These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

Even if Fannie and Freddie were to fail, the government doesn't bail them out.

Then in October of that same year he stated he worried the Treasury Department "would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of lowering the companies’ market risks."

Now in 2010, after it has become completely obvious that those he opposed seven years ago were completely right, he says this:

"Going forward it is clear we have to abolish this notion that there is a private shareholder corporation that also has a public mission, that’s clearly a mistake. The one thing I am sure of is that the kind of hybrid of a private shareholder company with a public mission doesn’t work and we have to separate the various functions.

And also this:

"Not everybody can or should be a homeowner. I think we should particularly stop this assumption that you put everybody into home ownership ... we have public policy [that] has been too much to try and push people into home ownership."

This last quote in particular, for anyone who's been paying attention the past ten years, is particularly contemptuous. The man who played a huge role in creating the assumption that everybody could, and should, be homeowners is now saying we should dispel it? And trying to take credit as if it was his idea all along??? My head is about to explode on this one.

If you put together a room of ten people that could be blamed for what happened to our housing market, he's in that room. And here he is, trying to take hold of the reigns again, leading the charge on something he obviously does not understand.

Barney: Get the hell out of the way bud. You drove the country into a ditch, you should be ashamed of yourself. Now let those who could see it coming, the people you mocked for their insight, let them take control so the good folks of this country can get back to work.

Oh, and bite me.

I get that movie makers really want folks to head out and pay those extra bucks to see it in a theater, but will that many people really stop going out to see movies? It seems to me, and maybe I'm completely wrong here, that most people go out to see movies in a theater for the experience itself. It's a social thing, a date thing, or just a quality of experience thing. I doubt allowing movies to just be watched at home the moment they're released in theater's would hurt that much, and call me crazy but I really believe a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have will pay to see the movie at home.

I know for me, I have zero issue paying for a movie. It's the right thing to do. Folks put in a lot of time, effort, and money to make the movie happen, you should give a little back for the experience. However having to wait for DVD releases, or "On Demand", is just plain annoying.

I don't like movie theaters. They seem to be filled with a copious amount of jerks now a days. Whether it's someone bringing their toddler (or younger) to a 10PM showing of a very adult movie, someone talking throughout the whole movie, someone taking phone calls, or someone constantly bumping your seat, the whole experience generally sucks.

Case and point, once at a movie with my girlfriend my seat began to be kicked from behind. I let it go until about the third kick, then turned around to see what was going on. This person, for whatever reason, was changing their shoes. This is not made up. I just looked at him with a bewildered expression, he apologized, and we moved on. Still, it's things like that that make the whole experience just a flat negative.

Please movie industry, I want to give you my money. Stop making it so damn hard on me to do so!

End of discussion.

-------------UPDATE 7/3/2010-----------------
Well, this officially blows. The Eagles have released an official statement regarding Vick. Long story short: they're keeping him barring any news of his involvement in the shooting incident.

I'll be keeping my fingers crossed, hoping the police turn up some evidence that puts him around at the time of the shooting. At this point I'm not confident that will happen. Even if he were around, it's likely any one else who was would cover for him at this point, other than the victim.

It's not carved in stone yet, but things are just looking worse and worse for the quarterback formerly known as Ron Mexico.

NBC Sports reports this morning that the police are taking a closer look at Vick and his potential involvement. Let's just quickly go over some of the information that has been coming out:

1) Vick and Quanis Phillips (guy who got shot) had issues with each other from the dog fighting days.

2) Quanis is on tape slapping Vick's girlfriends hand while trying to eat her cake (lol).

3) After that happens, Vick and Quanis have some words.

4) Vick leaves the club, three minutes later Quanis is shot in the direction Vick was heading leaving the club.

If this were a Law and Order episode, there would be some crazy twist and Vick would end up the victim of terrible circumstance. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and at the end he would be vindicated and we'd all have a feel good moment.

Unfortunately for Vick this is real life, where 99.99% of the time, a spade is a spade. IMHO, this spells the end of his career. As an Eagles fan, I'm planning a celebratory party as soon as it's made official that he's done.

The Eagles club has enough issues with their reputation, this trash has further tainted it for long enough.

It's obvious this "chasing money" plan for getting money from cigarette taxes will not work. As taxes increase, less people smoke, and as less people smoke, they are forced to further increase taxes. Believe it or not, eventually there really won't be enough people smoking to generate the funds our greedy government desires.

So here's the really important question that no one seems to be asking yet:

What comes next? NY state will obviously not do the intelligent thing, which would be balancing the budget without these revenues included. So how will they fill the gap moving forward?

The idea of a "sugar" tax has been floated, on things such as soda and candy bars. But honestly, people will just stop using them too.

The reason is less financial then it is societal. You see, to justify these taxes government needs to vilify the products being taxed. They need to convince people that they are bad parents if they allow their children to consume them. They need to put forth the idea that somehow you are less appealing or healthy as an individual if you consume them. Over time these silly notions have an effect, and eventually the societal pressures of your peers who have already conformed become so overbearing, or just plain annoying, that it becomes simpler for us to just find an alternative.

So even if sugar is the next target in the name of the public good, eventually a new target will need to be found. So let's think deeper here. What comes after that? It's important to consider all of this, because one thing I know for certain is that it won't end with either cigarettes or sugar.

Do you have a little guilty pleasure you enjoy, something that might be judged unhealthy or potentially damaging to the environment? You might want to start doing a personal audit of the things you enjoy in your life, and then start paying attention to politics, because you just might be the next one to sacrifice for the good of the whole.

I feel it is extremely important that people understand exactly how long you can collect unemployment at this point in time, and then think about whether or not you think these folks really could not find a job:

Unemployment insurance was intended as temporary relief for the jobless. Workers originally could collect benefits for up to 26 weeks, in most circumstances, and up to 39 weeks in areas of high unemployment.

But under multiple extensions already passed by Congress, workers can now collect payments for as long as 99 weeks — nearly two years — in states with the highest unemployment rates. Half of those on unemployment now have been receiving benefits for more than six months.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38990_Page2.html#ixzz0rs0ViyWS

It frustrates me that when telling such an important story, a story we all have a vested interest in, most leave out what is the most pertinent piece of information.

Now I don't want to devolve into a tirade on how many of these articles are back-handed swipes at Republican's. I am weary of such fights. I will however point out that in the articles which did not include the information above, one thing was included:

Washington Post

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined a united Republican caucus in voting to block the measure

Seattle Times

Republicans continue blockade of federal aid bill

Dallas News

Senate Republican's cite deficit, kill state fiscal aid

Associated Press

Stymied by GOP, Democrats at loss on jobs agenda

OzarksFirst.com

Republicans Block Extension of Unemployment Benefits

LA Times

Senate Republicans on Thursday once again blocked legislation to reinstate long-term unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their aid, prolonging a stalemate that has left more than a million people without federal help.

Examiner

Unemployment benefits extension denied: Republicans defeat Democrats' jobs bill

New York Magazine

Republicans Kill Democrats’ Unemployment Relief Bill

I could go on, but it's Friday, and it's time to start enjoying the day!

Amid the mounting frustration, UN chief Ban Ki-moon asked former US president Bill Clinton to "assume a leadership role" in coordinating the international aid, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky told a press briefing.

"The aim... is to provide strategic guidance to the United Nations involvement at an international level," Nesirky said.
Clinton added: "The trick is to get the Haitian people back where they can stop living from day-to-day and start living from week-to-week or month-to-month and then start the long-term efforts.

"They, the leaders there, want to build a functioning, modern state for the first time, and I will do what I can to faithfully represent and work with all the agencies of the UN and help them get it done," he added.

Really Bill, is that the "trick"? Brilliant, glad you're on top of things.

Long story short: Haiti is screwed. The people who are acting like they care are only doing this for their ego and any political gain that might come from being involved. I am willing to bet that ten years from now, Haiti will still be an absolutely hellish place to live.

Why wouldn't it be. How many times do you think something to the effect of Clinton's comments have been uttered? Great, Haiti wants to build a "functioning, modern state". What did they want before, an ass backwards broken state? If so, well done on that front.

