Warning: The reader will note this is a rather lengthy entry. Your author will attempt his best at explaining the truth behind sub prime lending, the borrowers, the origination and impact that should be felt in our economy.

By now the cat is out of the bag and bad lending practices are causing nervous jitters in our equity markets. What began as a predictable slowdown in the real estate market has spilled over to the sub prime lending market. It should have never gotten this far. In fact the very existence of a sub prime market is an anomaly

Before the advent of sub prime lending, their customers were relegated to pawn shops and loan sharks. At one time this same customer base would have been sentenced to debtor’s prison if they were unable to meet their obligations. These customers, after all, had been deemed a credit risk.

Trees don’t grow forever said a wise person and the same thought can be applied to any market. Real estate, stocks, bonds or cattle futures will not continue to appreciate to infinity. Despite this always being the case a group usually tied to the big media machine feel they can redefine this principle. What ultimately and always happens is a massive sell off, which is often described as a ‘crash’. It really isn’t a crash in the clinical sense as the market crash of 1929 but rather proof of the consequences when supply and demand fail to meet equilibrium. In the case of 1929 banks became insolvent and there were no monies to purchase anything much less stocks or bonds.

During the Clinton Administration the US Treasury decided to buy back and retire the 30 year Treasury Bond. While this sounds great, since in essence it gives the impression that the national debt is being paid down, it produces liquidity. The government is buying back and the previous holders are left with money. Then as we know the Federal Reserve lowered borrowing rates to a historically low level.

What would result was an ample supply of cheap money.

On the fundamental side the US dollar suffers from a national debt and trade deficit. Despite the Fed’s claim that inflation is ‘in check’ your author argues that if they said what was apparent that a massive sell off in both the equity and bond markets would occur. Your author believes that inflation does certainly exist and it is much higher than the Fed’s claims. Your author cites the run up in commodity prices, most notably gold, silver and oil. Major currencies such as the Canadian dollar, Japanese yen, the British pound sterling and the EU euro have all appreciated against the dollar. Additionally real estate carries little in distinguishing characteristics and that too can be considered a commodity. Appreciation in commodity prices has always been a sign of a weak home currency. The message sent by their appreciation is that investors are seeking a storage for value.

Now as we all know the big media machine has given scant commentary of the American economy, despite the low unemployment rate and continual annual GDP growth of 3%. However they have now decided to jump on the implosion of the sub prime market as it relates to the underwriters and borrowers. The finance companies are referred to as practicing ‘predatory lending’ and the borrowers as ‘victims’.

First the word victim is tossed around way too often in the bias media machine that we need to pull up the definition. Stated by Webster’s Dictionary:

One that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment.

Nowhere does Webster state that customers lacking the means of repayment or possessing a poor credit history while attempting to live beyond their means are considered to be victims.

However last year repayment or living beyond your means did not concern Reverend Jesse Jackson, who is described as a civil rights activist by the press. Jackson, founder of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, claimed that America’s minorities remained an untapped market and were swimming under the current of economic prosperity. Apparently Jackson wasn’t informed when the US Census released data that showed the growth of minority owned business grew at its highest rate for the past 10 years. Nevertheless in October 2006 Jackson opened up the Small Business Institute. He felt more could be done and called on the American financial industry to facilitate micro credit lending. This is a tool used to jumpstart local economies in developing nations. The typical loan usually totals less than $3,000.

In many ways sub prime lending is similar to micro-credit lending the exception being a house is often used as collateral. The common thread is the risk bore by the lender is indeed greater than usual.

Now that sub prime mortgages are defaulting at alarming but not surprising rates, home foreclosures jumped 12% in February, interesting questions are starting to rise. The first being the credit standards, items such as 100% loan to value ratios, not considering the future impact when rates change and the borrower’s personal credit history.

What sub prime lending did was create an illusion that it was acceptable to live beyond one’s means. Many of the homes purchased through this type of lending were north of $400,000 in appraised values and over 1,000 in square footage. The borrowers could barely make their monthly payment. Remember reader no one held a gun to their head and forced them to sign the mortgage.

Now that the real estate market has slowed down and in some regions halted to a grinding stop, rates have increased and repayment is uncertain. This is a simple lesson in basic economics.

