Saturday, March 29, 2008

Stripped Bare - Beneath the Feel Good Veneer of Subprime Lending

Chapter 3 - Vanilla Ice Cream, or Big Chicken Dinner?

When I first began working in the mortgage industry, in 1987, I strictly worked with “A” (prime) borrowers who were looking to purchase a home.  This was also true for the majority of “A” paper mortgage lenders in 1987.  The borrowers we worked with on the “A” side of the mortgage business were borrowers with good credit, decent jobs, and in most instances, the borrowers also had at least ten percent (10%) of the value of the home in cash as a down payment.  The vast majority of mortgages written for these “A” borrowers were thirty (30) year, fixed rate mortgages, which were called “vanilla ice cream” mortgages.

This does not mean that there were not borrowers out there in 1987 that had bad credit.  Nor does this mean that there were not mortgage lenders out in the marketplace that wrote “B,” “C,” and “D” paper (subprime) mortgage loans at this time.  “B,” “C,” “D” paper borrowers, and lenders, were out there in the marketplace in 1987, though the subprime lenders willing to risk lending to subprime borrowers in 1987 were operating on the margins of the mortgage industry, and the number of subprime lenders doing business in 1987 was minimal.  “A” (prime) paper mortgage lenders just did not, or would not, work with these subprime lenders.  We called these “B,” “C,” “D” mortgages (subprime loans), and borrowers, “big chicken dinners,” for reasons which will soon be related.

In 1987, the overwhelming perception of “B,” “C,” “D” (subprime) mortgage lenders, held by “A” paper lenders, was that subprime lenders were “sharks,” preying on the financially unfortunate. There was a distinct, slimy stigma associated with subprime lenders, and most “A” paper lenders wanted nothing to do with these subprime lenders, or the borrowers they tended to feed on.  And why would they?  The “A” paper side of the mortgage business was more than profitable, with gross margins per loan averaging around three and one-half percent (3.5%).

In 1987, subprime lenders were averaging gross margins any where between ten percent (10%) and twelve percent (12%) per loan, at the expense of borrowers’ equity, and they were gloating about this.  In fact, the few “B,” “C,” “D” mortgage lender representatives who were calling on “A” paper mortgage lenders in search of subprime business in 1987, proclaimed these gross profit numbers with pride, wondering aloud why any lender would work with “A” borrowers when so much money could be made off of borrowers who have no other recourse for mortgage financing due to their poor credit.  Why settle for vanilla ice cream, when you can have a big chicken dinner?

“A” paper lenders continued to perceive subprime lenders as “sharks” into the early 1990s.  But, this perception began to give way to a perception of envy of subprime lenders, as profit margins for “A” paper lenders gradually began to erode.  What was the impetus for the erosion of “A” paper lender profits?  The phenomenal growth of the mortgage broker business.

Though mortgage brokering had been around for many years on a small scale, it really began to take off in the late 1980s after the deregulation of the mortgage industry as a whole.  This rapid expansion of mortgage brokering brought so many players into the “A” paper mortgage loan origination market profits could do nothing but be squeezed.  “A” paper lenders saw their gross margins drop from three and one-half percent (3.5%) per loan, to three percent (3.0%), then to two and one-half percent (2.5%), then to two percent (2.0%), and even lower.  In 1992 there were even small one and two man mortgage broker shops who would work for a one percent (1.0%) gross margin per loan, operating as if they were in the grocery business.

Though this rapid growth of mortgage brokering was good for “A” borrowers, in the form of more competitive interest rates and lower fees, and fewer overrides for the lender, it also spurred the growth of subprime lending.  But this growth spurt in the subprime lending industry was not so much a benefit for subprime borrowers, as it was for the “A” paper lenders who were looking for ways to stem the loss of their profitability, which brought a new found legitimacy to subprime lending which previously it had lacked.

Unfortunately, it was a shady legitimacy.  As more and more “A” paper lenders, who previously had shunned subprime lending, began pursuing subprime borrowers, the excesses which had been whispered about the subprime lending industry, became mainstream.  No longer would subprime lending’s notorious profit making, at the expense of marginal borrowers’ home equity, be operated on the margins of the mortgage industry.  In fact, subprime lending would become the fastest growing segment of the mortgage industry.

Initially, many “A” paper lenders only would do three or four subprime mortgages per month.  Just enough subprime loans to pad the bottom line, but this would not last long.  As the easy profits which had been intimated to “A” paper lenders by subprime lenders began to roll in, many “A” paper lenders jumped feet first into the “easy” money mode of subprime lending and simply let their “A” paper business languish.

Other “A” paper lenders setup subprime lending DBA’s (doing business as) entities, not wishing to tarnish their “A” paper lender reputations with subprime lending’s previously noted stigma.  But, as larger and larger nationwide mortgage lending corporations jumped into this very profitable segment of the mortgage business, the stigma previously associated with subprime lending soon received wholesale legitimization.

Though the “A” paper side of the mortgage industry continued to grow; just look at the stock performance of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) over the years; in comparison, the growth of the subprime loan industry rocketed into the stratosphere.  Subprime lenders became more and more visible, and rapacious, across the nation.  This is turn led to “A” paper lenders; who previously would not have considered advertising the fact that they participated in lending to subprime borrowers; to begin saturating the market with myriads of advertisements targetted specifically to subprime borrowers spouting “easy” mortgage money availability, no matter what borrowers personal credit circumstances may be.

Though the phenomenal growth of the mortgage broker business was initially the main catalyst for the rapid growth of the subprime lending industry, the national mortgage lenders soon became the major players, and legitimizers, of the subprime lending industry nationwide.  These national mortgage lenders brought a whole new meaning to the term “easy” money.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/29 at 05:29 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, March 28, 2008

Stripped Bare - Beneath the Feel Good Veneer of Subprime Lending

Chapter 2 - Make a Pile of Cash

Two years after I purchased and financed my first home, I was presented with an opportunity to be employed in the mortgage industry.  I was presented with the opportunity by the very same individual who assisted me through my first mortgage application.  Because my knowledge of mortgage lending had not greatly increased since I purchased my home, I was a bit hesitant to explore the opportunity.  But, since I was offered a free dinner, and whispered promises of earning two to three times what I was currently earning, I went and listened attentively to the opportunity mortgage lending had in store for me.

The dinner I had that evening was excellent, but I was somewhat surprised that the entire conversation regarding the opportunity to pursue employment in the mortgage industry seemed to be dominated by how much money I could make, rather than the mechanics of how the business worked.  Each answer I received to my questions about the mechanics of the industry seemed to rotate around the money to be made, rather than the service to be provided.  There was no conversation regarding the “American Dream” of homeownership, or the mortgage industry’s role in fulfilling the dream.  There was no conversation regarding how one develops the necessary contacts to become successful in the mortgage industry.  There was no conversation about how to deal with borrowers, or their apprehensions, when in need of financing for a home purchase or refinance.  The entire conversation was dominated by the money to be made.

Do not get me wrong.  Making money at your job is a good thing.  The income we earn allows us to purchase the necessities we require, and the luxuries we desire, in life.  More importantly, it can allow us to take that step of fulfilling the “American Dream” of homeownership.  And, isn’t earning good money also a large part of the “American Dream?”

Earning good money is, without a doubt, part and parcel of the “American Dream,” and I also desired to realize this part of the dream.  Little did I realize, at that time, how easy it would become to focus only on the money to be made, rather than the service I was providing, to those in need of mortgage financing.

About two weeks after the above mentioned dinner, I accepted a position as a loan originator with the mortgage banker who had arranged my first home mortgage.  I approached this new opportunity with zeal, and naïveté.  Even though the carrot held before me was the money to be made in the mortgage industry, at the time I first began working in the industry, I was more inclined to think of the position I accepted as a chance to help people realize their dream, the homeownership dream, rather than simply a chance to make a pile of cash.

One of my first tasks upon starting this new job was to read everything I could that was available on mortgages.  I read underwriting regulations, loan program guidelines, mortgage sales technique manuals, and anything thing else I could get my hands on that had to do with mortgages.  I wanted to be the most knowledgeable, and informative, mortgage loan originator in the market.

After thirty days of intensive reading, and a few sales calls with an experienced loan originator, I hit the streets on my own.  The only problem was, I still didn’t fully understand how I was to be paid for the work I was performing.  Sure, I knew I was going to be paid a commission on each loan I was able to put together for a borrower, but the numbers based on the commissions to be paid per loan did not seem to add up to the dollars I could earn that had been whispered in my ear.

In nineteen eighty-seven (1987), the standard commission rate per loan was one-half (1/2) of one percent (1%) of the mortgage amount.  Thus, if I put together a one hundred thousand dollar ($100,000.00) mortgage, I would earn five hundred dollars ($500.00).  Not a bad commission rate.  As I mentioned though, that commission rate did not seem to add up to the dollars whispered in my ear which I could potentially earn.  You see I had been told that the top loan originators in the market I was working were putting together almost one hundred fifty (150) mortgages each year.  If the average mortgage loan balance was one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), and the commission on that mortgage was five hundred dollars ($500.00), and the top originators, on average, put together one hundred fifty (150) mortgage loans per year, my earnings would be approximately seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).  The earnings that had been whispered in my ear, for a top originator, were one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) a year.  Where was the missing twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) going to come from?

It did not take me long to find out where the additional twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) was going to come from.  It was coming from the borrower.

How is that, you ask?  It was relatively simple.  When an individual applies for a mortgage loan, they are typically quoted an interest rate, and a certain number of points (points being that fancy mortgage term for one percent (1%) of the mortgage amount).  For example, if I quote you an interest rate of six percent (6.0%) with one (1) point, the cost of your interest rate would be one percent (1%) of the mortgage amount.  If the mortgage amount is one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), the cost of the one (1) point would equal one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).

But that does not answer where the additional money comes from, you say, and you would be correct.  So where does the money come from then?  The money comes from what is termed, in the mortgage industry, as overrides, of which the borrower is typically unaware.

In the example, above, I noted the interest rate of six percent (6.0%), with a charge of one (1) point quoted to the borrower, which seems pretty straightforward, and it is.  But, is this the best interest rate and points available to the borrower?  Not necessarily, though the document the borrower signs to lock in the quoted interest rate will lead the borrower to believe that it is the best interest rate and points currently available.

But here is what actually happens.  The borrower’s interest rate is indeed guaranteed to be six percent (6.0%) with one (1) point.  The lender, though, unbeknownst to the borrower, actually has the mortgage money available at an interest rate of six percent (6.0%) and one-half (1/2) point because of market improvements.  So the lender, in this example, gains another one-half (1/2) of one percent (1%) in income on the loan, or five hundred dollars ($500.00), which the lender then splits with the individual who originated the loan.

So without the borrower being aware of it, the originator of the loan, and the lender, both gain two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) in income because of their inside knowledge of the mortgage market.  The borrower has received a good interest rate, and though the lender was making a good profit margin on the loan at six percent (6.0%) interest and a charge of one (1) point, the lender has additionally profited from the borrower’s ignorance regarding the points associated with the guaranteed interest rate.

Initially, I was hesitant to employ this inside knowledge for my personal profit, but I was soon beyond this hesitation and actively pursuing every override I could.  There were times, when the market was especially working in my favor, that I was able to make one (1) to two (2) percent overrides.  This increased my commission per loan from one-half percent (1/2%) up to one and one-half percent (1 ½%) of the mortgage amount.  The earning potential whispers in my ear had been correct.

Today, individuals who are interviewing for loan originator positions in the mortgage industry still hear the same whispers in their ears regarding how much money can be made in the business.  The money is the primary recruiting tool.  One major difference should be noted though.  In nineteen eighty-seven (1987), when I first got into the mortgage business, the majority of the mortgages being written were “A” paper (prime) mortgages.  Subprime mortgage lending was barely a blip in the industry, and a certain stigma was associated with lenders who actually wrote subprime loans.  Today, a large percentage of mortgages being written are “B,” “C,” and “D” paper (subprime/non-conforming) mortgages, and the amount of profit to be garnered from originating these type of loans can be two (2) to three (3) times, or more, than the profits earned on the “A” (prime) mortgages.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/28 at 04:50 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Stripped Bare - Beneath the Feel Good Veneer of Subprime Lending

Chapter 1 - Purveyors of the “American Dream”

For many years, now, the pinnacle of the “American Dream” has traditionally been sold to individuals as owning their own home.  Today, if you type “homeownership+American Dream” into the Google search engine, you will receive over one million possible results to review which offer various interpretations on this dream.  Most mortgage lenders, whether prime lenders or subprime lenders, also actively advertise this dream on their corporate websites, with promises that they can easily help you live the dream.

The dream of homeownership is a good dream, though the dream is not necessarily without its frightening moments.  Especially for those individuals who are purchasing their first home and applying for a home mortgage for the first time.  A fact I can attest to myself.

When I took the step of fulfilling the “American Dream” for myself, back in 1985, when purchasing my first home, my rudimentary knowledge of financing a home purchase was glaringly revealed.  Even though I was working with an individual I knew personally and trusted, and who was a certified mortgage banker, I still walked away from the mortgage application process in a somewhat dazed and confused manner.  Today, many first time homebuyers still can attest to this.

When a first time homebuyer sits down with a mortgage lender, they will be bombarded with questions, unknown lending terms, and stacks of official documents requiring their signature.  The questions required to be answered delve into the individual’s work history, education, savings history, and credit use.  Highly personal questions, to most individuals, which are rarely discussed with even their closest personal friends.

Terms like amortization, points, buydown, ARM (adjustable rate mortgage), Balloon, escrows, to name but a few, come at the first time homebuyer in rapid-fire succession typically with only the most rudimentary of explanations, or, the terms are glossed over by the mortgage lender as being of little relative importance.  Unfortunately, many first time homebuyers will simply accept these most basic of explanations, or glossed over lender interpretations, rather than exhibiting to the lender their inexperience with the mortgage process.

The stacks of documents, requiring a homebuyer’s signature when applying for home financing, can also be intimidating.  The documents are full of fine print and cautions of prosecution for falsification, which are rarely read by the homebuyer, and the documents are typically paraphrased by the lender’s sales staff, to facilitate fast, question-less signatures.  Is it any wonder, then, that purchasing a home for the first time is a bit frightening?  Additionally, all the parties involved in the transaction; seller, Realtors, and lenders; seem to desire that the transaction be completed at the fastest possible speed.  Rush, rush, rush and get this deal done before the buyer gets too nervous to proceed.

Though applying for a mortgage for the very first time can indeed be a bit frightening, it does not need to be intimidating, or completely nerve wracking.  Though it can be difficult to remember, as an individual financing a home purchase for the first time, you are actually in control.  The processes which must be completed, as they say in the mortgage business “to close the deal,” cannot, and more importantly should not, be completed until you, the borrower, are fully informed and satisfied with your understanding of what is actually taking place in the transaction.  This is also true if you are simply refinancing a mortgage on a home you already own.

If, as a borrower, you have any questions regarding the mortgage loan, ask them!  If you do not understand what points are; a point is simply a fancy mortgage term for one (1) percent – one (1) point equals one (1) percent; ask for a thorough explanation from the lender.  If you do not understand what escrows are; escrows are monies you pay ahead of time in your monthly mortgage payment to cover yearly property tax bills or homeowner’s insurance bills as they come due; ask for a thorough explanation from the lender.  A good mortgage lender will ensure you receive a complete, and thorough, answer.

I know that when I went through the mortgage application process for the first time, I made my share of the mistakes mentioned above.  I did not want to exhibit my lack of knowledge about the mortgage process, so I accepted less than thorough answers.  I nodded my head in agreement, when I should have been shaking my head no and asking more questions.  I signed documents with only a cursory review, or a glossy lender explanation, instead of reading the fine print.  I looked at the list of fees charged by the lender, and simply swallowed hard, rather than inquiring into whether the costs could possibly be less.  In other words, I acted like I was a fully informed individual, when in reality I was bluffing both the mortgage lender, and myself, in regards to my grasp of the mechanics of mortgage lending and the effects such a commitment had on my daily life.

As the primary purveyors of the “American Dream;” mortgage lenders have the money you need to purchase the home you want; and they should be working diligently to make the mortgage loan process clearly understood.  Especially for first time homebuyers.  First time homebuyers, though, also have a responsibility.  Their responsibility as homebuyers, whether first time purchasers or sixth time, is to not let embarrassment at their lack of knowledge regarding the mortgage process get in the way of learning the process and understanding it.

Owning a home is a large responsibility, a long term financial commitment, and at times a financial challenge, not simply a warm and fuzzy dream.  After you sign on the proverbial dotted line, you will no longer be dreaming, you will be living the reality of owning a home and having to pay off a mortgage.  The reality of the dream of homeownership does not always mesh well with the “American Dream” as it is sold, or your current financial situation.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/27 at 10:40 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Disillusioned by the Delusioned, Etcetera

Since August 2007, I have not posted much here, or anywhere else for that matter, mainly because I have become more and more disillusioned by the delusioned masses who believe, rather than think, that the solutions to all their needs will be met, or somehow achieved, by the machinations of the state.

Much has gone on, think fifteen minutes of fame on a grand scale, since August 2007, and has been well documented and commented on within the blogosphere.

In my life also, much has occurred, both positive and negative, since August 2007, which I will not bore you with.