What a horrible state of being for the Haitian people, and with nothing but talk from bureaucrats to sustain them. Too bad they can't eat speeches, they'd be in good shape.

One thing I can say with certainty, however, is that crises such as these lead to an absolutely incredible outpouring of stupid. Now I know this stupidity is predicated on the belief that self sacrifice is the most noble of causes, but can we at least allow logic to seep into the cracks of our altruistic grandeur? Just a little?

If you peruse Yahoo Answers, which I often do when I'm antsy, you'll find quite a bit of questions relating to Haiti these days. Now I know Yahoo Answers is not an accurate representation of any specific cross section of our culture (or species), but it is an easy way for me to point out a set of behaviors I feel are typical of the opportunist altruist.

Before I continue I feel it necessary to point out that I do understand the desire to help another human being in need. I am not a sadist. What bothers me is what we consider to be help, and what we consider not to be help. For instance, sometimes not helping can be the best way to help. To illustrate this particular point, we'll go back to Yahoo Answers:

Here is a question posted by "Pat", who I assume to be a young woman but could just as easily be a young man (damn androgynous names):

Does anyone know of an alternative spring break for Haiti?
I'd like to somehow go to Haiti for my school spring break and help out for a week. Does anyone know of an organization I could go through?

On its face this question seems harmless enough. Even a bit sweet. Hey, who wouldn't think it was nice of this young woman/man to dedicate her spring break time to go to Haiti and do some good. Everyone who answered this question seemed to agree, and were more than willing to give her options for getting herself to Haiti. Everyone except me that is.

If you're someone who agrees with some or most of the other things I've written, you've probably already figured out what bothers me about this. It probably bothers you too. You may even have had a conversation with your monitor right after reading this young woman's (I'm going with woman on this) question. I can't guess the exact nature of that conversation, but I'm willing to bet it was rather misanthropic.

So here's the problem: This young woman is in college. She has no skill set that would be useful in the current environment in Haiti. To the contrary, her presence there would be of serious detriment to the Haitian people. You see, once her little feet (I envision her as skinny and petite, who wants to envision an obese woman in Haiti?) touch the soil of Haiti, she is no different than the Haitian's currently stuck there. She will have no way to acquire food other than through that which is supported by aid groups, no way to get water, no shelter. And if she does acquire these things, which she likely will, she will only be taking away from those who truly needed it. She doesn't need it right now, she has food, water, shelter...she should stay where she is. Hence by not helping, she is helping.

Haiti doesn't need more unskilled laborers. They are essentially a nation that is made up of unskilled laborers. Their fertility rate is one of the higher rates in the western hemisphere, churning out more low level workers by the day. What they need are visionary engineers, folks who have a great deal of experience working with important infrastructural systems like water and power. They need mouths to feed that are truly worth feeding the scarce amount of food and water they currently have. People who bring the promise of Haiti becoming a better place to live in the future. I doubt this is what they'll get.

I had planned on discussing the money situation (i.e. donations, etc) with Haiti as well, but I have some other things I must attend too. In lieu of me explaining I'll let an unlikely source explain: MSNBC.

Donations of old clothes, canned goods, water and outdated prescriptions are accumulating, said Brooks. While such items sound useful, they’re actually expensive to sort, to transport and to distribute, she said. Cast-off drugs can be dangerous.

Oftentimes, the household items donated are simply not useful to the disaster victims they’re intended to help.

“I guarantee you someone is going to send a winter coat or high-heeled shoes,” Brooks said.

In fact, after the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004, aid organizers in Sri Lanka were forced to deal with donations of stiletto shoes, expired cans of salmon, evening gowns and even thong panties, according to news reports. In Florida, a truckload of mink coats showed up during the 2004 hurricane season, Rothe-Smith said, a likely tax write-off for a retailer having trouble pushing furs.

And they didn't even (shocker) mention the corruption involved in a government like Haiti. How exactly can you donate money in confidence to a place that hasn't made any progress with the aid it's received prior to a disaster?

Oh yeah, ignorance, I forgot.