Guilty, but of What?
As I look at Bill Lerach’s La Jolla, California, home [“I Am Guilty,” July], it is evident that he is as greedy as any Fortune 500 C.E.O.  It is just as clear that, depending on the political bent of a prosecutor, there are multiple laws available for a prosecutor to use to convict someone. Greed is a nasty trait, but Lerach is merely an unsympathetic victim.

—Aaron Zimmerman, Syracuse, New York

I was represented as a lead plaintiff in a number of class-action securities suits by many of the country’s major law firms, including Lerach’s former shop Milberg Weiss. Most of the time, after years of litigation, both sides would reach a settlement. But in the final analysis, the law firms came out the winners. The victims were subjected to unending harassment, and the defendants’ businesses were greatly disrupted. And rarely did the plaintiff class receive anything of substance out of the settlements.

The judges allowed plaintiffs’ ­affairs to be subjected to brutal examinations and the cases to drag out almost endlessly. Moreover, the judges looked the other way when plaintiffs and defendants approved outrageous settlements. These types of huge settlements have turned class-action suits into an industry. Plaintiffs need someone who has no stake in the outcome to look after their interests.

—Richard Rosenblatt, Rancho Santa Fe, California

And the Pursuit of … ?
John Cassidy’s July column “Happiness Is...” made me very unhappy. Perhaps it’s true that having money is not an end unto itself and that ­Europeans seem to understand that concept better than Americans do. That said, a call for government to “promote” (i.e., force) family-friendly policies and “subsidize” (i.e., make me pay for) community activities will not make me feel better about the cosmos and my part in it. I will just have to work harder to pay higher prices and more taxes. When will Americans understand that the pursuit of happiness is a
pursuit, not a promise?

—Linda Rawles, Mesa, Arizona

Am I content with my beautiful wife? Am I content in my comfortable home? The answer is absolutely. Happiness might be subjective, but money is obviously not the answer.

—Chris Salina, Location Withheld

All-American Guns
In “Arming the Drug Wars” [July], James Verini seems to want to blame gun manufacturers, lax regulation
of gun sales, and understaffed border checkpoints for the thousands of drug-war-related deaths that have occurred in Mexico during the past several years. But it is in fact simple economic principles that have led to these crimes: The drug cartels and dealers understand the free market. The exorbitant price that drugs ­command in the U.S. results in intense competition for the profits, which has led to violence in the ­Mexican border states as well as our own cities.
But this is a false crisis, and responsibility for it ultimately rests with all of us, through our elected representatives. If we understood simple economic principles, we would not choose to pursue policies that feed right into the continued violence. Instead, we would have the courage and vision to follow the example of our forebears when they had the good sense to repeal the 18th Amendment after the U.S. experienced a similar problem with crime during Prohibition.

—Robert Harter, Phoenix, Arizona

The Gay Marriage Business
I think your appeal to business and American capitalists to push for gay marriage is unfortunate and incorrect [“The Price of Prejudice,” July]. The United States has been an economic powerhouse for decades without
the need for gay marriage.

You avoid mentioning that the voters of California were overruled by the courts, then you note that the “majority of Americans” oppose same-sex marriage. You should have written an article about how disgusting and un-American it is for courts to overrule the people.

—Michael Binggeli, Kansas City, Missouri

A simple thank-you for your July Commentary.

—Jason Klinman, New York, New York

Sinking Dollars
I was intrigued to learn why Jesse ­Eisinger thinks that those who believe the worst of the financial crisis is over “couldn’t be more wrong” [“Bank Job,” July]. The article equivocates in regard to the prudence of investors who bought into ailing financial institutions: “Some will be right; some will be wrong. I don’t know, you don’t know, and they don’t know.” If Eisinger doesn’t know, how can he assume that they don’t know? Later in his column, he states, “Some of these investors will end up making a killing,” and we are left to assume that Eisinger thinks most of us, presumably, will not.

It would have been enlightening to remember that sovereign investment funds based in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, for example, are loaded with dollars. Buying into depressed assets may be a good long-term bet, as opposed to holding on to a sinking dollar. When else to buy? When asset prices are high? This is all part of the saga in which the U.S. sells its assets to support current consumption levels and the government’s deficit spending. If I am to be won over by Eisinger’s strong views on this important issue, I would want to know what his calls were during the Mexican debt crisis, the Asian financial crisis, the Russian default, and the Long-Term Capital Management bailout.

—Richard Shaper, Hauppauge, New York