Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Continued Fostering of a False Sense of Security

Kent County, Michigan, the county I reside in, is once again perpetuating the false sense of security pedaled via gun buy-back programs.  I’m fairly certain you all know how the programs work, or at least how they are sold.  Gun owners (“bad guys”) will be offered a stipend in the form of some type of gift card or such, to turn in their guns, and we’ll all sleep better at night safe in the palms of our government keepers.

Study, after study, after study, have shown that the gun buy-back programs are mere window dressing, a photo op for politicians, and they also provide a nice headline to publish in the newspaper for those too lazy to investigate the actual non-benefits of such programs.

Here’s my favorite line from the story as reported in The Grand Rapids Press,

Funds are limited, so once the money runs out then names will be taken in case more is received.

I’m sure the “bad guys” will be sure to leave their names and addresses if the buy-back program runs out of funds.

Kent Co. gun buy-back program begins Thursday

UPDATE:

I’m pleased to read, this morning, that Kent County’s gun buy-back program does not have much in the way of funds for the program.  Maybe individuals who have previously ponied up cash for these warm fuzzy programs have come to their senses.

Funds short for Kent County gun amnesty buy-back

Posted by John Venlet on 09/06 at 01:39 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Pay Option ARM and Hammered

Karen DeCoster recently noted the same Business Week article I did titled “Nightmare Mortgages.” 

The article notes a possible looming problem for individuals who opted for what are called pay option ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages) as the financial vehicle for their home purchase or refinance.  Some of those who did utilize this financial vehicle are going to get hammered.

In a nutshell, what a pay option ARM offers to individuals is the ability to choose to make either a fully amortizing mortgage payment (a monthly payment which covers all interest currently owed, plus a portion of the principal), an interest only payment (no payment to principal), or a minimum payment which does not cover all the interest currently owed and the remaining interest currently owed is then added to the existing principal balance, which is termed negative amortization.

Karen, somewhat erroneously, begins her comments on the article with this comment,

A superb Business Week article on all things evil as regards ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages).

The Business Week article is well written, and Karen’s comments are worth reading also, but ARMs are not in anyway evil.  ARMs are simply riskier financial vehicles than your standard vanilla ice cream fixed rate mortgage.  Especially the pay option ARM.

I’ll not comment any further on Karen’s post, or the Business Week article, but I will offer some insights on what I think is the actual issue with the sale of this loan product to individuals.  A lack of ethics within the mortgage industry, more specifically the subprime/non-conforming loan industry, an issue which is touched on in the Buisness Week article.

Having recently been deep in the trenches of the subprime/non-conforming mortgage industry, I was privy to the large push which was instituted to sell the pay option ARM to the masses as if it was the best thing since sliced bread.

The hook for this loan product is its initial low monthly payment.  We all know how low monthly payments are sold.  They’re hollered at us from teevee, radio, and print ads, repeatedly, as if it is the one and only reason to buy the product being pitched.  The subprime/non-conforming mortgage industry pitched the pay option ARM the same way.

The risks associated with the pay option ARM, in most cases, were pooh-poohed by the sales staffs of lenders who were selling the product to individuals.  A fact which may be attributable to both the ignorance of the individuals working for the lender (up to 60% of many lenders sales staffs have been in the mortgage industry for less than one (1) year and quite possibly do not know the difference between the mortgagor and the mortgagee let alone what negative amortization is), and the willingness of the masses to gobble up the low monthly payment hook with no further due diligence.

Granted, there are loan disclosure documents which must be signed and dated by prospective borrowers, which fully disclose the mechanics and risks of pay option ARMs, but they are rarely read by prospective borrowers.  This in and of itself is not the lender’s fault.  But it is interesting to note that today some mortgage lenders are consolidating all of the disclosures which must be signed and dated by borrowers into a paperback book format.  Thus, only one (1) document requires the borrower’s signature, which is the acknowledgement page of said disclosure book, which states that the borrower acknowledges receipt of all required loan disclosures, and that the borrower understands the disclosures contained within the book.  Of course, the majority of borrowers are only looking to confirm the low initial monthly payment quoted to them over the telephone, rather than having to actually read and understand something, so the disclosure book becomes a drink coaster, or is tossed aside and then read after the deal has been consummated, which, of course, is too late.

What I found most disturbing, ethically, about the sale of this loan product, was the fact that it was being sold to individuals who it had no business being sold to simply so the lender could put another loan on the books.  The loan was being sold to individuals on fixed incomes, to individuals in real estate markets known to be stagnant or depreciating, and to individuals who could barely qualify for the minimum monthly payment due at the inception of the mortgage.  Individuals at the most risk for payment default were (are) being sold the riskiest home loan product on the market.

ARMs are not evil, they are simply financial tools.  The issue is the ethics of those pushing the this loan product to those individuals who are least capable of operating the tool.

Posted by John Venlet on 09/06 at 08:08 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Incorrect on So Many Levels

Handgun.  This little noun seems to strike fear, nay incoherence, into seemingly rational people.  Verlyn Klinkenborg, a member of The New York Times editorial board, is no exception to this observation.

This morning, Mr. Klinkenborg has opined on the subject of handguns, carried concealed, and the N.R.A., in a piece titled Once a Progressive State, Minnesota Is Now a Fief of the N.R.A.  The title itself provides you with a fairly concise synopsis of what Mr. Klinkenborg’s views on are the subject.

Although Mr. Klinkenborg is not so far gone as to be advocating the removal of firearms from the hands of individuals; he owns a .22, a .270, and a couple of shotguns; he evidently considers a firearm which can be concealed and carried by an individual as an imminent danger to every other individual on the street.

Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety.

Well, unless you’re a cop and are supposedly well qualified to utilize a handgun in your official capacity as investigators of crime, rather than preventers of crime,

I would leave the police work to the police, and they would leave the squirrel hunting to me.

Further into this oped, Mr. Klinkenborg ridicules the N.R.A. for advocating, for individuals, the right to own handguns and carry them in their day to day activities.  Even going so far as to say this about what he believes is the N.R.A’s. actual agenda,

Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual.

I do not belong to the N.R.A., so I will not opine on what they’re actually about.  But I will say this, if the N.R.A. is advocating for no limitation on the rights of individuals, I sincerely hope their stance regarding individual rights continues to rile Mr. Klinkenborg.

Posted by John Venlet on 09/05 at 07:13 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, September 04, 2006

Labor Day

The state propounds, through legislation of course, this idea of Labor Day;

Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.

I prefer to think of Labor Day, and labor in general, more along the lines which Paul Greenberg expresses;

On this Labor Day, a great deal will be said in the usual press releases, but none of it will be more eloquent than work done well. To me, two new soles on a pair of well-shined shoes still say more than all the Labor Day speeches ever written.

Paul Greenberg’s piece on Labor Day is titled The labor theory of value

Posted by John Venlet on 09/04 at 09:40 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

“The creation, not the benefit others derived from it.”

The title to this post is a quote from The Fountainhead, which was written by Ayn Rand.  The quote is fresh in my mind today for two (2) reasons.  First, because Billy Beck, of the blog Two Four, linked to an outtake of Howard Roark’s courtroom speech, from the movie adapted from the book, in a post titled “Yes, I think So, Too”  Billy hat tips to another blog, There Is No Government Like No Government, for the outtake.

The second, and more driving reason, for utilizing the words spoken by Roark, but penned by Rand, as the title to this post, is this story, “History Claims Her Artwork, but She Wants It Back.”

The story, pulled from The New York Times, relates to us the story of Dina Babbitt, an Auschwitz survivor, and artist, who was coerced by Joseph Mengele to paint pictures of Gypsy prisoners, in order to live.

The pictures painted by Ms. Babbitt currently hang in the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum in Poland.  Though the museum fully acknowledges the paintings were indeed painted by Ms. Babbitt, it claims the paintings as their own property stating,

...we do not regard these as personal artistic creations but as documentary work done under direct orders from Dr. Mengele and carried out by the artist to ensure her survival.

A convoluted reasoning which is, in my mind, undigestible.
Neither The New York Times, nor the writer of the story, Steve Friess, evidently understand that the paintings are Ms. Babbitt’s, as evidenced by this quote from the story,

Mrs. Babbitt’s case is unusual among the property disputes to emerge from the Holocaust because it involves artwork created under the duress of Nazis, not property confiscated by the Nazis.

Though the NYT acknowledges the artwork was “created” by Ms. Babbitt, the NYT and Mr. Friess evidently think; and I use the word think facetiously; that since the artwork was created “under the duress of the Nazis,” it is not property.  Which I guess is not “unusual,” considering the story comes from the NYT.

What ties this story even more closely to the words I chose for the title of this post, though, are these words from the NYT story,

The Auschwitz museum, which considers the watercolors to be its property, has argued that they are rare artifacts and important evidence of the Nazi genocide, part of the cultural heritage of the world.

The “cultural heritage of the world,” of course, being nothing more than the collective.

These paintings, created by Dina Babbitt, are hers, and hers alone, to do with as she pleases.  Dina Babbitt understands this;

I created them. Who else’s could they be?

Why doesn’t the museum, the NYT, Steve Friess, or the other thiefs of the collective understand this?  Because they cannot reason for themselves.

Link to NYT story via Fred Lapides’ website GoodShit.

For your further reading enjoyment and enlightment, here is a link to the entire courtroom speech of Howard Roark as taken from “The Fountainhead.”

The NYT requires registration to read their story online.  Feel free to use for login “nytimesoops,” and “nytimes” for the password, if you are not registered with the NYT, and do not want to bother with registering.

Posted by John Venlet on 08/30 at 12:37 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The End Does Not Justify The Means, Nor Do His Words Support It - A Fatal Flaw

On Sunday, March 26, The Wall Street Journal published a piece by Charles Murray who is a W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.  Mr. Murray has recently published a new book titled “In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State” and the WSJ graciously provided their pages as a marketing opportunity for Mr. Murray to move a few more copies of his book.

When reading the title to Mr. Murray’s book, one could be tempted to think that Mr. Murray is advocating a worthy goal, removal of the State’s hands from our various pockets and elimination of the State’s misguided attempts at wealth re-distribution via social security, medicare and welfare programs.  A portion of Mr. Murray’s words, as published in the WSJ, could also be interpreted as supporting removal of the State’s pernicious meddling in matters which should be left to the natural actions of the market, or, returned to the hands of individuals.

Mr. Murray’s proposal, though, does not, as he states at the end of this piece in the WSJ, ”...put responsibility for our lives back in our hands—ours as individuals, ours as families, and ours as communities.”  Mr. Murray’s proposal simply appears to put responsibility back into individuals’ hands, but the actual methodology suggested by Mr. Murray proves, without a doubt, that the responsibility will not be delegated to the individual, where it belongs, but will remain with the State, as the following excerpt from Mr. Murray’s “The Plan,” demonstrates:

“Instead of sending taxes to Washington, straining them through bureaucracies and converting what remains into a muddle of services, subsidies, in-kind support and cash hedged with restrictions and exceptions, just collect the taxes, divide them up, and send the money back in cash grants to all American adults.”

Back to the drawing board, Mr. Murray, your plan is fatally flawed.

The article in the WSJ is titled “A Plan to Replace the Welfare State.”

Posted by John Venlet on 03/28 at 08:00 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, March 24, 2006

Drunk With Power

The State of Texas has begun arresting individuals for being drunk, in bars.  According to Carolyn Beck, a spokesperson for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, the decision to conduct sting operations right in the bar, or what I would term trolling for drunks, is based on the commissions “feelings,” as evidenced by this quote:

“We feel that the only way we’re going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this…”

No word on when the commission will begin “feeling” that two drinks is the maximum number of drinks an individual may be served during a 24 hour period.

Finding drunks in a bar—what are the chances?

Posted by John Venlet on 03/24 at 06:56 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Good, But Not Good Enough

Kathleen Sebelius’, Governor of the State of Kansas, supposed infinite wisdom has been found lacking by the professional job holders, lackeys all, who surround her with their plaintive calls for this and that for the “good of the people.”

It will now be legal in Kansas, well, as long as you obtain a piece of paper with the appropriate lackeys’ lackey’s signature, to carry a concealed weapon.  Sebelius had vetoed the bill, which had been passed by both the House and the Senate, but both the House and the Senate overrode, for the first time in 12 years I might add, Sebelius’ veto.

This is good, as I reference in the title to this post, but not good enough.  The better examples of how it should be are the states of Alaska and Vermont which do not require a note from the State acknowledging you as a citizen worthy enough to carry a concealed weapon.

Now if only the federal government would keep their sticky little fingers out of this right.

