An early (and accurate) summary of the financial meltdown causes

In February of 2009, Peter Wallison carefully presented the real reasons for the financial meltdown in this article in American Spectator Magazine.  Much has been written since about the cause and reason this meltdown occurred, however Wallison's piece has stood the test of time as a definitive explication of the whole sorry event.  Cutting to the chase, the politicization of the housing market and its financing institutions (Fannie/Freddie, etc) clearly was the overriding cause.  As for whom to blame start with all the "progressives" (Barney Frank, et al), in the Congress, Carter and Clinton in the WH, and above all others Andrew Cuomo Secretary of HUD in the Clinton administration, as the prime movers.  Naturally the socialist groups (SEIU, Rainbow Coalition, etc) played major roles, particularly SEIU, Obama's favored grass roots organizing and lobbying pals.  This sorry collection of losers managed to infect the system with their collectivist philosophy, intimidating the normally more conservative bankers into playing along with them to some extent.  The Bush administration tried on numerous occasions to reign in Freddie and Fannie but were stiffed repeatedly by the likes of Frank and friends.  While assessing blame for the disaster,  Greenspan (for his loose monetary policy) and the rating agencies for their failure to properly assess and publicize the risk involved in all the paper (dirivitives and the like) that were issued and passed on by Wall Street, deserve their share.  And while we're at it let's note the complicity of the Wall Street banks who were coining it by producing and selling shabby mortgage backed securities and the rest all over the world. Lotsa guilty parties including all those people who bought in over their heads and the real estate industry that pushed those folks to buy when they surely must have known better.  It was the classic greed driven tulip bubble event of the 21st century.  We never learn.

Mark Moyar's take on Vietnam Era

Mark Moyar sheds some light on the work of the revisionist historians who have been at work challenging orthodox anti war historians like Halberstam and Karnow.  The emergence of the revisionists is a recent event and a welcome one.  Here is brief description of a new book and a brief summary of the issues involving the two warring camps:

As someone who has been deeply involved in these debates since the 60s (including serving in Vietnam, USMC intel at 1st MarDiv HQs), I have to recommend an enlightening book and an essay.

The book is better than the Pentagon Papers which presented a hodge podge of US decision makers comments during the earlier phases of the war. This book is the candid after-action, after fall of South Vietnam, considered writings by leading South Vietnamese generals. The Vietnam War: An Assessment By South Vietnam’s Generals  is edited by highly regarded historian Lewis Sorley.

The monographs cover every conceivable aspect of the war, from combat operations to budgets, from relations with advisors to logistical support, from uniforms to pay to desertions to refugees to bombing to pipelines to prisoners of war to combat rations to family support and even South Vietnamese society. A considerable amount of this material, based on the firsthand observations of these highly placed Vietnamese authors, is to be found nowhere else.

By no means can supporters of the US in Vietnam take comfort in the book. The authors provide enough quotes to fill any anti-war essay. Lewis Sorley comments: “I think, for one, that they are in many instances far too hard on themselves and on the Vietnamese in general, both politically and militarily. They make few excuses, and instead are forthright in assigning, and assuming, blame.” That is, also, a strength of the book. It is an honest assessment, which if actually read by critics of the war and today’s students, cuts through the perplexities about our ally and battleground in the Cold War. Sorley: “Now, we know, however, that when well armed and equipped, and well led, they performed gallantly and with spirit.”

At almost 1000 pages, the book is comprehensive, well-written, and possibly the most valuable on the war.  For length and price ($60), and for failing to meet one-sided prejudices, few will read it. But, anyone at all serious about understanding the perplexing questions and arguing with any integrity must read it. I’ve taken weeks to read it, at almost every page learning something new, and at many pages having my prior views enlightened. Similarly, noted and knowledgeable critic of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tom Ricks, in preparing his own forthcoming book on the Vietnam War calls this book “terrific (and massive).”

Fortunately, historian Mark Moyar presents an enlightening essay that will help students of the Vietnam War understand the conflicting historical accounts, Vietnam: Historians at War.  It is an invaluable survey of the “orthodox” historians of defeat (“…most academic and journalistic accounts of the war written during and shortly afterwards depicted Vietnam as a bad war that the United States should not have fought. Antiwar history of the Vietnam War thus acquired the label of “orthodox” history.”) versus the “revisionist” historians who disagree and have unearthed formerly unreleased or unknown facts.

The recent revisionist histories, in contrast to some earlier revisionist works, have generally been backed by voluminous research, captured in numerous footnotes. Although not all of their authors are excellent scholars, they are generally more rigorous in their analysis than their orthodox counterparts, because they are so often challenged that they have become adept at anticipating and countering contrary assertions. Because experience has given revisionists a better understanding of the importance of wrestling with differently minded people, they have also been much more willing than orthodox historians to invite the opposing side to conferences they organize….Slowly but surely, the revisionist view is gaining ground.

If a student needs an understanding of the historiography of the Vietnam War and a guide to differing accounts, Mark Moyar’s essay is a great launching point.

Liberalism and totalitarianism

City Magazine's Bruce Thornton reviews Showdown with Evil,  by Front Page magazine's Jamie Glazov here.  The book, a series of interviews with 30 "astute" commentators, discusses the reason for the left media's inability to come to grips with the threat of Jihadism.  Based on these interviews it seems the Muslims are seen through the prism of the left's world view that if a people are not western, christian or white, then they are victims and need defending from those oppressive groups.  This attitude accounts for the refusal of the MSM to connect the dots on the Muslim Jihadist Major who killed 13 people at Ft. Hood in 2009 despite the evidence.  It's hard to conceive how a reporter could miss the fact that the Major was heard screaming "Allah Akbur" while he went on his shooting spree and yet not connect that act with that of a Jihadist.  And yet no MSM news story made that connection. But it did make a connection between  the murder attempt on Gabrielle Giffords and the climate of hate promoted by right wing extremists without  any confirming evidence.  The obvious point here is that if the presentation of the news is influenced by given assumptions it is bound to be distorted and usually wrong.  What we must be seeing is the influence of  liberal, left wing professors in colleges and graduate journalism schools who have dominated those institutions for well over 50 years now successfully brainwashing a generation or two of students.  Jonah Goldberg of National Review has written an extremely successful book on this subject: Liberal Fascism.  Here is Jonah writing about the book and subject in a post from NR.  Jonah is one of the major talents in the conservative movement.