What I will share with you is some writing I have done, and possibly naively thought would be of interest to a wider audience, and hoped to have published, regarding the mortgage industry, my experiences in said industry, with an emphasis on the debacle of subprime lending.  Alas, my attempts at bringing this writing to the market have failed.  Maybe it’s my writing, I don’t know.

Be that as it may, I will, over the next four weeks or so, be posting that writing here.  The title I christened this writing with is Stripped Bare - Beneath the Feel Good Veneer of Subprime Lending. Which may be a bit too much of a mouthful for a book title.

Anyway, I shall begin posting this immediately after this short explanatory post.  If you care to comment on it, please do so, whether your comments are constructive, negative, or positive.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/27 at 10:15 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, January 11, 2008

The Bell is Tolling, Unabated

The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.

The warning over the future of the triple-A rating - granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 - reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy.

US’s triple-A credit rating ‘under threat’

Posted by John Venlet on 01/11 at 07:42 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, January 04, 2008

Interesting Headline

This headline caught my eye at “Goggle News”:  “Last of rogue cops sentenced to prison.” But the following headline, in regards to the exact same events is much more interesting:  Former Chicago officer who cheated drug dealers gets 25 year sentence

Consider that headline for a moment.  Should an individual be outraged because said “Former Chicago officer” cheated drug dealers?  Or should an individual simply chuckle at the disconnect such a headline displays.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/04 at 05:57 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Ya Think?

"The general trend is that privacy is being extinguished in country after country,” said Simon Davies, director of Privacy International.

Individual privacy under threat in Europe and U.S., report says

I cannot think that reading such a report is actually required to comprehend this.

Posted by John Venlet on 12/30 at 05:52 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, September 06, 2007

You'll Get Exactly What You're Voting For

Micro managed lives.

"I’ve passed more bills I’m sure than either of them --certainly in the state legislative level."

Barack Obama could not have uttured a more dubious distinction about himself.

For Obama, It’s Now or Never

Posted by John Venlet on 09/06 at 04:42 AM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Just Steal Our Stuff, Please

So, if an individual is employed by Home Depot and said individual happens to note another individual misappropriating Home Depot property shouldn’t the Home Depot employee act to prevent said misappropriation?

A reasoning individual, with a sound understanding of property rights and respect for private property, would think so, but in the case of Home Depot, if an employee notes an individual misappropriating Home Depot property, Home Depot policy dictates that the employee should simply let the thief walk away, though of course Home Depot dictates that the employee report the theft to the appropriate authority.

But what happens if the Home Depot employee acts, and apprehends an individual misappropriating Home Depot property, rather than letting the thief walk away?  Why, the individual is fired.

Dustin Chester is job hunting this week, after The Home Depot fired him and the general manager for thwarting a thief from running away with a pocket full of stolen cash.

Last week, the 24-year-old department manager confronted a man who was standing by a soda machine in front of the Murfreesboro store off Old Fort Parkway holding a crowbar and a wad of cash. When the suspect started running, Chester said his instincts took over.

He was fired Monday for violations of company policy in the incident.

“When he ran, I ran after him,” he said. Chester caught the thief and restrained him in the parking lot until police arrived.

Chester was shocked to find out that for managers and most employees, catching and detaining thieves is against company policy.

Of course Home Depot states that their just steal our stuff, please, policy is in place for the safety of their employees and customers, but this policy simply reflects just how far the principle of property rights, and protection and respect of this right, has been subverted by the rise of the culture of nannyism in the United States.  Pitiful.

Home Depot employee looking for job after stopping alleged thief

Via Claire Wolfe.

Posted by John Venlet on 08/30 at 04:48 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Denver

Off to Denver for a weekend celebration.  Back Tuesday morning.

Posted by John Venlet on 08/25 at 03:30 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, August 24, 2007

Now That's Insurance Service

Many individuals complain about insurance.  Complaints can range over the premiums required to be paid for the insurance, the hassle of filing claims, to the increase in premiums which can result from the filing of a claim.

I’ve had fairly few dealings with insurance companies, other than paying my premiums, but in the few instances where I did need to file a claim, the insurers who provided my coverage performed their contractural obligations for the most part hassle free.

Typically, insurers only step in after a loss, but AIG Private Client Group, takes a more “proactive” approach to protecting their clients’ assets, which I must admire, and is illustrated by the following.

A private fire crew dispatched by a national insurance company that caters to wealthy clients is guarding 22 high-end homes threatened by the Castle Rock Fire, a blaze that has forced the evacuation of hundreds of million-dollar homes west of Ketchum.

The crew will protect only homes insured by AIG Private Client Group, an insurance company that offers “loss-prevention services” to its wealthiest customers.

Of course, the fact that AIG is only protecting their clients homes will ruffle a few feathers (see some of the comments at The Obscure Store link), but those covered by AIG’s policies are paying for that proactive coverage through higher premiums, so the ruffled feathered few should simply be ignored.

Saving million-dollar homes

Via The Obscure Tree.

Posted by John Venlet on 08/24 at 04:57 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Electrifying!

Lightning strikes of airplanes are a fairly common occurence, though rarely photographed.  Here’s a link of a Nippon Air jet being struck by lightning.  The link has a real time video of the strike, a slow motion video of the strike, and a still photo.  Quite spectacular, though I’m glad I wasn’t on the jet.

Lightning Strike of Nippon Air Jet

Via Fred Lapides GoodShit.

Posted by John Venlet on 08/23 at 06:52 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Drive Through DUI

Here’s a DUI story out of Nebraska which puzzles me a bit.

Schaaf, 24, was picked up on suspicion of first-offense DUI at 3 a.m. March 20 after ordering four cheeseburgers in the McDonald’s drive-through at 10th and Arapahoe streets.

When he got the to pick-up window the fast-food employee asked Schaaf to pull ahead and wait.

Lincoln Police Officer Kenneth Marrow took the food to Schaaf’s car after he said he observed, from inside the drive-through window, that Schaaf had bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech and that he could smell alcohol coming from the car.

What puzzles me about this story is, what in the world is a cop doing standing around inside a McDonald’s drive through window area at 3:00 A.M.?  Was he responding to a McBurglar call, or did he have a craving for some cinnamon melts?

Judge asked to decide drive-through DUI case

The Obscure Store.

Posted by John Venlet on 08/23 at 06:00 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

The Bong Show

Ever vigilant, the FBI, investigating a “suspicious package” onboard a Seattle ferry, has determined the item in question was a bong.

The FBI has confirmed that a suspicious package that idled one of the largest ferries in the Washington state fleet for about an hour Wednesday morning was actually a water-pipe typically used for smoking marijuana.

“Someone found a bong,” said David Gomez, FBI assistant special agent in charge.

No word on if Dr. Bongs was consulted to assist in identifying the suspicious package.

Discovery of bong delays WA ferry service

Via Ace of Spades HQ.

Posted by John Venlet on 08/23 at 05:23 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Reflections After Visiting Concentration Camps

Philosopher Douglas Rasmussen has been traveling in eastern Europe this summer and writes of his experiences at two former concentration camps, one Communist and one Nazi:

“Last week I saw the Sighet Prison in Romania which is very close to the Ukraine border. From about 1948, the Communists used it as a place for political prisoners and torture. It is a memorial now, and it shows all the prison camps and labor camps that were in Romania. It also shows a history of the Romanian resistance to the Commies. They fought in the mountains for years—indeed as late as the 60’s. I have known of this for years, but to actually see the place, the names, the faces is overwhelming. I realize now that I came here to see this prison as much as anything else. It is amazing how bland and simple a place of terror can look. You think it would be in red and orange and look evil. Two days ago, I saw Auschwitz. Well, what can one say? German efficiency is a marvel! I knew what happened there. Indeed, I have read much and seen movies, but to walk under the gate with the words ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ is unbelievable. To see huge rooms filled with human hair, shoes, brushes, to see the tickets that Greek Jews bought to go to Auschwitz thinking that it was to be a new land for them, to see the rooms smaller than a broom closet in which people were forced to stand all night and day, to see the gas chamber, the crematoria, to see it all this is more than one can take. I could not sleep after seeing it, and I cannot accept such a moral obscenity! Nothing can remove this stain, and it is something that can NEVER be forgiven or forgot. Justice demands no less. A very good philosopher and friend, Jon Jacobs, was with me. Jon is more or less sympathetic to classical liberalism and more or less Jewish, and he said the central point quite eloquently: Once you accept the proposition that people can be used without their consent, this is where you end. Philosopher Doug den Uyl then added, ‘And the first step towards thinking people can be used without their consent is to claim that the individual exists for the sake of society.’”

Bold by editor.

Via Stephen Hicks’, Professor of Philosophy at Rockford College, website. Entry dated August 6, 2007

Posted by John Venlet on 08/22 at 01:18 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 2 of 142 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »