Why the Tea Party is female

RT notices something:

Is it just my imagination, or is the Tea party dominated by women? I have always regarded the Republican party as the masculine side of the equation, and the Democrat Party as the feminine. The Tea party, which threatens to supplant the Republican party seems to be dominated by rough, opinionated, conservative women. It certainly is where I live, and even in my state, and I get the impression that’s the case nationally. The impetus seems to be coming from women who hold the limelight and get all the work done. Is that because men are abandoning politics, or is it because they have become feminized?

The Tea Party is mostly female because it is a mass entry into politics by a portion of the electorate that has historically been politically ignorant and inert. It is mostly middle class and female because it is made up of people who have the time and resources to get involved with political activism; these are the wives of the middle class men whose economic interests have suffered and are less likely to be able to put in the time and effort involved.

Since it is a female-driven movement, we can be confident that it will quickly lose its focus and be seduced away from its nominal purpose by callous and cold-hearted men, as Karl Denninger has already noted. This assumption is supported by the fact that Sarah Palin is the current darling of the Tea Party, the very woman who suspended her campaign for vice-president in order to permit John McCain to rush back to Washington and help the Bush administration and the Congressional Democrats hold down the American taxpayer for their financial raping by the banking industry. The idea that a woman who supported TARP and the bank bailouts and believes that government inaction is not an option during times of economic difficulty will not turn around and betray a movement of political neophytes at the first opportunity defies belief.

The other reason, of course, is that men are much more skeptical than women. I have said from the beginning that the Tea Party will prove ineffectual and have seen no evidence to alter my thinking in the least. (Remember, I predicted that the Republicans would regain the House and Senate months ago; the Tea Party is a consequential factor, not a causal one.) While many women are finally cognizant of the cancerous state of America, they are still ignorant enough to believe that politics can be the cure. But while it’s not impossible, it is highly improbable.

The fact that many, if not most, Tea Partiers still support The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism after nine years of near-total futility tells you all you need to know about their eventual effectiveness. Hell, half of them are probably concerned about defending the banks from Obama.

In conclusion, I quote Britain’s finest politician, Daniel Hannan: “[T]he reason there is a Tea Party here is not because of some perverse American characteristic of being anti-tax. It’s that people think that they can do something about it through the ballot box.”

It sounds inspiring. It is inspiring. But the key word there is “think”.

Beating down the doubters

Bill Black explains how the mortgage fraud was actually worse than I’d previously described. While I have explained how the foreclosure fraud was the inevitable consequence of the mortgage transfer fraud, there is growing evidence that the banks knew that 100 percent of certain loan categories would default at the time they were making those loans and yet still utilized them as backing for the securities they were selling:

Our call for closing down control frauds and stopping the foreclosure frauds typically meets with three objections. First, it is claimed that while there were some bad apple lenders, much of the fraud was committed by borrowers. Our proposal would let fraudulent borrowers remain in homes to which they are not entitled, punishing the banks that were duped. Second, the biggest banks are too important to foreclose. And third, it is not possible to resolve a “too big to fail” institution.

Let us deal with the “borrower fraud” argument first because it is the area containing the most erroneous assumptions. There was fraud at every step in the home finance food chain: the appraisers were paid to overvalue real estate; mortgage brokers were paid to induce borrowers to accept loan terms they could not possibly afford; loan applications overstated the borrowers’ incomes; speculators lied when they claimed that six different homes were their principal dwelling; mortgage securitizers made false reps and warranties about the quality of the packaged loans; credit ratings agencies were overpaid to overrate the securities sold on to investors; and investment banks stuffed collateralized debt obligations with toxic securities that were handpicked by hedge fund managers to ensure they would self destruct.

That homeowners would default on the nonprime mortgages was a foregone conclusion throughout the industry — indeed, it was the desired outcome. This was something the lending side knew, but which few on the borrowing side could have realized.

Notice that the Federal Reserve has now seen fit to comment upon “reported irregularities in foreclosure practices at a number of large financial institutions” and Helicopter Ben is hewing very closely to the line that contains the most erroneous assumptions. This is to be expected; both national parties and the Fed are going to do everything they can to point fingers at everyone but the responsible parties as long as they can. But they’re not going to be able to get away with it for four reasons.

1) The fraud is too blatant and widespread.
2) The political downside to backing the banks is too severe. Note that even Obama, who has yet to meet an ex-Goldmanite he doesn’t want in his cabinet, didn’t dare to let HR 3808 pass.
3) They ripped off many powerful institutions, both foreign and domestic. As events have shown, they can’t buy off every judge, county clerk, pension fund manager, and attorney general in the country.
4) It’s not a matter of merely federal law. Land title issues are a State matter, not a federal one. Therefore, the power of the pro-bank politicians and government agencies, which is centralized at the national level, is less effective than usual.

UPDATE: But, but, it’s all about the deadbeats! Zerohedge summarizes FDIC head Sheila Bair’s recent comments:

1. LITIGATION FROM SERVICER ISSUES COULD BE `VERY DAMAGING’
2. FORECLOSURE PROBLEMS WILL REQUIRE `GLOBAL SOLUTION’
3. MORE PROBLEMS’ WILL ARISE IN MORTGAGE SERVICING

Now, why would a global solution be required, he asked innocently? Why would litigation be very damaging and to whom? And how can Ms Bair be so certain that more problems will arise?

Fly, little bird

Fly! Beezle is all growed up now:

Well, you knew the day would come. The good news is that from here on I’ll probably blight your blog no more (or at least less). The bad news is that I’ve devoted another entire blog to you, and I’m planning to aim a little higher on the leg than your ankles. It’s going to be fun, and productive, and entertaining, and most likely will last no more than a month before I lose interest in it entirely and delete the whole thing. But we will see.

Needless to say, bets will be placed on the over/under for his next deleted comment here. I’ll take the under.

WND column

Doubt and Verify

While it’s true that Juan Williams was unfairly and unreasonably fired from National Public Radio for the crime of showing insufficient enthusiasm for burqa-clad airline passengers, conservatives should think twice before making the mistake of concluding that Williams is a fair and balanced commentator himself, his new contract with Fox notwithstanding. The reason is that in both his first public statement after his firing as well as in the statement that inspired it, Williams committed a much more significant calumny that somehow managed to escape the conservative media’s attention.

“Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims. This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber – as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals – are Christians but we journalists don’t identify them by their religion.”
– “I was fired for telling the truth,” Fox News, Oct. 21, 2010