Filed under: Foreign Policy, Liberalism, Politics, Russia, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: $70 Million Fare for Astronauts, Russia's Soyuz Rocket, The International Space Station
Russia will now ban the US from using the Space Station over our Ukraine sanctions. If the Obama administration is going to deny export licenses for some high-technology items, a blow to Russian industry, well two can play that game. They will also bar its rocket engines from launching U.S. military satellites, as it hits back at American sanctions imposed over the Ukraine crisis.
The two countries have long cooperated closely on space exploration in spite of clashes on foreign policy. The space station is manned by both Russian and American crews, but now the only way to get there is by using Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft. The U.S. now pays Russia $70 million per seat to transport American astronauts to the International Space Station.
Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin pointed out that Russia could use the station without the United States. “The Russian segment can exist independently from the American one. The U.S. one cannot.”
And they will suspend the operation of 11 GPS sites on Russian territory from June, and will seek talks with Washington on opening similar sites in the U.S. for Russia’s own navigation system Glonass. So there.
We will see how this all turns out. I would suggest, however, that Vladimir Putin is more accustomed to playing hardball.
Filed under: Politics, Environment, Media Bias, Global Warming, Energy, Democrat Corruption, Junk Science | Tags: A Political Distraction, The National Climate Assessment, Your Government Lies to You
The beleaguered Obama administration is anxious to change the national dialogue. Enough with the Benghazi, IRS, and Veterans Administration scandal talk. No more distractions about foreign policy and Russia, Crimea,
Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Israel, China.
Let’s change the subject to ‘The National Climate Assessment.’ If you are going to be scared, be scared about ‘Climate Change:’ “Due to Climate Change, THE WEATHER IS GETTING MORE EXTREME. Temperatures are rising across the United States. Temperatures from 2001 to 2012 were warmer than any previous decade in every region.”
Well, no it’s not. There has been no warming whatsoever in seventeen years and 9 months. None. The sun has gone quiet. It snowed this weekend in the Rockies with 5″ in Denver, and heat waves elsewhere. It’s called weather. Climate is a statistic about worldwide temperatures.
The president fulminates about carbon pollution, but carbon is not a pollutant but one of the building blocks of life. If you eliminated carbon, you would eliminate life. Those who object to the politicization of climate are referred to as ‘deniers,’ or the slightly better ‘skeptics,’ and regarded with horror by the true-believers. Here is the “Skeptic’s Case” — Climate Change in 12 minutes from Dr. David Evans.
and another is the 50 to 1 video:
Which examines the true cost of climate change. Can we stop it? What is the cost? Or can we just adapt to whatever change there is as untold generations have? And what is the right temperature anyway?
Or if you have time for an hour-long movie, here is The Great Global Warming Swindle, aired on BBC in 2007 which is way more interesting, but longer:
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Law, Politics, Regulation | Tags: "The Great Recession", Government Regulation, Repeating the Mortgage Crisis
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was formed as a new (and unnecessary) independent agency of the government responsible for ‘consumer protection’ in the financial sector by the much criticized Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act’s passage in 2010 was a misguided response to the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and the subsequent “Great Recession.” It is an independent agency that is part of the United States Federal Reserve. Investors explains:
In a stunning repeat of the conditions that led to the mortgage crisis, banks are increasing their loan risk to reduce government risk as President Obama steps up “fair lending” enforcement.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a fresh warning to lenders who aren’t making enough prime loans to low-income minorities, to take “corrective action” or face discrimination charges.
Meanwhile, there’s new evidence the quality of loans underwritten by the nation’s largest banks is deteriorating, as lenders weaken credit standards under threat of prosecution.
The bureau has put out a 48-page “Fair Lending Report” which urges banks to review home, automobile, business and student lending data for racial “disparities in pricing (and) underwriting.” It also advises putting staff through racial sensitivity training and to aggressively market loans in recession-torn urban areas. The report mentions “discrimination” no fewer than 51 times, Investors says. It also warns lenders that CFPB regulators, working with federal prosecutors , are launching “targeted reviews” of their loan practices by race looking for violations of “disparate impact.” I don’t know if they have their own SWAT team yet.
CFPB Director Richard Cordray implied that lending discrimination is rampant.
We are working to remove unnecessary obstacles that too many Americans face in the consumer financial marketplace,” he said in the report. “This includes ferreting out discrimination in credit markets, including the markets of home mortgages and auto lending.”
Examinations are “data-driven exercises,” the report stressed, so lenders had better get their numbers right. “Different out comes” by race are a red flag.
Strange. When Obama was inaugurated, it was widely believed that his administration would be acting to bring the races together. Instead, as the most politicized presidency in history, they have sought to keep their base in line by insisting that anything negative in life is caused by racism. Inequality, they insist is rampant, and due to racism.
The Dodd-Frank bill was widely criticized because it did nothing to address the problem of “Too Big To Fail” bailouts. All those “toxic assets”we heard about were loans made to people who could not afford to repay them, because of Democrat demands that bankers ignore the rules of prudent banking and overlook minimum credit scores to increase home ownership among minorities.
The Justice Department has already filed a $175 million lawsuit against Wells Fargo for alleged lending discrimination based on disparate impact. Wells Fargo has eased their minimum credit scores on some home loans to ‘expand access to credit for low-income home buyers.’ Been there, done that. With unpleasant results, as we all know.
The American Bankers Association has issued a “fair lending toolbox” to its 5,000 members to help them avoid disparate impact probes. It suggests they give a second look to rejected loans to minorities. Credit Unions are also worried. It no longer matters if you have a sound credit-scoring system, or follow prudent banking rules. What matters is what might be perceived as disparate impact. And politics is about perceptions, not facts.
If minorities have trouble getting loans, the response should be— help in raising credit scores and living within your means— not forcing banks to make riskier loans. That would seem to be common sense.