheat just like the oil companies do.

Hell, let's see them investigate. I've never heard of a global warming "skeptic" (to use the charitable term) who didn't spend all his or her time mouthing off in the press about how it's all a conspiracy and "help, help, I'm being repressed" and approximately zero time in the lab or in the field, actually recording data and making observations.

Remember this link? And it isn't a charitable term, it's an accurate term, without the idiotic associations that come with "denier".

Why is that? Because, like creationism, global warming denial is a movement that can only survive commensurate with its ability to convince ignorant laypersons like yourself. The reason they spend all their time mouthing off and none actually doing sc