Kansas Becomes 39th Conceal Carry State

Here’s a link to the bill itself, Senate Bill No. 418.  The senate bill link is in pdf format.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/23 at 02:11 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, March 13, 2006

V is for Vacuousness, too

V for Vendatta will be splashing across the big screens, beginning March 17th, and the commentary I’ve read to date, here, here, and here, all seem to prattle on about revolutions and terrorists.  The various writers associated with these commentaries also do their best to continue the obfuscation of the actual meaning of anarchy, preferring to utilize the word as a scare tactic/smear rather than as a nod to self determination.  I wonder if any of the writers have actually read “V for Vendatta?”

Granted, the protagnist, V, is at times a rather violent fellow, but the nuanced message relayed by Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s graphic novel is seemingly lost in an orgy of violence/chaos in the minds of the writers, linked above, who do not seem to grasp that freedom begins with the individual, and dies by the State.

UPDATE:  Richard Roeper isn’t falling for the spin on “V for Vendatta.”  Here’s the title to Roeper’s piece on the subject at hand:

“Don’t fall for false mask being put on ‘Vendetta’”

Posted by John Venlet on 03/13 at 04:53 PM
(5) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Firing It Up With A Quote

“Free inquiry is blocked by the idiotic certainties of ignorant men.”

H. L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy, The South, The Sahara of Bozart, pg. 216

Posted by John Venlet on 03/13 at 04:41 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Pope Dies

Even so…

Pope John Paul II has died, I see. 

John Paul II was indeed a venerable man, none-the-less, he, as all Popes since their rise to power, reign as the titular heads of one of the most oppressive institutions aligned against individual sovereignty since the dawn of time.

Posted by John Venlet on 04/02 at 08:03 PM
(5) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, February 28, 2005

“Always Low Prices”

Erroneously blaming WalMart for consumer choices…

Two recent pieces regarding retail behemoth WalMart caught my eye in the past 23 hours.

First, Karen DeCoster deftly reviews those individuals wailing to keep WalMart out of Detroit in a piece titled “Republicans Against Wal-Mart/Getting it Wrong on Detroit.”  Karen’s summation.

“It is, in fact, the chain retail and grocery giants that will perhaps save Detroit, but sure as heck not ruin it.”

Now, compare DeCoster’s remarks, with Robert B. Reich’s, as published in The New York Times, in a piece titled “Don’t Blame Wal-Mart.”  The title of the piece could almost lead an individual to think that Reich is in favor of free consumer choice and business, also, until one reads this.

“The only way for the workers or citizens in us to trump the consumers in us is through laws and regulations that make our purchases a social choice as well as a personal one.”

Always that ridiculous call for the “workers” and “citizens” to unite in a glorious, and utopian, worker/citizen paradise to “trump” our supposed base instincts of bettering our own personal situations.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/28 at 06:33 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Please Don’t Feed The Animals

Unforntunately, they’re not endangered…

I like the following headline.

“Cage for beast Saddam”

It’s quite apropos.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/28 at 06:26 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Crying Out For Voluntary Cooperation, But Willingly Voting, I Bet

If only they could stick to their stated principle…

Yesterday, the local paper had an article about an impending energy code the State of Michigan desires to enforce on home builders.  As I perused the article, the following comments by Lee Kitson, Vice President of the Michigan Home Builders Association, caught my eye.

“Home builders say they have nothing against energy conservation—many already exceed guidelines slated to take effect Monday.

They just don’t like having the rules force-fed, said builder Lee Kitson, an expert in energy-efficient houses.

My view personally is there are pieces of this that make sense, but they ought to be voluntary,” said Kitson, vice president of the Michigan Association of Home Builders. “This code is not voluntary. We object to that process and to the options.”

Can’t see the forest for the trees.

“Energy code frosts builders”

Posted by John Venlet on 02/27 at 02:56 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Rest, Pause, In, Pause, Peace

Intermittment wipers, they’re everywhere…

Robert Kearns, the inventor of intermittment wipers, has passed away.  I enjoyed his daughters comments regarding his funeral.

“Kearns died Feb. 9 at his home in suburban Baltimore and was buried in Michigan on a misty Valentine’s Day.

“It was going just enough to have the wipers going on intermittent. I thought, ‘How appropriate,’” Kearns’ daughter, Maureen Kearns, told the Detroit Free Press for a story published Friday.”

“Robert Kearns, inventor of intermittent wipers, dies at 77”

Posted by John Venlet on 02/27 at 02:41 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 187 of 297 pages « First  <  185 186 187 188 189 >  Last »