The most un-aware thing I've read yet today.

Reihan Salam writes:

[Cory Robin's new book, The Reactionary Mind]'s ur-thesis is that the right has shrewdly employed a narrative of victimhood, victimhood for the predatory classes, as a means to win power and sympathy. I definitely think there is something to this, and I think it is an unattractive pose that the right ought to have outgrown.

Really?

I mean, seriously?

In what universe does someone give up a successful strategy that garners power, authority, and wealth, and does so within the letter of the law? I cannot name a single movement or institution, anywhere, that, having hit upon such a blockbuster meme, however grotesque, for bringing in the wealth, raising the authority, and beating back detractors like leaves in the wind, voluntarily surrendered it and took up a more ethical or aesthetically pleasing meme with which to pursue its goals.

Salam is truly in full-on head-in-the-clouds, ivory-tower mode when he writes nonsense like that.

Are you kidding me, part II

Thomas Ricks quotes a major in the military who asks:

At what point in time should journalists, bloggers, etc ... hold those who made wildly inaccurate predications on the lifting of the ban accountable? All the retired generals and officers (LTG Mixon, Merrill A. McPeak and Col. Dave Bedey for example) who predicted that soldiers would leave the military by the thousands, or John McCain and other politicians describing how it would affect us as a fighting force? At some point I feel that the public should be reminded of their predictions so the next time they make predictions that are way off the mark, fewer people will give them credence.

Ricks and the major about to discover something very important:

Being wildly off the mark is the best way to stay employed as a pundit. As this Hamilton College study from 2007 shows, being a terrible prognisticator was actually beneficial to your career if you were a conservative. On the other hand, if you were a liberal and your predictions turned out to be true, your career nonetheless languished, your advice was routinely ignored, and the Overton Window continued to be pulled further and further toward the right.

Predictions on economic and social issues that were most often wrong came from: Cal Thomas, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Senator Joe Lieberman, Sam Donaldson of ABC, and George Will.

Tell me, have any of these people lost their jobs recently?

Nobody who was wrong about the "gays in the military" issue will ever see an iota of accountability for their shrill prognostications. If anything, they'll be feted by the right for standing up for... something or other.

Hmm...

In a review of the book Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon, Jeff Madrick and Frank Portnoy write a scathing pushback against the book's thesis that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or positive regulatory policies, bear the brunt of the responsibility for the market shock of 2008:

Private lenders made far riskier loans than GSEs [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - elf] bought or guaranteed, especially during the 1990s, when subprimes issued to borrowers with low income and poor credit were relatively new. You will not read in Reckless Endangerment that the GSEs bought very few subprimes in these years. Rather than leading the way, Fannie’s market share of the low-income home buyers fell behind private industry’s far riskier lending to poorer home owners and others.

The increased risk-taking of the GSEs during the 1990s, far more modest than what was to come in the 2000s in the private sector, had no bearing on the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008.

...

The GSEs never took nearly the risks that the private market took. Still, when housing prices collapsed so sharply, even modestly risky and traditionally safe mortgages produced losses. The risky lending was not driven by the affordable lending goals; nor did it cause the crisis.

...

Contrary to many commentators on Reckless Endangerment, and to its chief claims, it was Wall Street, not the GSEs, that fundamentally caused the 2007–2008 crisis, which was driven not merely by a headlong pursuit of easy profit but also by ethically dubious practices.

Hmm... I currently have this book on hold at the library. It's hold #108 on 40 copies. It'll be a while before I get my hands on it. #Should I cancel the hold?

It's in the Can(vas) Experiment 14:

Cavas Experiment 14.

This concludes this phase of the experiment. Phase 2 to begin next week. Thank you for participating in this Aperture Science Experiment Series. Have a nice day.