Camille Paglia defends Sarah Palin

Camille Paglia on Salon pens one of the most, if not the most, eloquent defense of Sarah Palin:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/10/08/palin/index1.html

Michelle Malkin � The Boston Globe: In the bag for Obama

Michelle Malkin � The Boston Globe: In the bag for Obama: "The Boston Globe, which refuses to correct its factually-challenged smear of Sarah Palin over rape kits, has an online store. According to its “About Us” page, the store was formed in 1996 “to make The Globe’s extensive photo archives and content available for both people and businesses…In addition to offering the historic images and content of New England’s largest newspaper, the Globe Store also has a growing selection of books and products that celebrate our region’s personalities, sports teams, history, and places.”"

Media Bias Smackdown

The Media Research Council reports that Maureen Dowd of the NY Times was officially kicked off the McCain campaign plane.  From the article:

Let's face it, Dowd is not a journalist. She is an opinion editorialist. She does not report, she opines. She simply cannot be expected to present unbiased news.

That sums it up...

AEI analysts comment upon the first Presidential debate

Michael Rubin and Danielle Pletka from the American Enterprise Institute weigh-in on the first debate.  Rubin flatly refutes Obama's notion that there should be no pre-conditions to discussions with leaders such as Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il:

Obama's view of diplomacy appears both utopian and dangerous. Neither the Iranian nor North Korean nuclear programs are the result of too little talk; they are the result of too much.

Pletka acknowledges Obama's oratorical capabilities:

Obama is a capable speaker, a deft debater and a quick study. On issues that have raised doubts about his various positions on national security questions, he was able to explain in context his willingness to sit down and negotiate without preconditions with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other dictators.

She is not critical of his delivery or diction, but of the opinions to which they belong:

Unfortunately, what was missing from Obama's well-briefed presentation was a worldview that informs his disparate views about America's national security challenges. The presidency is not a defense of one's post-doctoral dissertation.

This article is a short read, so enjoy: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28695/pub_detail.asp

Harvard Economist Slams the $700b Bailout

Harvard economist and Libertarian Jeffrey A. Miron slammed the $700B bailout on CNN.com.  Miron starts by going right after the subprime lending fiasco:

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

"Wholesale abandonment" is strong language, but justified in this case.  Miron makes the case that these companies should be allowed to fail:

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Miron also believes that if these companies are worth being bailed out, then they are worth being bought:

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Except in limited cases, these companies are not being bought.  Miron explains that everyone is waiting for the government to act and bail them out at taxpayer expense:

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

Finally, he ends on a note of defiance against the bailout and Wall Street tycoons:

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

Democrats In Their Own Words Covering Up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam

Hmmm...  This is obviously a very biased video against the Dems; however, they damn themselves with these words.  It appears that our representatives forgave these companies in order to allow greater levels of home ownership to satisfy their constituents.