Monday, May 07, 2007

Equality, I Don't Think So

Though I’ve read a smattering of Kurt Vonnegut’s work over the years, I was never that taken by them that I had to delve further into his writings.  I may have to reconsider this, though, after reading Vonnegut’s short story Harrison Bergeron, which I just completed reading moments ago.

Though all men are created equal, each individual has been blessed with their own unique, or not so unique, set of talents.

Vonnegut’s story has a Handicapper General, state mandated handicaps for those with too unique of talents, and was a thoroughly enjoyable short (5 minutes max) read.

A banal hat tip to Billy J’s Banality for the enjoyment received from the story.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/07 at 04:20 PM
(4) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Second Amendment Note

Yesterday, the New York Times published a piece, written by Adam Liptak, titled A Liberal Case for the Individual Right to Own Guns Helps Sway the Federal Judiciary. I must admit, that I was a bit surprised to see this in that paper.

There is actually only one line within Liptak’s piece, though, that drew my eye.  It appears to be attributable to Lawrence H. Tribe, Akhil Reed, and Sanford Levinson, a trio of liberal constitutional scholars.

The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution.

There is nothing collective about gun ownership.  It is an individual right.

UPDATE: Christopher Orlet, writing at The American Spectator, has a few words on Adam Liptak’s piece, which I referenced above.  Orlet’s piece is titled An About-Face on Guns.

The last line from Orlet’s piece.

It is important that Americans understand the historical aspects surrounding the debate, and not rely solely on the empty wind of politicians’ soundbites.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/07 at 05:03 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

It Still Boils Down to Principles

In a post yesterday I titled Mortgaged Principles, I noted that the subprime mortgage meltdown had seemingly fallen below the radar of the major news media.  Well, this morning, I see that the Washington Post’s subprime radar is rotating and radiating with a piece on the subprime lending industry’s woes by David Cho titled Pressure at Mortgage Firm Led To Mass Approval of Bad Loans.

Cho’s piece, put together with interviews with various boots on the ground subprime loan grunts, does provide a wee glimpse into the front line of subprime lending, but, as Cho’s piece is titled, should we accept that the pressure to produce loans for sale in the secondary market led to the “mass approval of bad loans,” as if this was some form of mass hysteria?

Though the subprime lending industry’s woes were exacerbated by the “pressure” to produce more and more loans, the root cause of the subprime lending industry’s meltdown is the following, as written in Cho’s piece.

And a detailed inquiry into the situation at New Century and other subprime lenders suggests that in the feeding frenzy for housing loans, basic quality controls were ignored in the mortgage business, while the big Wall Street investment banks that backed these firms looked the other way.

It’s all about the principles.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/07 at 04:29 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages