President Bush on Friday (8/31/07) announced steps that his administration will be taking to help borrowers avoid defaulting on their sub-prime mortgages and to maintain the mortgage industry.  But very few people really know what is meant by a 'sub-prime mortgage'.

The term sub-prime seems to imply that these are mortgages somehow tied to the so-called prime interest rate; perhaps they are mortgages carrying an interest rate below the prime rate.  Since the Federal Reserve Bank sets the prime rate, there is the strong suggestion that the federal government is thus responsible for these mortgages and particularly for those in default.

When we first came to Texas nearly 20 years ago, my spouse and I obtained what might be called a sub-prime mortgage; because of our credit history, a 20% down payment, and a 15-year (instead of a 30-year) mortgage, the interest rate on our mortgage was significantly less than most (though not less than the prime rate).  We were also able to negotiate a mortgage with:

• All amounts paid in excess of the minimum due at the time being credited as a partial repayment of principal.
• Interest calculated only on the outstanding principal balance.
• No penalty for an early payoff.

While we could have qualified for a mortgage nearly twice as large, we borrowed only enough money to purchase as much house as we needed at the time.

Today, our home is completely debt-free; we haven't made a mortgage payment in more than five years.  When the interest rate paid on savings dipped below our mortgage interest rate, we made extra payments on the mortgage.  Eventually, we secured a home equity loan at a lower rate than our mortgage, retired the mortgage early, and then paid off the home equity loan before it was due.

But the current meaning of 'sub-prime' is quite different from our experience.  Sub-prime is currently used to describe mortgages given to borrowers who, for one reason or another, did not qualify.  These mortgages were typically made at higher than normal, usually adjustable, interest rates and frequently with no down payment.  Worse, monthly payments for an initial period were sometimes interest-only payments with the monthly amount increasing later to finally include payment on the principal.  These borrowers are now finding that they are unable to make the increased mortgage payments, they owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth, and they have little or no equity in that house.

Now comes President Bush to the rescue.  Living beyond their means is to be forgiven.  Poor judgment and unrealistic assumptions about the housing market and their own earnings are to be rewarded.  But the federal government is going to find and punish those who coerced the gullible into taking larger mortgages than they could afford with "teaser" interest rates that are now increasing.  To prevent all of this from happening again, Big Brother in Washington is going to require even more disclosure paper work that nobody except the bureaucrat authors has ever read or ever will read.

In spite of the media hype, there isn't a great deal of money involved here; less than 1% of all mortgages are in or near foreclosure so I'm not concerned that this bailout is a budget buster.  I am disgusted by it on principle; taking my tax dollars to rescue someone else from the results of their bad decisions amounts to socialism, pure and simple.  On another level, it is a betrayal and an insult.  President Bush, whom I have supported on most issues, is telling me that I've been a fool to live prudently and not depend on government handouts.

Some would claim that my objection to this bailout contradicts my supposed claim to being a humanist in that rescuing these borrowers and keeping them in houses they can’t afford is a good for humanity.  My humanism, on the contrary, is concerned with the long term good for all humans and this bailout definitely doesn’t meet that criteria.  While it may be good for the few, it is detrimental to the many; however small that detriment might be.  For the long term, the bailout isn’t even good for the recipients of this government largesse; they learn that they will not be held accountable for their decisions and go on to make ever worse decisions for themselves and the rest of humanity.

And, I confess, there is an element of selfishness in my view on this issue.  The strength of my concern for the good of humanity is directly proportional to the closeness of that humanity to me and mine.  I don’t believe that my well-being is more important than yours but I most certainly am not willing to surrender my property to you because of your continuing bad decisions.

As always, the views expressed here are those of one humanist….

The arrest and immediate deportation of Elvira Arellano yesterday (Immigration activist deported to Mexico (AP)) was at least a year overdue.  She should have been deported as soon as she satisfied whatever sentence she received when found guilty of using an invalid Social Security card.  Releasing her with the expectation that she would surrender for deportation demonstrated incredible naiveté and stupidity on the part of the responsible court.  Or was it the duplicity of a court overriding the law of the land?

Claims that Ms. Arellano should not be deported because the government’s deportation order would separate her from her son are transparent lies and irrelevant.

First, unless Mexico would refuse her son entry, the only one separating Ms. Arellano from her son is Ms. Arellano herself.  The United States government is certainly not preventing Ms. Arellano’s son from accompanying her to Mexico.  She caused the current separation when she chose to be in this country illegally when she bore the child and did not take him with her when she was deported.

Second, her claim or the claim of her supporters that separation from her son will cause undue hardship is completely irrelevant.  Again, it is Ms. Arellano’s actions causing any hardship.  The actions of most miscreants cause hardship for their families.  If we are to allow Ms. Arellano to remain in this country based on this supposed hardship, we must be fair and release almost all inmates of our federal, state, and local prisons.  Unless an inmate is an orphan with no living relatives and no dependants, they could claim that their incarceration is causing hardship for their loved ones and they should be released.

But over and above the long delayed arrest and deportation of Ms. Arellano, I want to know why Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, and others working with him have not been arrested and charged under Title 8 United States Code § 1324 which reads, in part:

(a)(1)(A) Any person who--

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs--

(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or

(iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

Now, I’m not an attorney but I am able to read English (even this convoluted sort) and it seems to me that Coleman and his cohorts have violated 8 USCA § 1432 (a)(1)(A)(iii) and 8 USCA § 1324 (a)(1)(A)(v) and should therefore be guests of the federal government for a maximum of 10 years.

As always, the views expressed here are those of one humanist….

This post was intended to be my first but, after writing and posting two other essays, I discovered that it had not been published.  I could accuse TownHall of dropping the ball somehow but it was more likely the result of my not selecting the “Publish” button.  I’m posting most of it now (the rest has become inappropriate and obsolete) because it still says some things I wanted to say, particularly on the matter of anonymity.

Most, if not all, blogs are narcissistic at best; some are downright exhibitionist.  Many blogs here on Town Hall are apparently intended to change other people’s minds although they seem to me to be preaching to the choir and therefore do more reinforcing than changing.  This blog will perhaps be narcissistic, it will definitely not be exhibitionist, and I don’t really care if anyone’s beliefs are changed by reading it.  My purpose in writing this blog is more cathartic than anything else; there are simply a number of things I want to get off my chest.  I expect that my views will be strengthened, clarified, and perhaps even changed by the act of committing them to print.

A secondary purpose is to demonstrate that there is at least one humanist with rather conservative views; we aren’t all far-left radicals bent on suppressing America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, traditions, and mores.  I say “at least one” and I suspect that there may be many others, some who might be afraid to admit or express their humanist views.  Others may only come to realize their humanism when they read this blog and compare our positions on various issues.  But as I said above, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind; if I do, that’s OK but it really isn’t important to me and is not a purpose of this blog.

Note the title of this blog.  It was very carefully chosen to emphasize that only the views of one humanist are presented here.  I make no claim to represent the views of any other person and certainly not of any other humanist.  To paraphrase, any similarity between the views expressed here and the positions of any individual humanist or group of humanists is purely coincidental.  I expect to be castigated by some as not being a ‘real’ humanist, for not adhering to their particular brand of humanism, and for rejecting some of traditional humanism’s positions.  That sort reminds me of medieval clerics who argued endlessly about the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin.

Now would be a good time to apologize for the anonymity of this blog.  I know that the majority of blogs are written anonymously but I still feel somewhat guilty about it.  I’ve always felt that an anonymous opinion carried a lot less weight than one with an attached signature.  The lengths to which I have gone to remain anonymous are a recognition of the times in which we live and consideration for my extended family.  I fully expect to be attacked from both the left and the right for the views I will be expressing here but there is no need for family members to be exposed to those attacks, particularly when they do not necessarily agree with those views.

As always, the views expressed here are those of one humanist….

Typical or Atypical American?

As the descendant of immigrants, I believe I'm fairly typical.  One family legend has our earliest ancestors arriving some 14,000 years ago via the Bering Straits (or was it a land bridge then?).  Another story passed from one generation to the next would have our family's first arrival on these shores in the 17th century aboard a slave ship.

The earliest documented immigrant among my ancestors arrived in Philadelphia in 1750 some months after a petty theft charge -- OK, he was accused of being a pickpocket -- had been dismissed by a magistrate in Liverpool, England.  Other branches of my family tree arrived during the next two centuries from Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Germany.

None of my known ancestors seems to have come from any other countries but I was fortunate to grow up in a neighborhood where I was badly outnumbered by people of African, Belgian, French, Italian, and Polish ancestry.  I later went to school with more of the above plus Chinese, Greeks, Indians, Russians, and lots of folks who were, like me, a mix of several ethnicities.  During two U.S. Army tours of duty in the Far East, I worked as closely as you can imagine (in some cases, literally elbow-to-elbow while getting shot at) with still more of the above plus Hispanics, Koreans, Montagnards, Thais, and Vietnamese.

The reason for listing my genealogy and the ethnic diversity of my relationships is to preemptively refute claims of racism in my views on immigration.  There have been many people of different races that I disliked intensely but many more that I have really liked and in neither case was this because of their race.

I honestly believe that the majority of Americans are very much like me regarding race.  In the first place, many of us aren’t too certain of our own ethnic origins and, more importantly, realize that the other fellow’s origins aren’t very important to anyone but him.  We evaluate people we meet based on individual character; not on a preconceived notion based on their race.

Immigration Reform

Although I am a native American citizen, I have the greatest admiration for my fellow citizens who have made the conscious decision to become American citizens.  I merely did a good job of picking my parents; they had to have the wisdom to select this nation and to then prove themselves worthy of citizenship.

In either case, we have, through our elected representatives, determined conditions under which people from other lands may come here on temporary or permanent bases.  It was argued during recent Senate debates that we need to reform our immigration laws.  Although I seriously distrust the motives of those advancing this argument, I suspect they may be correct.  My idea of reform, however, differs a great deal from their granting amnesty to those who have violated our immigration laws.  I believe that, if any reform is needed, it would be to strengthen our laws to require:

·         Classification of illegal border crossing or assisting in illegal border crossing as offenses for which bail may not be granted.  Would we arrest members of an invading army, and then release them into our country based on their promise to appear in court?

·         Immediate deportation on completion of their sentence of any illegal alien found guilty of an infraction of our laws – including any misdemeanors.  Deportation in these cases would be in response to violation of our immigration laws, not punishment for the secondary offense.

·         Prosecution of anyone providing assistance of any kind to illegal aliens as assisting border violation and conspiracy to violate federal law.

·         All visitors to periodically report their whereabouts and be considered in violation – subject to prosecution or immediate deportation without trial – if they are not where they are supposed to be or remain in this country when their visa has expired.

·         More severe penalties for employers of illegal aliens.  The term ‘employers’ should be understood to include individuals – the homeowner who hires an illegal to clean his house or mow his grass – as well as businesses that cut corners by hiring illegals.

But even these reforms may not be necessary and may be premature until we can honestly say that we have secured our borders and are enforcing existing immigration law.  The recent increased effort by the Department of Homeland Security to improve border security and enforce laws concerning employment of illegal aliens is encouraging.  We can only hope that it will continue.

As always, the views expressed here are those of one humanist….

Given the name of this blog, the subject of religion had to come up sooner or later so let's get to it right away.  The topic is so broad; however, that this post will hit only some high points that might help you (and me) understand some of my positions on other matters.  Future posts will no doubt return to some finer points of this topic.   

Atheism

First, like most humanists, I am an atheist.  But humanism did not lead me to atheism; it was more a case of humanism, to which I had been introduced during a college course, coming to the fore when I decided I could no longer accept the Judeo-Christian God of my youth.

A Protestant Sunday School had taught me since an early age that God is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent Being who is kind, loving, and forgiving.  I eventually came to doubt all of this and finally to reject it completely.  I just couldn't respect, much less worship, a God with such attributes that could permit such human catastrophes as:

• Suppression, by his church, of learning and progress during the first four centuries of the Middle Ages -- learning and progress that might have helped mankind avoid, prevent, or, at least, alleviate the effects of later catastrophes.

• The torture, rape, and slaughter that were part of the Mongol conquest of the Eurasian land mass in the 13th and 14th Centuries leaving 60 million – 50% of their population at the time – dead in China alone.

• The Black Death, the bubonic plague epidemic that killed 75 million in 14th Century Europe.

• The extermination of 9 to 11 million people during the holocaust; including 6 million Jews, the 'Chosen People'.

• The murder of 15 to 20 million of his own people by Josef Stalin in just 31 years of rule.

• The killing of more than 22.5 million Chinese in various wars of aggression and civil war from 1900 to 1949.  This has been followed by the democide (murder by government) of another 42 million since the People's Republic of China was established in 1949.

This is admittedly only a partial list and omits the history of non-fatal human suffering but it begins to describe the reasoning that led to my atheism.

Although on a smaller scale than the tragedies listed above, continuing human slavery, genocide, child abuse, and certain events in my personal experience have only reinforced my atheism.  How could an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, kind, loving, and forgiving God allow these things to occur?

Religious Freedom

I hasten to add that I completely disagree with -- even strongly oppose -- those more strident atheists who demand that the First Amendment of the US Constitution be interpreted to mean collective, public freedom from religion instead of the intended individual freedom of religion.  There is no need for interpretation here; the Founding Fathers, extremely well educated men, were very precise in their framing of the idea that was to them so important as to be the very first addressed in the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state-sanctioned religion and any restriction on your right to believe as you see fit.  To claim that the First Amendment prohibits any kind of religious practice is revisionism of the worst sort.

It seems to me that those atheists who would stand the First Amendment on its head are somehow afraid of the open practice of religion, particularly Judaism and Christianity.  So long as I am free to believe differently or not at all, how am I offended by another's expressions of his religious beliefs?  Am I somehow injured by the mere sight of his religious symbols?  The rest of us have much more to fear from such a perversion of the First Amendment than from freely permitting the public expression of religious beliefs; one position attempts to dictate what we must not believe while the other allows us to believe what we will. 

Our Judeo-Christian Heritage

Although I reject the Judeo-Christian Deities and the laws, rules, and practices regarding those Deities, I embrace those aspects of our Judeo-Christian heritage concerning human relationships.  I try to obey these laws, be guided by these ethics, and continue these traditions because:

1.        The primary objective of secular Judeo-Christian laws, ethics, and traditions is the peaceful continuance of the human race.

2.        This heritage holds individual rights to be of prime importance over community prerogatives at all levels so long as the exercise of those rights does no harm to fellow humans.

3.        Individual responsibility is exalted along with individual rights.
 

4.        Economic freedom and political freedom, the twin foundations of most human progress in the last 3,000 years, are strongly promoted by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

5.        More than 30 centuries of trial-and-error, refinement, and adoption of ideas from other philosophies have made secular Judeo-Christian laws, ethics, and traditions the most reasoned and most equitable guide for living known to man.
 

6.        The Judeo-Christian heritage is the American heritage.  To deny this is to deny and attempt to rewrite history.

Note that I do not rely on humanism to justify my acceptance of the secular Judeo-Christian heritage; rather, I see 'humanist' as merely a label that describes me because of my acceptance of the basically humanist, secular Judeo-Christian – American – heritage.

Islam

If you have read the foregoing, my views on Islam should not be a major surprise: Islam is the very antithesis of a 'religion of peace' and Islam is at war with the rest of the world, particularly Israel, the United States, and any nation that is a friend to us.

Even though our President and various apologists insist that Islam is a religion of peace, I just can't believe it.  Daily reports of atrocities committed by Muslims on Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of Allah are hardly the actions of the followers of a religion of peace.  Granted, there are some Muslims, even a few American Muslim clerics, who denounce the violence being committed in the name of Allah but their voices are few and seldom manage to sound appropriately outraged.  In any event, their voices are lost in the cries of the victims of Muslim violence.

Islam is at war with us and we are at war with Islam.  Ignoring or denying that simple fact, whether through honest pacifism, a blame-America-first ideology, craven cowardice, or apathy, will lead to your death or, worse, your enslavement and the end of our civilization.  A state of war is not a condition that must be agreed upon by all parties.  It takes only one side to make war; Muslims have proclaimed this war and proven by their actions their intent to prosecute it with deadly, unrelenting intensity.  The object of their war is no less than the subjugation or destruction of all non-Islamic civilization, with Israel, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and all of our other friends as their current primary targets.  As with all wars, the longer we delay our confrontation of the aggressor, the more costly and difficult will be the struggle with the outcome becoming increasingly bleak.  If we wait until Iran and, through Iran, terrorist organizations throughout the world, have become nuclear armed, it will be too late.

As always, the views expressed here are those of one humanist….