Where is the good Reverend now? Well recently he gathered a flock at the University of Chicago’s Gleacher Center to call for action. No not better credit policies or user greater scrutiny when reviewing one’s credit history but rather mass protesting to prevent more foreclosures. Jackson is showing his typical leftism by wanting the federal government to step in and provide a bail out package. He doesn’t understand basic economics and therefore should not be involved in the micro-credit lending or any other type of financing for that matter. He and others like him are attempting to rewrite the American dream and substituting hard work and self-reliance for being owed something for nothing.

Readers, tools of the American Left, such as Jackson and his coalition, should never be allowed access to the free market system. They themselves are already too far gone with a saturating sense of entitlement and lack of personal responsibility. If anything their involvement in the ebb and flow would bankrupt such an entity. The author advises the reader to analyze the sub prime meltdown and ask themselves should they be responsible for the poor decisions made by others.

On March 22 former North Carolina Democrat Senator, failed 2004 Vice Presidential nominee and current contender for the Presidential nominee John Edwards revealed that his wife Elizabeth had stage IV breast cancer. The Edwards stated the cancer had metastasis to the bone and possibly had spread to her lungs. The cancer was described as incurable but treatable.

The big media machine had spun the announcement so that it suggested that if Senator Edwards won the 2008 Presidential election that his wife may actually die while he would be in Office. A moral debate began asking the question ‘should Edwards continue his Presidential campaign?’. Opinions over the issue were divided, some suggested Edwards should bail out and care for his wife, foregoing his own professional desires while others suggested the Edwards were braving it all and were committed to their supporters. Something that did occur but has received little mention is that following the announcement contributions to the Edwards’ campaign had skyrocketed. By some estimates donations increased the existed funds by 50%, placing their total at over one million dollars. Prior to the announcement the Edwards’ campaign had been described as ‘languishing’.

Today in a snippet that is not receiving enough coverage from the media machine is that Mrs. Edwards’ doctors have estimated her life expectancy of at least 10 years. Your author does not wish to appear callous but the reader should pause when assessing the events surrounding Edwards and his wife. If what the doctors stated is indeed true why was the media so consumed with the previously mentioned moral debate? Why didn’t the Edwards wait and release the life expectancy estimation when they first stated the her medical condition? As always the reader should ponder such implications and drawn their own conclusion.

$3.8 billion for agriculture disaster relief, which would alleviate several disasters experienced during the past year. One such disaster would include the freeze that impacted the California citrus industry, a freeze that was probably spurned by global warming. Your author questions the need for some of this funding when farmers are required to maintain crop insurance.

An increase in tobacco taxes that would fund health insurance for poor children. When poor children make up the smoking population your author will support such logic.

$3.5 million allocated for Washington DC tourists who wish to see Congress in action.

In Peter Schweizer’s book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles In Liberal Hypocrisy the author echoes your writer’s sentiment that self professed liberals, at least those elected to higher office, often will attempt to influence national policy when they themselves don’t necessarily always subscribe to the same principles. It will often take decades to realize that these policies are often failures and at least another decade to dismantle them. Your author could burn up his blog with constant examples but the reader is best served to research and determine if such policies have failed and answer the tough questions, such as what has it cost our society both in monetary and societal cohesiveness? This isn’t to say that self described conservatives, who often aren’t what they claim, don’t also put forth similar disastrous policies. However the attention devoted to the left’s cause often dwarfs that of the right side of the political spectrum.

This weekend Democrat Congressman Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island, son of Massachusetts’ senior Senator and fellow Democrat Ted Kennedy, gave an interview for NBC’s ‘Today Show’. As many will recall Representative Kennedy crashed his Ford Mustang into a Capitol Hill barricade during the early morning hours of May 4, 2005. Kennedy who appeared incoherent and under the influence claimed he was late for a vote and was driven home by police officers. The officers did not administer a sobriety test, which would have been vanilla procedure in this case, despite an account of witnesses stating that Kennedy had been drinking at the Hawk & Dove bar moments before the incident. Kennedy would later state he had no recollection of the crash and then check himself into the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota for substance abuse rehabilitation.

A decent person would have resigned from public office or not sought reelection. Patrick is a Kennedy, this means he is special and literally above the law as history has shown us when researching Massachusetts’ first family. Instead the Rhode Island Democrat Party endorsed him and he won another two year term in 2006.

During his interview Kennedy confessed that he was being treated for abusing the painkiller OxyContin, also known on the street as ‘hillbilly heroin’. He never divulged how he obtained the narcotic since a doctor’s prescription is required nor how long had he been abusing the substance. Kennedy in a stereotypical self serving manner said the following:

"I am also feeling that same sense of stigma in my life, and that’s why I can empathize with millions of Americans who feel that sense of shame at calling themselves addicts and alcoholics".

This was on the heels of introducing legislation with Representative Jim Ramstad, Republican from Minnesota who admits to being a recovering alcoholic since 1981. The legislation proposal is named after deceased Democrat Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, who was killed in a plane crash in October 2002. Many will recall that it Wellstone’s memorial service that turned into a political rally led primarily by Democrats. The outcome of the event solidified for your author just how far the Democrat Party had sunk in their arrogance and desperation. Wellstone, who could have been considered ‘second tier’ among his fellow colleagues because of his lack of national recognition, was consider left of center. Reviewing his political thoughts and voting record, he is better described as being far left, similar to Ohio’s Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

The proposed bill would require that health insurance be shackled and not exert their discrimination when it comes to services they are willing to pay. In other words removing the health insurance company’s power and what is in their best interest to stay profitable. Who pays for this in the end if such legislation is passed? -the policyholders and business owners who have medical coverage for employees. In other words Kennedy and Ramstad think you and your employer should pay for someone’s dope habit. This would all be well and fine if we had been there to introduce them to whatever substance the person started to abuse.

For the record your author doesn’t believe the legislation will pass and is just another example of a self professed liberal attempting to exploit their experience in the hopes of forcing society to adapt to some type of unnecessary change. Personally your author would rather see a program where an insurer pays for gym fees on an annual basis in the hopes of alleviating some of the overweight members of our society who are most certainly to be a burden on our healthcare system in decades to come. Of course membership renewals would be based on annual inspections to determine if the overweight members had lost their weight. No scratch the idea of health insurers paying for such things make the gym fees an income tax deduction!

Kennedy would be best served to retire from elected office but as your author pointed out that won’t happen in his lifetime. Unlike the case of disgraced Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley, Kennedy is entitled to his Congressional job and the Rhode Island voters don’t seem to mind that he serves them. Patrick Kennedy believes he and others who suffer from addiction are entitled to your pockets to treat their shortcomings, tossing out the notion of ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘self reliance’. Both concepts that when ignored produce unproductive members of our society.

What happens when the Congress outright attempts to dictate to the President his power and job duties? You have no reason to have a President. This is exactly what several US Senators, most notably Democrat Chuck Schumer from New York and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, are trying to pull as they attempt to define controversy for the big media machine and the American public.

Several months ago President Bush suggested action should be taken against nine US Attorneys who fall under the governance of the Department of Justice. For those who are still serving lattes at Starbucks and subscribe to moveon.org, the Department falls under the command of the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.

Reader we must understand that the US Attorneys are appointed by the President. They may not be the most qualified. However if they are known to or have the President on their side the job is theirs. It is an important position that relies exclusively on the idea of political appointment, which doesn’t mean that competency will be the order of the day.

Recently Attorney General Gonzalez then set about canning them one by one or accepting their resignations. The big media machine and their complementary left leaning subscribers have called this action rooted in political persuasion. Your reader first must question this claim. This means that quite possibly President Bush would have appointed a left leaning flaming liberal to a post? This is the logic they are using. As if Presidential Administrations are that diverse in their thought and wish to embrace differences. This argument falls on lunacy and hopefully will be dismissed.

No President Bush could have cared less about diversity or political persuasion as the Wall Street Journal pointed out recently in a March 14 edition. Quoting from the Journal-

....The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do....

Readers this is the reason why they were canned and not some far flung conspiracies, which is being suggested by the liberal media types. As this piece points out voter fraud allegations are serious and should have been dealt with years ago. Voter fraud allegations and threats of lawsuits against voter machine company Diebold have been commonly used when a Democrat loses an election or the vote is a close count. This shows your author that those who suggest voter fraud aren’t genuinely concerned about these allegations but rather to create what is genuine controversy. Additionally there are current cases involving charges of corruptions against several Democrat Congressmen that appear to have slowed down in the past twelve months. What Bush and Gonzalez have attempted to do is uphold and respect our Democracy and within the letter of the law.

Rewind to 1993 when incoming President Bill Clinton was taking Office. His first order of business was to can not 9 but 93 US Attorneys. This met little in the way of criticism by the big media machine and not a single Democrat voiced the word ‘unprecedented’, which is quickly becoming the description for President Bush’s action. In fact if anyone questioned this action they were reminded that the US Attorneys served at the behest of the President and were appointed by him as such, which your author has pointed out.

However in the case of Clinton there may have been political if not legal maneuverings behind his decision. Although never proven, hey that has never stopped the Left in their constant barrage of criticism of President Bush the issue of Whitewater was looming in the Clintons’ background. President Clinton had then US Attorney General Janet Reno sack 93 US Attorneys. Two US Attorneys who were sacked that brought some attention were from Arkansas and Illinois. An investigation was looking into the failed Madison Guaranty Savings and Loans as it related to President Clinton and his friends, the crux of the Whitewater investigation. Additionally close Clinton pal and then Congressman Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois was also being investigated for his role in House Postal Scandal, which brought allegations of check kiting and washing questionable monies. Rostenkowski and Democrat Congressman Joseph Kolter of Pennsylvania were eventually sentenced to prison after pleading to mail fraud charges. As far as Whitewater, Clinton appointed political hack and pal Paula Casey, who tried in vain to impede the investigation.

Compare the cases of Bush and Clinton, the readers can decide for themselves what is controversial and what is not, then they can intelligently gauge the big media machine and Democrats’ spin on President Bush and US Attorney General Gonzalez.

Today the media reported Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted to being the mastermind behind a multitude of terrorist strikes against the US and our allies. Mohammed admitted to either financing, training or conspiring the first World Trade Center attacks in 1993, what your author calls former President Clinton’s inability to grasp the seriousness of a global epidemic, the Richard Reed attempted shoe bombing incident and the 9-11 attacks. These three should be noted as just a few from a laundry list he has provided to his captors. It is safe for the reader to assume that if the camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba had not been installed Mohammed’s confession and the other intelligence gathered for the War Against Terror would not have happened. Understanding the relationship between detaining terrorist suspects and the pursuit to ensure Western Civilization is preserved is critical.

Roll call time now; the American Left, which is represented by the rank and file Democrat Party, wanted to all but abandon Camp Guantanamo. Several on both sides of the aisle decided they had more to prove to the detainees and not to the safety of American society.

Senator Arlen Specter, a pseudo Republican from Pennsylvania that relied upon President Bush’s endorsement to become reelected, wished to restore the habeas corpus for the detainees. This would have allowed detainees to challenge their imprisonment. This also meant they would have access to the US court systems and not ones overseen by the military. It also meant that a publicly funded lawyer would represent them. Specter’s actions were par for the course given his past record of opposing wiretaps being conducted on behalf of the National Security Agency.

In December 2005 the American enemy known as the ACLU issued a letter to members of Congress urging them to vote ‘NO’ as it related to bills introduced by Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham that would have called for limited liability on government officials who imposed what they described as torture techniques to obtain data from detainees. Additionally the ACLU called for the US Supreme Court to oversee any legal action brought forth as a result of  Guantanamolace Bay. The ACLU certainly enjoys redefining Constitutional rights as it relates to non US citizens and places that aren’t necessarily covered by US laws.

Democrat Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin issued a letter to the President outright calling for a change in lGuantanamol Bay, essentially siding with the ACLU. He even goes on to say that the Bush Administration has been too focused on Iraq and has ignored al Qaeda. Wake up good Senator, there hasn’t been a terrorist attack since 9-11 and the Iraq War must be accomplishing something of significance.

Loveable liberal Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy from the maple syrup bastion known as Vermont has referred to as Guantanamo Bay as a disgrace and liken it to the events surrounding Abu Ghraib prison. In his letter he also ties a lack of international cooperation with combating terrorist as a direct result of the prison camp. Nothing could be further from the truth as plenty of countries have joined the US in attempting to wipe out radical Islam.

Readers if the ACLU and just this sample of Senators had their way the confession from Mohammed would have never been known. There would have been no reason for him to say anything in so long as tax payer funded lawyers defended him in front of the Supreme Court. It is becoming more apparent to your author that many on our Senate floor, most notably critical and seasonal Democrats, are having a time politicizing the issue of national security. When it comes to national security and terrorists, who won’t abide by any legal statute that prohibits torture, there is no room for debate.

There has been little mention about a recent meeting between Louisiana Democrat Governor Kathleen Blanco and several Democrat members of Congress, most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The meeting was what to do about affordable housing in post hurricane Katrina New Orleans. At the end of the day two things happened, one a proposal for $500 million in funding for development primarily geared around affordable housing and two, the waiving of the Stafford Act.

In short the Stafford Act requires states to match a portion of federal funds used to facilitate relief following a natural disaster. This means New Orleans will receive a purse load to rebuild. This would be fine and dandy if this money was going to anywhere but New Orleans. A simple socio-economic and political history course about Louisiana will tell the students that the state has a culture of corruption and unaccountability. What can Blanco and others do to ensure the American citizenry that these funds won’t be squandered away? Your author remembers the inability displayed by Governor Blanco during and after the Katrina disaster, which was followed by the politicization of the ferocious storm. The attention devoted to post Katrina by the Bush Administration was labeled racist and evil by many in the big media machine because he did not send US troops immediately to the disaster zone. Once again those same critics failed to grasp the concept of the Third Amendment. Then as most know New Orleans’ Mayor Ray Nagin began to make the Katrina aftermath into a ‘black issue’ and yet has still offered a comprehensible rebuilding plan.

Who will oversee the development of this affordable housing? The very idea of affordable housing manipulates the free market system as it relates to real estate and development. In fact the market always corrects itself as we are seeing now in the slowing housing market, thereby making housing to most quite affordable. Speaker Pelosi of San Francisco certainly has no experience in affordable housing or those of a black community considering that her city’s population is only 4% non-white. San Francisco also boasts some of the most expensive housing in the nation along with one of the highest crime rates. And she calls herself a liberal?

Speaking of Mrs. Pelosi did any of the readers note her recent failing in leadership? In a previous blog entry the writer authored a piece detailing the void that she suffers from when looking for strong leaders. Your author will paint the picture for you.

You are William Jefferson, Democrat Congressman representing Louisiana’s 2^nd Congressional District, which means nearly the entire city of New Orleans. Some may even call you ‘the fridge’ as we will soon find out why. You are an influential player in New Orleans’ political machine. Since May 2005 you have been under investigation for corruption. You are suspected in taking a bribe from iGate Inc., a tech company based in Louisville, in exchange for recommending that the US Army use their broad band technology. You then shuffle an estimated $400,000 in bribes to a corporate entity that is in the name of your wife and children. In June 2005 the FBI will videotape you receiving a $100,000 payment in bills. On August 3 the FBI will raid your home and recover the funds, which were tucked in a freezer and refrigerator. Probably on the advice of your attorney and the fact that an ongoing investigation is still being conducted, you won’t explain why this large sum of cash was found in your residence.

Attention devoted to your investigation is broken during and after Hurricane Katrina. However you once again fail to avoid the limelight after arriving in storm torn New Orleans and command a National Guard truck to shuttle you back to your residence to retrieve a briefcase and laptop computer. Your timing is perfect as the National Guard must momentarily pause during their search and rescue mission.

In January 2006 your dominoes tumble more when your aide Brett M. Pfeffer implicates your involvement in corrupt dealings with a Nigerian based company. In May 2006 iGate’s CEO Vernon Jackson takes a plea and admits to bribing an elected official. The court documents do not name you but it is quite apparent who owns the identity of a particularly elected official. In September of that year Jackson receives a seven year sentence. That same month Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, then minority leader, finally calls for your resignation from your chair on the House Ways and Means Committee. It wasn’t so much Pelosi’s own conscience that called for this action but rather Democrats protesting Jefferson’s refusal to step down.

In November 2006 despite the criminal implications, New Orleans reelects you back to the House in a hot and tight election. The very fact that New Orleans would elect a potential felon to higher office is no surprise given their past with former Klan wizard David Duke and his brief foray into politics.

In May 2006 President Bush orders the US Department of Justice and the FBI to raid Jefferson’s Congressional office. The action behind this removal was because during the previous New Orleans residential raid Jefferson was believed to have attempted to remove evidence. Additionally his actions during hurricane Katrina spoke volumes as he removed items that were considered odd. Republicans and Democrats both cried foul. The FBI and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales both announced they would retire if the President caved in and returned the items. A poll conducted by ABC News stated that 86% of their viewers who took the poll agreed with Bush’s unprecedented actions. In other words elected officials and their domain, a publicly funded office, were not above the law.

A bigger and better person would have stepped down. A bigger and better person may have already admitted to the charges, if true, being slung around. However you are William “The Fridge” Jefferson, Democrat Congressman from the "Chocolate City" also known as New Orleans.

The reader would think that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would attempt to avoid further discussion regarding Jefferson. One would think she would do everything in her power to distance herself and the House from courting Jefferson. This is not the case. Pelosi has caved to criticism from the Black Congressional Caucus and appointed Jefferson to a post on the Homeland Security Committee. Her conceding to the wishes of the Caucus tells your author that she is desperate for cohesion within her own party. This is a problem already predicted by your author in a previous blog entry. Still in her grasp for power Mrs. Pelosi has thrown out common sense and decency, that being taking an elected official who is currently under a federal investigation and entertaining the idea that he should hold a leadership position. She is currently stalling on an official statement making her intentions to nominate Jefferson. This is probably due to Democrats, particularly those 42 who campaigned as ‘Blue Dog’ conservatives and Republicans having already threatened a roll call vote. This would ensure that Jefferson would not get the seat.

Reader this is the best and the brightest from the American Left. Thankfully your author feels certain, as should the reader, that their time in the sun will be very short.

While away from his blog your author was quite entertained by the shenanigans of Democrat Senators Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama during a recent stint at Selma, Alabama. Both are vying for the Democrat Presidential nomination.

While Barak Obama, who in your author’s opinion is enjoying putting it to Mrs. Clinton, it was the outlandish pandering performed by the Madam Senator that struck your author. Besides her awful attempt at affecting a southern accent and her mention of New Mexico’s governor Bill Richardson, who claims he could be the first Hispanic President, it was Mrs. Clinton’s desire to drudge up the past that made your author take note.

As many know or should know Selma is where the earliest signs of the civil rights movement of the 1960s began. This town was the birthplace of one of the greatest demographic and cultural shifts to ever impact the States. However in the cases of Clinton and Obama they continue on with the common myth that current black America is still facing the same denials as experienced some 40 years ago.

Why is that some cannot let go of the past? Your author can only say that some have built an identity around this timeframe. Others such as Jesse Jackson wish to exploit it for profit; while some such as Obama look to test the waters to determine if there is fruit to be found. It is Senator Clinton that should know better. She fails to mention how a US Census report that failed to make the mention among the press dubbed civil rights leaders-Reverends Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP-the fact that black owned businesses have grown in leaps and bounds over the past decade. Nor did she mention the burgeoning black middle class in America that fails to garner attention from the big media machine.

No Mrs. Clinton was peddling to the lowest common denominator. Once again how Washington DC has failed them. How the government has ignored them whether it be with the events following hurricane Katrina or whatever else she can levy against the Bush Administration. Of course she takes no personal responsibility, particular the eight years she served as First Lady, for the failures but rather places the blame on some unknown, invisible entity. Mrs. Clinton and her colleagues would be best advised to review the latest census information as the state of Alabama claims a poverty level of 17% while the town of Selma’s is almost twice that amount with 31%. One must question why this historical town has been quite possibly left behind while the state has advanced forward.

Readers currently the American Liberals refer to themselves as ‘Progressive Liberals’, which is a descriptive used decades ago. They want you to think of them as progressive. Playing with semantics, your author draws the conclusion that if you disagree with them you are regressive or you wish to go back. However in the case of Mrs. Clinton, Obama and several others who are vying for the Democrat Presidential nomination, they seem to wish to revisit the past or attempt to point out that the civil rights struggle is alive and well in 2007. In other words they wish to be regressive. They are anything but progressive.

Your author must apologize for a rather late entry. Just as with American society and the big media machine that reports on it, he too has lowered the standard with opining of the day’s events. The reader should not be remiss for after a break your author has returned to the forefront.

The Anna Nicole Smith ‘story’ (there is no story) has become the media machine’s version of hard news. This didn’t stop the media from bombarding the viewing and reading audience with regular updates following the aftermath. While her death was predictable, in your author’s opinion, a train wrecking waiting to happen; it was the media’s obsession that surprised your author. There was probably 7-10 days devoted to the death of former President Gerald Ford, yet it has been nearly a month and the media is still giving you the reader updates on what will be a long and drawn out court battle that will mediate over her daughter’s paternity and the millions her estate stands to inherit from the suit brought by her against the family of the late billionaire J. Howard Marshall. If it wasn’t for Marshall, Smith would still be an aspiring Playboy model and stripper, gyrating at the same dive when Marshall became smitten with her.

As we all know the oil tycoon Marshall died at the age of 90 in 1995. The marriage was brief and Smith inheritance was contested by Marshall’s late son E. Pierce Marshall as she stood to gain close to $500 million. During the court battle, which would be ruled and appealed numerous times, Smith took up an interest with her lawyer Howard K. Stern. Her lawyer was eventually faced with a choice-sever his relationship with Smith or be dismissed from his law firm. He chose to engross himself in her roller coaster lifestyle, which was briefly documented in a reality television program and set up shop in a Santa Monica apartment, operating a talent management called Hot Smoochie Lips, Inc. and boasting one client-Smith herself.

Anna Nicole Smith gives hope your author supposes to those who only wish to grab on to some amount or degree of fame, fifteen minutes or otherwise. This is the only explanation your author can conjure up to explain the big media machine’s obsession with her. It was quite obvious, if physical behavior and speech are in any sign, that at least for the past several years and until her death that Anna Nicole Smith was under the influence of narcotics. In fact allegations of methadone use have been levied to explain her often erratic behavior. Methadone was among several drugs found in her son Daniel’s body following his untimely death in September 2006.

Additionally there was her attorney Stern who violated ethical protocol when he decided to become her defacto entertainment manager. Your author feels comfortable believing those multi millions she would receive from the Marshall estate allowed him tolerance for her behavior. And in the end several supposed suitors will battle it out to determine her daughter’s paternity, a child that stands to gain more money than all of these characters combined can fathom.

There have been many comparisons between Smith and the late Marilyn Monroe. Their shared physical features that of the buxom blond bombshell, are obvious. Unlike Monroe, Smith did not have a remarkable film career. Smith’s films border on T&A cupcake cinema. However being used and at the end of spent, dying in a wake of drug abuse and controversy is their saddest shared characteristic.

The legacy of Smith and others of similar backgrounds should not be used as fodder for established news services, at least not the devotion it has been allotted. However when one considers the desperate ratings game many of the big media machine pursue and a sample of an obvious target audience; it is no wonder the popularity of such coverage.

What happens when a Democrat governor proposes the same education reform agenda that a previous Republican governor implemented? While the media rips apart the Republican governor they are awfully quiet when the Democrat suggests the idea.

Reader, recently there was mention of Democrat Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York and his proposal to hold public schools accountable. In order for schools to receive the $7billion in planned funding they must produce results. He is also suggesting limiting school board members’ terms. He has even uttered the two words that make every lawmaker who are beholden to the teacher’s union cringe-school vouchers. He still has to navigate his way through Albany’s Assembly. They in fact actually control the ultimate outcome as it relates to education because of limited powers held by the governor.

Now rewind to when the same words were spoken by then Florida Republican Governor Jeb Bush as it related to accountability for schools. He was demonized by many in the media and in particular by the teacher’s union. Thus far Spitzer is getting a free pass.

Meanwhile ambulance chaser trial lawyer, ultra-rich and failed 2004 Democrat Vice- Presidential nominee John Edwards, former Senator from South Carolina, is dragging something out of the past in hopes of distinguishing himself from the current crop of Democrats vying for the 2008 Presidential nomination. Edwards wants universal healthcare for the States. He wants to throw on more taxes and make a competitive entity. The problem is having the government as a competitive industry scratches Socialism and nothing good has ever come out of such system. Once again, like so many who believe that universal care is a feasible solution, Edwards has never lived in a country that has such a program. He doesn’t understand how medical professionals often leave such countries or just find another career because their salaries are in essence capped. He won’t explain how as cost rises so does the need for more funding (tax increase). He won’t speak of people dying while waiting in line for services. In fact no proponent of such idea can answer these questions or queries because if they did, no one in their right mind would buy it and if the reader would like some investment advice, as said before, buy stock in private healthcare providers located in Canada.

Whether it’s the media not giving Spitzer the routine criticism provided only for conservatives or Edwards’ dead end drum beating lunacy, the colors are coming through. The reader would be best advised to find the answers to their claims and make their own decisions.