Well, yeah, bad lending practices are part of the problem, however the underlying issue was the value of the asset money was being lent for.

The bad lending practices wouldn't have come into being without the spike in houseing prices. Because people made money on one bad loan, they lost the disinsentive to give another worse loan. That's why it is a bubble, and not just a systematic breakdown.

The system worked, but in a bubble, the systme worked wrong. Since the first guys in on Mr. Ponzi's business make money, there is no reason for later investors to doubt their chances to also make money through the investment.

Since in a bubble bad choices lead to profit, the system can not correct itself until bad choices begin to lead to bad outcomes (as they are now doing).

I applaud the idea of the Fed trying to stop the bubbleing of the economy, but I question a) the political will to truly stop a bubble and b) the actual ability of the fed to stop a bubble.

You can create tighter banking regulation with regard to the sale of debt products and cash on hand. But such regulation will likely only provide a minimal level of insulation. People will still lose money though second and third teir money movers. And once anyone starts making money in a bubble everyone will rush in to make money in the bubble.

Short of banning all public and private investment in non Fed rated institutions (which again would result in quite a political backlash) you can't stop people from giving their money to Mr. Ponzi, and if you can't stop the flow of money, bubble will continue to be a part of the investment cycle.

Ehe...the girls are at least covered, which is better than Mr. Klein's kiddie porn adverts.

Really, they just look like colorful girl clothes to me, nothing particularly "tarty" about them, at least in the sense that Punky Brewster wasn't "tarty".

Heels are something I've never understood in women's clothes to start with, but hey if Mommy wears heels I can understand a girl wanting to wear them too.

It's not like these clothes say Juicy across the butt, at least not that I saw in the picture provided.

So, I've got to say, too much fuss over very little.

No midriff, it's not tarty. That's my take.

Well...the housing bubble has been growing since the early oughts...It might even date back to the late nineties.

In fact I recall reading an article in this very magazine at the start of the boom expalining exactly why this houseing bubble would continue unabaited forever. The essential premise was that new houses aren't built until their sold now a days, so you'll never have a glut of housing stocks...

Obviously it didn't happen that way, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

And since the conventional wisdom was that the the vaule of homes was trending upward, it became more and more practical to offer home loans to people with weaker and weaker credit, since the risk was mitigated by the rising value of the home itself.

Obviously one aspect fed into the other, which is why it became a bubble and why it eventually burst. But at the outset, it all seemed perfectly logical at the time.

It's easy to come in at the end of the party and say, oh well clearly that was a mistake, but focusing there ignores the incrimental steps that lead to bubbleing.

I'd like to see Edwards as the new AG, but that's just my thought. He can probably do more going after corporations for union busting, than he can as Obama's second...but you never know.

I'd vote for the Obama Edwards ticket, of course I'd vote for the Obama Clinton ticket too.

I'm still hoping Obama will put a Catholic on the ticket, I think that's a swing group worth courting, especially if you can highlight the tensions between the evangelical community and the Catholic community, which John McCain has already exaserbated.

To people upset;

If you endorse the obvious candidate after all is said and done, then your endorsement gets lost in the din of the outcome, and your influence on the candidate is limited.

By coming out now, NARAL is doing Barak a favor, which in time will be repayed.

Endorsing now, when the outcome is all but certain, is a low risk high yeild option for NARAL. Waiting puts them in a weak position and endorsing Senator Clinton is a thumb in the eye to the likely winner.

NARAL doesn't care about Senator Clinton or Senator Obama's feelings, they only care about their issue. They made the choice that strengthened their hand with the likely candidate in November.

Given that abortion rights are commonly tossed to the centrist wolves, NARAL acted before the final outcome to remind the candidate who supported him after West Virginia, and going into Kentucky.

If NARAL had waited in consideration of Senator Clinton's feelings, they would have severly weakened their hand in negotiations on a number of issues that the President has sway over.

48 States to go. =o)

They smartly keep this as a states rights issue.

California and Massachuettes have the right to allow this, and each state has the right to make their own decision.

That will be McCain's stance, and by taking this route, you effectivly defuse the issue.