Washington Post defends Geithner - "he's no tool"

Poor little Timmy. Everyone keeps picking on him and - gasp! - they even say he's a tool of Wall Street. But, but, but, but...the Washington Post says it's not true because he never worked for a Wall Street bank. Uh yeah, great try except that Timmy Geithner was in fact working on Wall Street in charge of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The last time I checked, that means he was working with the Wall Street folks, no? The issue here that the Post somehow misses is that many believe his tenure at the Fed was marred by a cozy relationship with Wall Street.

He was supposed to at least be awake and following what was happening. Yes he has been a public servant but that doesn't excuse his failures at the Fed during one of the worst Wall Street meltdowns in modern history. The Post can have fun with blasting unions - the right is really keen to do that these days - but maybe they can also gather all of the details before pointing the finger of the details that others may have missed. Maybe Geithner wasn't working on Wall Street for a bank, but he sure has been friendly with them before he arrived at Treasury and now. How about the Post checks their own facts instead of leaving out critical details?

Part of Geithner’s appeal to the Obama camp is that it’s pretty hard to accuse him of being a tool of corporate America, a shill for big finance, or whatever alarmist moniker you prefer, since he’s been taking home relatively tiny paychecks of one type or another his whole career. So it’s a little astonishing that this Geithner-as-Wall-Street-servant meme still has life -- and in an oversight panel on the substance of TARP policy, no less. His employment history, apparently, hasn’t stopped critics such as Silvers -- or the Code Pink brigade that showed up to yesterday’s hearing in order to scream at the Treasury secretary about how “we” need a bailout, not wealthy bankers -- from trying to take digs into his integrity. Indeed, the AIG bonuses issue seems to have been a key moment for Geithner’s critics. Take the post-AIG accusation from Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) that people like Geithner think it’s “natural” to get “$6 million” bonuses. Or Arianna Huffington’s anti-Geithner diatribe last month, which uses the Treasury secretary’s position on AIG bonuses, among other things, to conclude that he’s a reflection of a chummy, corrupt Washington-Wall Street axis.

Why doesn't the Post just call us all communists so they can do a high five with their Republican friends? He has been chummy and he failed miserably at the Fed but who really needs to talk about his years in New York? Read the rest of this post...

It's not "if" there will be a torture investigation in Congress, it's how and when it happens.

From the always excellent reporting of Sam Stein:

The central debate dominating discussions of a possible investigation into torture by the Bush administration seems to have shifted sharply in the past few days: from whether such an investigation should take place, to now what form it will have when it comes.

If investigations actually do go forward, there seem to be three clear options: creating an independent commission, launching a congressional probe, or having the Department of Justice tackle the topic, likely by appointing a special prosecutor.

Each form has its champions, its benefits and shortcomings. Of the three, the Obama White House -- which still prefers no investigation at all -- is the least enthusiastic about Congress handling the matter. The president has said that if an investigation were to happen, he wanted it done in an independent and non-partisan matter by people above reproach -- qualities sometimes tough to come by in Congress.

That said, on Thursday morning, Sen. Claire McCaskill told MSNBC that she was "sure there will be some form of investigation in Congress." She said she could not make the same value judgments about the other two forms of investigation.

Let's hope Senator McCaskill is right. The Missouri Democrat is one of those sometimes centrists so if the idea is settled with her, it must be a widely held view that there will be an investigation.

And, there should be. It is, after all, only the reputation of the United States that is a stake. Those who advocated and allowed torture must face consequences. Read the rest of this post...

California foreclosures rising quickly again

Talk of a housing recovery may be a bit hasty. There have been reports of many banks sitting on houses (or refusing to even take them after foreclosure) until the market improves so monthly numbers may look better than they actually are. This CNBC blogfrom Diana Olick (who is normally pretty good, yesterday not so much) has some unsettling news from the once booming state of California.

Default notices surged 80 percent from 75,230 for the prior quarter to 135,431 notices in Q1 2009. That's also up 19 percent from the first quarter of 2008. This is a new all-time high for any quarter in DataQuick's statistics, which go back to 1992.

Now you may say, well, these are default notices, not foreclosures, and we've got that great Making Homes Affordable adminstration plan all ready to help all these folks. I'm wondering just how they're going to handle these folks, let alone help them. According to DataQuick, the bulk of the loans were originated in late 2006, at the very height and most desperate frenzy of the housing boom, when lenders were trying to get everyone and their brother into a new loan. I wonder how many of those loans are now so far underwater, given the huge home price declines in California, that no modification is going to help.

Read the rest of this post...

China ought to mind its own business

Beijing gets bent out of shape anytime anyone tries to say or suggest anything to them so why are they telling Obama not to speak with the Dalai Lama? Ignore them and tell Beijing to mind their own business.

Although a meeting has not been confirmed, every president since George H.W. Bush has met the Dalai Lama, raising the ire of China, which says the Nobel Peace laureate is bent on splitting Tibet from China.

"We firmly oppose the Dalai's engagement in separatist activities in any country under whatever capacity and under whatever name," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said when asked to comment on a possible meeting.

"We have made representations to the United States urging the U.S. to honor its commitments and not allow the Dalai to engage in separatist activities in the United States," she told a regular news conference.

Read the rest of this post...

Jobless claims slightly above forecast

Not great news because the number is high but it could have been worse. Most are predicting a steady rise in unemployment through the end of 2009, possibly into 2010. Reuters:

The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits rose 27,000 last week, the government said on a report on Thursday that showed the number of workers receiving benefits at a record high.

Initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits increased to a seasonally adjusted 640,000 in the week ended April 18 from a revised 613,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said.

Read the rest of this post...

Senate Republicans are filibustering Sebelius

The right-wing crackpots have been in a frenzy over the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). And, as we all now know, the right-wing crackpots are all that's left in the GOP. Today, GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell announced, in so many words, that on behalf of the extremists in his caucus, the Republicans are filibustering the nomination of Sebelius. From Think Progress:

The Senate was expected to confirm President Obama's choice for Health and Human Services Secretary today, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), but Senate Republicans refused to allow the vote, calling her a "fairly contentious" candidate:

At the start of the session today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) proposed taking a vote after five hours of debate. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) objected, arguing that lawmakers needed more time to consider her "fairly contentious" selection.

A handful of Republicans have complained about Sebelius' support for abortion rights and her failure to report the full extent of campaign contributions she received from a physician who performs abortions.

McConnell told the Washington Post that it's not a filibuster, but, big surprise, McConnell is being disingenuous. It is a Filibuster. Senate.gov provides a definition of filibuster:

"Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions."

That's what McConnell and his wingnuts are doing. Now, the Democrats need to roll over the Republicans. We need a Secretary of HHS. And, we don't need any more of the GOP's obstructionist tactics. Let's see if there are any Republican Senators who will stand up to the right wing whackos. Her nomination already got two Republican votes in Committee: Pat Roberts (KS) and Olympia Snowe (ME).

I'll never forget walking through the press corps in the East Room after Obama's first press and hearing one of the more famous reporters bitching to other reporters that Obama "filibustered" his answers. That said so much to me about the D.C.-based press corps. When the president can provide thoughtful answers, that meets the definition of a filibuster. But, when the Republicans actually filibuster in the Senate, reporters will almost never use the word.

Roll them, Senate Democrats. Put an end to this obstruction. Read the rest of this post...

Bank of America's Ken Lewis has to go -- and since we all partly own his bank now, help get him fired

We've been writing a lot about the disaster that is the Bank of America, led by Ken Lewis. With all that taxpayer money pumped into BofA. we're their biggest shareholders. So, they do work for us. And, we're not getting what we deserve. The Bank of America shareholders are meeting on April 29th, next Wednesday. SEIU is leading the charge to dump Ken Lewis before that meeting -- and to get real accountability from his bank, which, again, your tax dollars saved:

We are demanding these four things:

* Fire CEO Ken Lewis, who has helped destroy the bank and our overall economy

* Stop consumer abuses that hurt our communities, like skyrocketing fees and predatory lending

* Support bank workers' voice on the job to protect consumers and improve living conditions and wages by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act

* Provide affordable quality health care to employees so they do not have to rely on taxpayer-funded public health programs

Banks like Bank of America built a business model on screwing customers, pushing dangerous products, and burying customers in more and more debt. It would be bad enough if Ken Lewis' Bank of America just screwed its customers and taxpayers. But that's not all - the company also screws its workers.

Just days after receiving its first $25 billion bailout, Bank of America was caught hosting a conference call to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act - legislation that would help all working people, including Bank of America employees.

Enough. We need real reform, and it's clear Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis is part of the problem, not the solution. It's time for taxpayers to tell Ken Lewis to go.

Vote to fire Ken Lewis here. It's long past time for him to go. Read the rest of this post...

In Massachusetts, a husband's death shows how important marriage is -- and how absolutely ordinary and accepted same-sex marriage has become

Last month, one of our devoted readers, Peter Dubuque, died unexpectedly and way too young. He was 39. His husband, Steven Kleinedler, wrote to John to let him know. We can officially say "husband" because Peter and Steve lived in Massachusetts. Steve shared with us an amazing personal account of how Peter's death reaffirmed to him how important marriage is. Their marriage was accepted without question by those he dealt with after Peter died.

If you know anyone who questions whether marriage equality matters, send them this:

On March 24, I came home after work and found my husband, Peter Dubuque, dead from an unexpected accident. We have been together almost fifteen years and, because we live in Massachusetts, married for four-and-a-half years. In the aftermath of unexpected death, the surviving spouse faces a jumble of legal responsibilities, emotional reactions, and practical considerations. At 42, I never expected to have to plan a memorial service for the 39-year-old love of my life. I am very fortunate to have a strong national and local network of love and support from friends and family. These past few weeks would have been impossible without them.

In 2004 in Massachusetts (as there had been previously in Vermont when it legislated civil unions), opponents of marriage equality predicted social disaster. The destruction of our social fabric never materialized, of course; each argument was merely an rhetorical arrow in a quiver of hateful obstructions. What was surprising, however, is how marriage equality in Massachusetts has quickly blended into the social landscape. Despite a few feeble and ineffectual protests from the extreme right, it has become a non-issue here.

Just how far marriage equality has become a regular component of society here has been made clear to me while interacting with people I didn't know. What was once unheard of is now commonplace and, frankly, ordinary.

In 1994, I was arrested, handcuffed, and spent the night in jail for dancing with another man in suburban Chicago. (Not kissing, not even touching : just dancing.) But on March 24, 2009, the EMTs, police officers, and detectives on the accident scene were extremely professional, respectful, and courteous.

Shortly after Vermont legalized civil unions, debated raged whether newspapers across the country would accept or refuse to acknowledge such partnerships; now many more highly visible newspapers routinely do. The gracious funeral home operators treated me the same as they would any grieving spouse.

Referring to my husband as my husband doesn't raise eyebrows or result in scorn or sarcasm, whereas when referring to him as my partner ten years ago carried the risk of bad service, indifference, or outright hostility. Customer service representatives at places like banks respect the terminology, whereas once we might have sheepishly referred offhand to our partner. (It was perhaps only six or seven years ago when introducing Peter as my partner, sometimes people would assume I met business partner, even when the context would indicate otherwise.) Twelve years ago something as simple as explaining to utility companies that two people weren't roommates but partners could be construed as being "in your face." Flash forward to the young associate at the Apple store who helped me with Peter's iPhone. Sexual orientation was irrelevant as he expressed sincere condolences for my loss.

Ten, even five years ago, people in my situation in Massachusetts would have faced prejudicial treatment in some of these interactions--in addition to having to deal with protracted legal issues because of being denied the right to be married--simply because marriage equality was an unknown, often feared, and that fear was exploited by our opponents for political gain. Coming of age in a time when AIDS felled so many so quickly, I was aware of far too many horrible, heart-wrenching stories in which the surviving partner was completely shut out and cast aside by next of kin. Now, we are legally next of kin. For all the wonderful things that marriage equality does for the living, it maintains our dignity in death.

So, when the wonderful news from Iowa and Vermont broke, I felt happy. I know Peter would have been overjoyed, and knowing how happy it would have made him made me elated as well. I am so happy that soon in Iowa and Vermont, the idea of two women or two men joined in marriage will be an unremarkable event.

Iowa and Vermont are, however, only the third and fourth state of fifty. We must stop letting those who oppose marriage equality frame the debate. The objections they raise are smokescreens that mask not only their hypocrisy, but also sidetrack our focus. We will win when we focus on equality.

The legal right to have been married to Peter that was so important in our lifetime, has turned out to be equally important in death. I am thankful for the all of the couples, lawyers, advocates, and judges who have put so much energy into this struggle over the past many years, and to those who continue to do so until the goal of federally recognized marriage equality is met.

Legislatures in New York, Maine and New Hampshire are considering marriage equality legislation. If you live in any of those states, call and email your legislators. It matters.

That's especially true in New Hampshire TODAY. If you live in the Granite State or know anyone who does, State Senators need to hear from constituents NOW. (You can find Senator's numbers and emails here.) Do it for Peter. And as Steve says, "We will win when we focus on equality." Read the rest of this post...

Boehner admits Bush admin. used "torture"

With "leaders" like this, who needs Limbaugh.

While cable news outlets and major newspapers continue to use euphemisms such as "harsh interrogation tactics" to describe the Bush administration's approach to intelligence gathering, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) used a more succinct term Thursday: "torture."

"Last week, they released these memos outlining torture techniques. That was clearly a political decision and ignored the advice of their Director of National Intelligence and their CIA director," Boehner said at a press conference in the Capitol.

The techniques discussed include waterboarding, slamming detainees into walls, and depriving them of sleep for up to 11 days.

Boehner's admission subtly shifts the debate. At first, the Republicans were trying to shift the debate to whether Obama helped the terrorists by publicizing the techniques we used against them (techniques that everyone already knew about, by the way). Now, Boehner is helping shift the discussion to whether it is ever appropriate for America to torture, not IF America tortured. The larger question, which Boehner has now invited, is whether American officials committed war crimes. That's a rather serious charge. And it's utterly beneath what our country is supposed to be about.

Either we are better than the rest of the world, or we're the same, if not worse. The Republicans, and the majority of Americans, need to decide which America they want to be. Read the rest of this post...

British court wants US torture documents

And the Tony Blair record prepares to take its next blow. The UK government did an impressive job of keeping this secret during the Blair (and beyond) years but the days of suppressing information related to torture may be coming to an end. One can only imagine how well "association with torture" will go down on his CV as he pushes for the EU Presidency. Who knows what will happen. Some may even revisit his history of war mongering. McClatchy:

The chief justice of the British High Court on Wednesday gave the British government one week to obtain the U.S. release of classified information about the alleged torture of a British resident who'd been detained at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba .

The court indicated that it would issue its own order if the government doesn't respond or justify why continued secrecy is warranted.

Noting that President Barack Obama had released highly sensitive documents tracing the decisions on torture during the Bush administration's war on terror, the high court judges voiced exasperation that the British government hasn't acted in what they said was the British public interest in being similarly open.

Read the rest of this post...

Are you more popular than the Republican party?

You are if your name is: Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

Or if you're the communist dictatorship of China.

You're also more popular than the GOP if you're the legalization of pot.

And France, archnemesis of all unthinking conservatives, is nearly twice as popular than the GOP.

Chris Bowers has more. Read the rest of this post...

Houston, We Have A Solution

Texas wants to secede? Don't let Oklahoma kick your ass on the way out. Another video from our buddy Andy Cobb:



You can watch more of Andy's hilarious political videos here and here. Read the rest of this post...

The latest on the religious right's "Right to Kill"

Focus on the Family, one of the lead religious right groups, published an article yesterday, opposing adding gender, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity to the existing Hate Crimes law that already covers race, religion and national origin.

Under "hate-crimes" laws like H.R. 1913, pastors could be prosecuted for preaching the biblical view of homosexuality. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad.

"The homosexual activists' mantra is no longer tolerance — it's embrace and promote," said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action. "Anything less will be silenced. Christians must speak up."

That's an outright lie. The law covers violent acts. It doe not cover speech. No pastor is going to be prosecuted unless he's an accessory to murder. And I seriously hope Focus on the Family is not suggesting that their pastors now have the religious right to murder people they disapprove of.

Second, Focus on the Family appears to be lying to its members about similar laws being used to prosecute religious speech. In Sweden, the only country they can point to, it was a "hate speech" law - a law that specifically regulated hateful speech directed at an entire class of citizens - that got a preacher in trouble (mind you, this is Europe we're talking about - they have a rather unique history of nasty men with mustaches using hate speech to kill millions). Regardless, we don't have hate speech laws in America, and if we did, they'd be unconstitutional and struck down by those "activist judges." The US Hate CRIMES law is about violent crimes, not about speech. And to the degree that anyone has tried to stifle speech under the US' existing hate crimes law, by filing a frivolous lawsuit, I'd love to hear about how successful those court cases have been. I'd be willing to bet that the religious right can't show one case where a pastor lost because he said something hateful in church.

Name the case, now.

It's all a lie in the name of God. Seems the far-right fundamentalists have learned something from their Mormon overseers (it's called Lying for the Lord, google it, it's a Mormon speciality).

Then there's this:

The legislation is also unnecessary.

Whitehead cites FBI stats showing that of the nearly 1.5 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2007, just 1,460 were reportedly based on "sexual orientation."

Wait, I'm confused. If there aren't that many hate crimes against gays, then how will there be a tsunami of cases where religious right preachers will be thrown into jail as a result of such crimes? Read the rest of this post...

Apoplectic over possible torture investigation, Wall Street Journal claims bipartisanship when the GOP never engaged in the first place

I hate to link to the extremely right wing Wall Street Journal editorial page, but today it's warranted. Today's editorial shows just how delusional the uber-conservatives are these days -- and how much they fear accountability:

Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

The new era of bipartisan respect never actually happened. Obama tried to initiate it, but the Republicans never accepted his offer. And, since the election, the Republicans have done everything possible to undermine the new administration. Rush wants Obama to fail. No Republicans voted for the stimulus. The list of GOP inanities and attacks goes on and on and on...

The WSJ includes this nugget:

Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years.

How much more bitter can Republicans get? Next thing you know, they'll start having teabagging rallies with the most extreme of their dwindling numbers. (oh, wait, they did that.) And, Obama already saw that he doesn't have any GOP support on the Hill, with the exceptions of a couple Senate moderates.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 could be the moment when accountability and upholding the law again became the policy of the United States. If crimes were committed by our government, no matter who the president is, the American people have a right to know and there must be consequences. The Wall Street Journal editorial page was a leading right wing cheerleader for the Bush/Cheney administration. You'd expect them to oppose finding the truth. But, it won't be Obama and the country who "will live to regret" the truth, it's the Bush administration officials who allowed torture and undermined the principles of our country. Bush and Cheney injected the poison into our politics. Obama needs to provide the anti-venom to rid of us that poison. Read the rest of this post...

For first time since early 2004, more Americans think nation is heading in the right direction than not

It must have killed AP's Ron Fournier (Karl Rove's pal who almost worked for McCain) to write this article. But, the numbers are what they are -- and the Americans are feeling better about the direction of the country. For the first time in a long time, more Americans think we're going in the right direction. That's the kind of change we needed:

[T]he percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track.

Not since January 2004, shortly after the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has an AP survey found more "right direction" than "wrong direction" respondents. The burst of optimism didn't last long in 2004.

And it doesn't happen much.

Other than that blip five years ago, pessimism has trumped optimism in media polls since shortly after the invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003.

The "right track" number topped "wrong direction" for a few months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to non-AP media polls, and for several months late in the Clinton administration.

So far, Obama has defied the odds by producing a sustained trend toward optimism. It began with his election.

In October 2008, just 17 percent said the country was headed in the right direction. After his victory, that jumped to 36 percent. It dipped a bit in December but returned to 35 percent around the time of his inauguration and has headed upward since.

That's quite a turnaround. We have a president who appears to be working hard every day for the American people. We'll see how long it lasts. It's almost fitting that when Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are re-rearing their ugly heads and looking backwards, the American people are feeling hopeful and looking forward. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

The president is meeting with the leaders of the credit card companies today. He should beat the crap out of them. Some of that industry's practices border on usury and loan-sharking.

I suspect we'll see Dick Cheney pop up on Rush Limbaugh's show any day now. Cheney's already done Hannity. Cheney can't ignore the titular head of the party -- and Dick does love Rush (obviously, in that manly guy love way, not the gay love way.) Although, now that Limbaugh thinks he is head of the GOP, he may not want the competition from Cheney who seems to be making a play for head of the GOP.

Let's get it started... Read the rest of this post...

WSJ report: Bank of America CEO told to be quiet about Merrill Lynch

If this story is true it is very disturbing and raises many questions about Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, again. The other problem that this story raises is where has Congress been? As much as I think Andrew Cuomo is fantastic and exactly who we need to move this mess along it's hard to imagine where Congress has been. What are they doing? Are they so deeply tied to Wall Street that they can only put together made-for-nightly-news TV clips with snappy questions? Those meetings in front of TV cameras are consistently a big waste of time because they rarely accomplish anything other than keep the faces of a few in the nightly news reports. Great personal PR but what about follow through that benefits the public?

Meanwhile, Cuomo is getting the goods and will make the information public later today.

The Journal said in Thursday's edition that Lewis doesn't say in the transcript that he was told specifically to remain silent about Merrill's burgeoning losses. But the paper quotes Lewis as testifying that disclosing that information "wasn't up to me," and that he was warned by Paulson and Bernanke that failing to complete Merrill's takeover would "impose a big risk to the financial system."

Citing a person familiar with the matter, the newspaper said Paulson told the NY AG's office last month that Lewis may have misread some remarks about Treasury's disclosure requirements as instead pertaining to his bank's obligations.

The government helped orchestrate the acquisition of Merrill by Bank of America over the same weekend in September that another investment bank, Lehman Brothers, went under and insurer AIG received its initial government support. Both the government and Wall Street were under substantial pressure to contain the financial meltdown.

It may even be worth calling in Paulson to speak in front of the cameras one more time just to see the look on his face. Read the rest of this post...

IMF predicts worst global recession since WWII

The IMF delivered an ugly update on the global economy yesterday. In their view, the recession will remain challenging through 2009 with positive change in 2010 though it may not happen until 2011. They are repeating their belief that more stimulus programs will be required (cough, Europe, cough, cough) now. Waiting will be too late. Despite grumbling by the non-believers in the GOP (non-believing in an economic crisis) the US was relatively fast about a plan and China, to the credit of the Beijing government, has been in the lead as well. The foot-draggers will be complaining in a few years about woulda-coulda-shoulda but today they remain smug in their belief that this is not so much their problem, but the problem of others. Good luck with that strategy in the next elections. More from the AP:

"The global downturn guarantees that countries all over the world will be hit with extraordinarily high unemployment rates," Sinai said. "And, with the tremendous number of unemployed people comes the possibility of political unrest."

Also rising crime as millions more are forced into poverty and out of their homes, he and others said.

"By any measure," the downturn is the deepest since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the IMF said in its latest World Economic Outlook. "All corners of the globe are being affected."

In the UK, despite some claims of "green shoots" in the economy, the Bank of England seemed to back up the IMF report by reporting no obvious signs of change. Read the rest of this post...

Archbishop Tutu suggests disenchanment with ANC

It's doubtful there will be much of a change from the post-apartheid election landslide though Tutu's words definitely suggest a cloudy future for the liberation party in South Africa. Tutu remains a respected voice in South Africa and the world and has rarely shied from speaking his mind. At this time is sounds like a "wait and see" approach to the new ANC under Jacob Zuma. The Independent:

"In the first years of our freedom most people would have tended to vote ANC, now it is no longer quite so straightforward," the retired Cape Town cleric and Nobel laureate said. "I feel good but it isn't like the previous elections. Quite unlike previous elections, there's a lot of heart-searching." Dr Tutu, who has publicly questioned whether the ANC leader Jacob Zuma is fit to govern, refused to reveal who he had voted for yesterday.

Many in the ruling party, buoyed by a strong campaign and favourable opinion polls, believe that they will come close to maintaining their 70 per cent share of the vote.

However the Archbishop warned them against viewing South Africans as "voting cattle" in what appeared to be a coded call for a protest ballot against the ANC. "People have to make decisions and some decisions go against the inclinations," he said.

When we were there six years ago the daily debate was which direction the country would go. On Monday we were ready to move there permanently and by Tuesday morning, there wasn't a remote chance of even considering it. I had to stop reading the newspapers because of the brutal violence that was no longer front page news, but instead tucked away in the back pages along with traffic violations. (Slight overstatement, but not much.) And then there were discussions with friends about break ins or robberies. As dangerous as Thabo Mbeki was on the subject of AIDS he was otherwise a status quo type of leader. Nothing really moved either way.

Zuma's arrival suggests change of some sort. Will this mean radical land reform or housing for the poor or will it be business as usual, including big talk? Who knows? And that's exactly the daily problem in South Africa. Who knows? Read the rest of this post...

CNBC catches up - unemployment impacting housing

Ya don't say? Golly, this is radically new news and something that I never would have thought about other than a few dozen times going back to the start of this crisis.

...Now here's the bad part: Non-prime loan delinquencies increased by 23 percent. Prime loan delinquencies increased by 70 percent.

The prime loan delinquency increase is driven not by faulty loan products or falling home prices, but by job losses, plain and simple.

This current housing crash has distinguished itself from all previous because it was not caused by any economic downturn. Quite the contrary, it caused the economic downturn.

It's no wonder CNBC is the leading economic news source with this kind of coverage. Read the rest of this post...