“We’re not aware of a single case so far of a substantive error. Out of tens of thousands of potentially affected borrowers, we’re still waiting for the first victim claiming that he was current on his mortgage when the bank seized the home. Even if such victims exist, the proper policy is to make them whole, not to let 100,000 other people keep homes for which they haven’t paid.”
–The Politics of Foreclosure, WSJ OpEd
>
I used to think that the partisan, money-losing screeds that are WSJ OpEds were written by intelligent idealogues. Their errors were thought to be a function of a variety of cognitive mishaps and biases. These are typically associated with sports fans, but afflicts partisans as well.
I am no longer convinced of this.
I now believe they some combination of heavy metals or other pollutants has somehow rendered the judgment centers of their brain inoperative. They function in ways indistinguishable from other human beings, except when it comes to anything involving judgment. This includes complex mathematics, a new or unusual fact pattern, or simply something that conflicts with prior experience. It is beyond them.
If they are not clueless, then the alternative conclusion is that they are liars (a third possibility is blunt head trauma; or perhaps they are high functioning Microcephalic Idiots — but I doubt that). That conclusion is based on an October 9th editorial, from whence the above quote was derived.
As has been widely circulated and discussed in the media, Man’s home sold out from under him in foreclosure mistake. The gentleman in question DID NOT HAVE A MORTGAGE.
If that is not substantive error, then WTF is?
>
Previously:
Man without Mortgage Loses Home in Foreclosure (September 23rd, 2010)
Source:
The Politics of Foreclosure
WSJ, Functional Moron Division
OCTOBER 9, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704696304575538440995389092.html
What's been said:
Discussions found on the web: