Talking w. Regulars & Commenters – 2/2/08

( A post in the old web log tradition: “notes at the end of the day” for those who “follow the blog.” Others are welcome to read as well, but don’t look for links and expect some “informality.”)

I always recommend you read the comment threads so I’m doing that again.

I’ll note in particular the thread of A Subprime Mortgage Suggestion. There’s one comment there I can’t agree with and I’ve left a comment there to that effect.

But the rest of the comments ( I think about 7) reflect an awareness of financial and psychological fundamentals which should underpin the housing and home mortgage markets.

But for a variety of reasons America is getting away from the idea that banks and s&ls should look at borrowers credit-worthiness and that mortgage borrowers should have a good hunk of their own money in the house they’re “buying.”

But the commenters make those points and others.

MSM, IMO, has been under-emphasizing those points when MSM has not been ignoring them entirely.

It was a pleasure to read the comments as they came in.

I’ll post tomorrow fisking a column former LA Times Washington bureau chief Ron Brownstein wrote. It’s an example of the kind of liberal/left values and rationales that have made the housing and home mortgage markets less secure than they should be and which are, like so many liberal/leftist efforts, doing much harm to the very people they're supposed to help.

Regarding Durham ADA Tracey Cline and her various and sundry statements about the DA’s office, her upcoming campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination for DA ( in heavily Dem. Durham tantamount to election ) and her role in securing the NTO which was so important a part of the attempt to frame innocent Duke students, all of you who’ve commented make clear that what I’m saying fits with what you’re thinking.

It sure is important what Cline and DPD say about the who, how, when and why of that NTO order.

Thanks for your comments re: Cline. They're helping me focus on matters most people are ignoring.

And yes, I plan to stay on the matter. In a few days I'll post a letter to her asking her for some clarifications.

On the matter of N&O pub. ed. Ted Vaden’s email to me Friday ---

I’ve looked at his Apr. 2, 2006 column which is a response to N&O readers criticisms of the paper's biased, racially inflammatory and often false coverage of what we didn’t know then was a frame-up attempt.

Would you believe that in that column Vadem himself referred to liar Mangum as an “anonymous source?”

Many of you are likely saying: “Of course! Were you surprised, John?”

I’ll answer that question tomorrow.

I’ll also offer a “first pass” answer to a question many of you have asked and that I’ve long ignored: “Can’t the players sue the N&O?”

I’ll also post another talking post tomorrow responding to, among other things, your suggestions I contact the N&O publisher and the McClatchy board.

Thank you for your interest in JinC and for your comments.

Thay mean a lot.

John