Social Security Privatization, R.I.P.: NY Times Columnist David Brooks gives the eulogy:

Having skimmed decades of private-account proposals, Republicans did not appreciate how unfamiliar this idea would seem to many people. They didn't appreciate how beloved Social Security is, and how much they would have to show they love it, too, before voters would trust them to reform it. In their efforts to create a risk-taking, dynamic society, they didn't appreciate how many people, including conservatives, value security and safety.

Furthermore, Republicans didn't really have a strategy to get their proposals through Congress. They seemed to think that if the president held enough town hall meetings around the country, they could somehow bulldoze the Democrats.

(snip)

But Republican leaders have never really developed the skills required for cross-party horse-trading. Today's Republicans emerged in response to the ideological politics of the 1960's and were forged in the anti-political populism of the 1994 revolution. These anti-political creatures of conviction find sticking to orthodoxy easier than the art of compromise.

(snip)

When Social Security reform was broached, the [Democratic] party leaders went to the F.D.R. Memorial, as if the glory days of the 1930's were the guideposts for the 21st century. Meanwhile, the party base has grown militant with rage. The Howard Dean hotheads declare that they hate the evil Republicans, making compromise seem like collaborating with Satan. The militants, bloggers and polemicists have waged a relentless pressure campaign on any moderates who might even be thinking of offering constructive ideas.

Well, I wouldn't put it that way, exactly, but it does do a heart good realizing the power progressives are beginning to exercise through the blogosphere (or almost as good, the power we are perceived to be exercising; it's interesting to note that while conservative bloggers are more content to pick off the occasional media figure who steps out of line, liberal bloggers are having much more influence at the policy level). For a political party that has been pretty devoid of ideas for a generation, the militancy decried by Pundit Brooks can more accurately be described as a movement becoming revitalized.

Code White: Joel Kotkin, on yesterday's mayoral primary in Los Angeles:

Hertzberg ran as the candidate of the city's middle class, tailoring his appeal largely to the San Fernando Valley, the city's most suburbanized area. He focused on issues like traffic, taxes, police protection, business growth, and dysfunctional schools--topics that are the chief concerns of middle-class homeowners. Yesterday Hertzberg won the bulk of these voters. The problem? Middle-class residents here may no longer have large enough ranks to elect one of their own to citywide office. This may have turned the famously energetic Hertzberg into the little engine that could not climb the demographic hill. Whatever the merits of the candidates in this particular election, one thing is clear: The underlying demographic factors that doomed Hertzberg's campaign spell bad news for Los Angeles, and for the American city in general.(emphasis mine)

Now, I favored Bob Hertzberg in yesterday's race, and I would have voted for him if I hadn't been in a two-and-a-half hour traffic snarl from Costa Mesa to the Valley last night. He had fresh, provocative ideas, and came within an eyelash of knocking an incumbent mayor out of the runoff (also, in the interest of full disclosure, he used to work for my father back in the day). But the inference in that piece, that "middle-class" voters in Los Angeles were unable to elect "one of their own", thanks, no doubt, to the nefarious "special interest groups" who backed Antonio Villaraigosa and James Hahn, not only shortchanges Hertzberg's appeal, but also lays out in very stark form one of the least subtle racial hooks I've read in some time. [link via LA Observed]

And, while I'm at it, it's bogus to boot. First, the voter turnout yesterday was 30% citywide, so it's safe to say that "middle class" voters were probably disproportionately more likely to vote than, lets say, voters in South Central or Panorama City. Hertzberg's problem wasn't that the "middle class" was too small to choose the mayor of Los Angeles, but that he didn't do particularly well with the significant segment of voters who wouldn't be considered "middle class" in Kotkin's analysis.

Second, although it's only a point of semantics, the notion that Bob Hertzberg can be considered one of the "middle class" is a bit of stretch. Hertzberg is a prominent attorney, and himself the son of a prominent attorney. I'm speculating, of course, having no access to any statements of personal net worth, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out a little and guess that, as a prime shaker in a boutique law firm, he probably had an annual income well into the six, maybe even seven, figures. He lives in Encino, one of the wealthiest communities on the planet, Sherman Oaks, a block away from me (me stupid!), and hardly a hub of true middle class sentiment.

Lastly, Kotkin's underlying point, that Hertzberg was the candidate of the "middle class", was belied by the exit polls. According to the city's paper of record, the frontrunner, Villaraigosa, captured 31% of voters earning between $60-100,000 (as opposed to 27% for Hahn, and 21% for Hertzberg), 32% of voters earning between $40-60,000 (vs. 23% for Hertzberg and 22% for Hahn), and 35% of voters earning between $20-40,000 (vs. 28% for Hahn and 16% for Hertzberg); those groups encompassed 64% of the electorate. Only among voters earning in the six figure and above range (26% of the electorate) did Hertzberg surpass Villaraigosa, but even there the margin wasn't that wide (37% to 28%). He also decisively won the East San Fernando Valley, where a large proportion of middle income homeowners actually live. Hertzberg remained competitive by leading in the West Valley and splitting the Westside with his rivals, two of the richest areas in town, but bombing everywhere else.

In other words, the mythical "middle class" voter Kotkin speaks of exists only in the form of a stereotype, the white suburban homeowner. Although the demographic trend he refers to may indeed be happening, whether it represents bad news for this area is another question entirely. If anything, yesterday's election may signify the development of a different type of middle class voter, the non-white Angeleno, which as a voting bloc provided Villaraigosa with the base of his support. Suffice it to say I have not heard anything that would lead me to believe that the emergence of a Latino or African-American middle class is "bad news" for Los Angeles, even if it displaces the "middle class" so near and dear to Kotkin's heart.

No matter how many "democracies" spring up from the ashes of U.S. aggression in the Middle East, it will never justify our decision to have gone to war in the first place. Period. End of story.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? One can applaud the emergence of free elections, opposition parties, even a respect for civil liberties, in the Middle East, and encourage the Bush Administration to live up to the President's rhetoric in his Second Inaugural, and still say "never again" to the mendacity that led us into the war in the first place, or the incompetence that followed. Anyone who has studied history knows that remarkable events often follow in the aftermath of a war, events that may not have been contemplated at the time war started, or which may have had nothing to do with the causus belli, but which are still, in the context of the development of mankind and civilization, quite positive.

For example, the following occurred, either directly or indirectly, because of World War II: the decolonization of the Third World; the end of legalized segregation in the U.S.; the emancipation of women in the U.S. and Europe; the ideological discrediting of racialist and anti-Semitic thinking; the "democratization" of higher education, thanks to the GI Bill of Rights; the establishment of the state of Israel; the emergence of the U.S. as the preeminent industrial power in the world (and with it, the end of the Great Depression); the creation of international bodies of government, such as the U.N.; the development of the computer; and the beginnings of space travel. Without the war, each of those developments would have occurred more slowly, or might not have occurred at all, at least in the way they ultimately did. And those are all good things, but it doesn't mean Hitler was justified in invading Poland, or that the bombings of Dresden or Nagasaki were morally validated.

Riviera Update: With S256, the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005", aka the "Loan Sharking Bill of Rights", aka the "Full-Employment Act for Bankruptcy Counsel", hours from passage by Congress, I would be remiss if I didn't point out my favorite plum in the entire law. Section 1501(a) suspends the effective date of the law for 180 days from the date of passage. Ostensibly to give the courts sufficient time to formulate new procedures and forms for the new law, this elegant little valentine will enable, shall we say, the more dedicated consumer advocates within the bankruptcy bar to advertise from now until September about the importance of filing before the new law goes into effect. Sssssssweeeeeet...just what the doctor ordered for the economy !!

This is another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences at work. Just as the movement to thwart tort actions against Big Business has led instead to the filing of more frivolous lawsuits, and our efforts to fight terrorism have led to more terrorists, so too will this grand attempt to make it harder to file bankruptcy lead instead to more bankruptcy filings. Whatever you might say about Her, God does have a wicked sense of humor.

UPDATE: Oops, my bad--according to CNN, the House isn't set to take up the Senate bill until next month. Expect to see those "Last Chance to File" ads running through the end of October.

Contrasting takes on the bankruptcy "reform" measure from the right, by Instapundit and Volokh Conspiracy. The Volokh poster links to a letter sent by the rapidly diminished "Blue Dog Democrats" (one of George Bush's greatest achievements has been the discrediting of "Luxury Box" Democrats the "Blue Dogs" symbolize, both philosophically and, more importantly, at the polls) to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, giving him their uncritical support for the Republican bill. Among the signatories: Harold Ford Jr. (a possible candidate for the U.S. Senate unless he chickens out again, and who rather ironically notes on his website, "[I]n this new century, America is confronting challenges on many fronts. Our generation has been called upon to fight terrorism, defend our homeland, and expand democracy abroad. At the same time, too many Americans do not have access to good jobs, first-rate education, or quality health care. These are urgent challenges, but there is no doubt America can meet them. We must rise to the task without passing on the burden and the debt to future generations"), Jim Cooper (whose fifth column efforts to sabotage the Clinton Health Care proposal led to the party's minority status in both houses of Congress for the past ten years), and Californians Jane Harman, Joe Baca, Ellen Tauscher and Jim Costa, whose interest in representing less affluent constituents may be tempered by the fact that the 2001 reapportionment has given them safe seats.

A vivid first-person account of the impact of onerous debt and (in this case) the life saving effect of a bankruptcy, here. And an equally telling editorial as to why the Democratic Party is such a woefully inept opposition party, thanks in no small part to the provincialism of the senior Senator from Delaware, here.

UPDATE [3/5/2005]: Bankruptcy "reform" used to be one of my favorite topics (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), but since a number of much louder voices have started to chime in, stating basically the same thing I used to, I will avail myself of the opportunity to write about other topics near and dear to my heart, and get out of the way once I dispose of the subject one last time.

As a politically-inclined blogger, my take on the measure currently before Congress is one of revulsion. It is a law designed by credit card companies to make life more hellish for people who made the mistake of running up charges on their plastic. Since many of those charges are a result of unforeseen medical expenses, the passage of the bill will transfer wealth from the most vulnerable part of the middle and working class to Kaiser Permanente and VISA. It will do nothing to stop actual abuses of the bankruptcy system, such as the practice in some states of granting unlimited homestead exemptions, or repeat bad faith Chapter 13 filings. Its passage will lead to a flood of bankruptcies, as debtors try to take advantage of the old law before the new one goes into effect, which may in turn lead to a tipping point that sends the economy back into another recession. The fact that such a bill could be seriously proposed in the halls of Congress I can attribute only to a shared predilection for coprophilia by GOP and Delaware Senators.

As a bankruptcy lawyer, though, lets just say I have a different take. Those of you who know me are aware of this character flaw I possess. I'm weak. I crave material things. The temptation of an easy life is overwhelming to me. And if this measure passes, bankruptcy professionals such as myself will make out like bandits.

You see, the "reform act" will do several things for me. It will generate more of an excuse to jack up my rates, since I will be called on to provide more services, such as tax analysis, before I can file a case. Right now, I'm limited by convention and local rules to what I can charge a client in a Chapter 7 to between $1200 and $2000. Above that, I have to get the permission of the court, and I'd better have a good justification. If a repayment plan is mandated by the court, I can use that to charge higher rates through the plan, making myself a priority creditor.

In addition, making the bankruptcy law more cumbersome and more fraught with danger for the debtor cuts out a lot of my competition, which comes from paralegal services that currently can prepare simple bankruptcies for much less than what I charge. Here in Los Angeles, maybe 40% of all Chapter 7 bankruptcies (the most basic bankruptcy, which leads to a straight discharge of debts most of the time) are filed by paralegals, and most Chapter 13's (the bankruptcy most favored by the new law, in which a repayment plan is proposed by the debtor, usually to save a home on the eve of a foreclosure) are done by "law offices" that are mainly fronts for paralegals. The proposed law will cut out the competition for Chapter 7's, while leaving untouched the more egregious abusers of the system to perform Chapter 13's.

And lastly, this legislative gift to legalized loan sharking will create a whole new niche in my profession: credit card attorneys. Right now, the credit industry doesn't get involved in bankruptcy cases unless there is clear fraud on behalf of the debtor (such as what happens when a debtor takes a new credit card with him to Las Vegas, cashes it out at the blackjack table, and returns home to file a bankruptcy the next day). Needless to say, a law that allows credit card companies to receive priority on having its debts paid will encourage more aggressive collection activities from that front, which, of course, means more work for people like me.

So that's it, in a nutshell. If the Bankruptcy Reform Act passes, I will finally have a chance to live out some of my fantasies. A house south of Valley Vista, a muscle car, a country club membership, even sex with women: all of that can be mine, should Congress pass this measure. Sure, it will make the lives of millions of people who have suffered the misfortune of a catastrophic illness or an ill-timed job loss that much worse, but if you look at the big picture, that seems like an acceptable price to pay for my being able to play a couple rounds of golf a week at Riviera. So get off your asses, and write your Congressman. I'm depending on it.

One of the Big Feet of the blogosphere receives some friendly criticism by a liberal blogger, then gets all huffy about it. Arrogance ensues.

There is a fine line between righteous denunciations of bigotry, and plain, old-fashioned political correctness, and Abraham Foxman crossed it. There are terrible things the Nazis did besides the Holocaust that people are entitled to remember.

Their Great Leader is getting his ass kicked on Social Security, someone in his Administration was enabling a prostitute to enter the White House under the cover of being a "journalist", the opposition, rather than being demoralized after the defeat in November, is more unified than at any time in the past, so what's a wing nut going to do? Why, of course, you revive the tactics (and target) of the discredited "Swift Boat Vets", and go after the defeated candidate from last time, John Kerry.

This time, the rumor you pursue is that he's trying to cover up the fact that he was dishonarably discharged from the military, and somehow got then-President Carter to set it aside. Depending on the reason he received such a discharge, that could prove to be devastating to any future Presidential run (of course, a dishonarable discharge because he later came out against the Vietnam War would probably improve his chances, especially if Tricky Dick's fingerprints were on it).

Is there any basis to the rumor they're trying to float? HELL NO !! A dishonarable discharge would have made it very difficult for him to be approved to practice law by the State Bar of Massachusetts in the mid-70's, but there is nothing in the record to suggest that happened. Since he was a public figure in the 1970's, there would have been people in the military who (a) signed off on the discharge; (b) hated Kerry, then and now; and (c) are still alive to talk about it. But no one has come forward to level such an accusation. In short, if he had been dishonorably discharged, there would be an overwhelming circumstantial case showing that (in much the same way there was an overwhelming circumstantial case that Bush blew off his Guard duty in 1972), and you certainly wouldn't need the former Presidential candidate to sign Form 180 to prove it.

There is also another group that has an interest in smearing Kerry by innuendo: his opponents within the Democratic Party for the 2008 nomination. Because of the tiny margin of defeat last time, Kerry, not HRC, not Edwards or Obama, is the presumptive frontrunner. A comfort level exists with him among Democrats, and if he can come within 2 1/2% of knocking off an incumbent with the country at war and not in a recession, he's a safe pick, a no brainer. To change that dynamic, look for one of Hillary's handpuppets, like Harold Ickes, to begin "raising questions" about his war record (Ickes has already hinted to reporters that Kerry's slow response during the campaign to the "Unfit for Command" cadre showed that he must have had something to hide) as a way to ratchet up the public pressure to drive him out of the race.

The L.A. Times, on why the reaction to Chris Rock proved to be divisive in ways AMPAS probably didn't imagine:

So the faces were a little different, but most of the rules remained unchanged. There were stars and then there were big stars and then there was everyone else. The pre-awards parties at the Kodak Theatre were divided into levels — the higher the status, the lower the floor. Same with the seats. Same with the humor.

"Who is Jude Law?" Rock demanded a few minutes into an opening bit that drew roars from the cheap seats high in the back of the theater and raised more than a few hackles in the front rows. "Why is he in every movie I've seen for the past four years? He's in everything! Even movies he's not in, you look at the credits, he made cupcakes or something!" Hollywood likes to be kidded (Robin Williams is beloved, and where was Jack with his famous shades) but only in a kinder, gentler way.

Later, Sean Penn took the stage to tartly remind that Law is "one of our finest actors." Penn spoke for a different constituency, the insiders for whom the Oscars aren't a mere TV show (the way they are, say, for the folks at the Magic Johnson Theatres, whose raves about the movie "White Chicks" were beamed in to varied amusement) but a celebration of a serious art form.

Still later, at the after-parties, the buzz was all about whether Rock, the "outsider" host who had been hired on the promise that he might do something worth watching, such as being offensive, had merely managed to offend the wrong people.

"I thought what he said about Jude Law was unacceptable," muttered one producer after the ceremony, as he awaited his Governors Ball plate of slow-braised Kobe beef short ribs.

"You know what? Lighten the ... up! That little speech Sean Penn came up with, that's the reason people hate liberals," opined another producer, Nelson George, sitting across the room with Sean Combs (né "P. Diddy").

In my view, one of the reasons that ratings for industry shows like the Oscars have dwindled in recent years is that the self-congratulatory bullshit best symbolized by Sean Penn this year is unacceptable to a younger generation. Someone like Jude Law or Kate Beckinsale or Colin Farrell gets hyped to the stratosphere for appearing in big budget movies that no one sees or cares about, the quality of live-action movies is such that it makes absolutely no sense to go to the cineplex anymore when the same experience can be achieved for a quarter of the price on your home entertainment system, and all the really good movies tend either to be quirky independent films with B-level or no-name casts (ie., Sideways, or Lost in Translation), PIXAR cartoons, or movies directed by Clint Eastwood. So when Chris Rock cracks wise about how Jude Law somehow got to play "Alfie" in half of the movies relased last year, while Sean Penn pompously asserts that he's one of "our" greatest actors, guess who the audience at home is going to support?

Another triumph for Bush's "pro-democracy" agenda: Word out of Colorado is that the civil lawsuit against Kobe Bryant has been settled.

Perhaps the best shot at a knock-out of a GOP incumbent in the 2006 Senate elections may be in Rhode Island, where Lincoln Chafee faces a tough battle overcoming the overwhelming partisan edge the Democrats have in a state that John Kerry won by over 20% last year. So perhaps I'm being just a little paranoid when I see that the wife of a Republican actor and major campaign donor is rustling up opposition within the Democratic Party to the frontrunner in that race, James Langevin. Nice try, Karl.

Quote of the Day: "I want to thank Warner Brothers for casting me in this piece of s---."
--Halle Berry, in accepting her "Razzie" Award for Catwoman Saturday night.

Humorless Twit Watch: There is probably an interesting reason that Sean Penn came to the defense of Jude Law tonight, but not Tobey Maguire or Colin Farrell....

An interesting fact about the likely Best Picture winner (assuming it's The Aviator or Million Dollar Baby) at tonight's Oscar ceremony: it will be the first film set in Los Angeles to earn that award. It's hard to believe that with all the classic films set in the city, from Sunset Blvd. to Chinatown to The Graduate to L.A. Confidential, not once has the Academy recognized a film set in the film capitol for its top honor.

The consistently excellent (and frequent Smythe's World commenter) Prof. David Johnson has finally been getting some long overdue props from the Big Feet in the liberal blogosphere, over his "Cousin Oliver" post, so it might be appropriate to note that other posts of his are worth reading too. His take on the wasteful and morally obtuse spectacle of flyovers at big sporting events has the precision and elegance of a Matt Leinart touchdown pass.

Well, here's an interesting theory on Gannongate...we probably shouldn't be jumping ahead of ourselves on this one. Right now, the one unanswered question that keeps this scandal going is who approved Guckert's "Day Pass". While the media is still covering this story as part of the Bush Administration's efforts to create a state media, the real story is much simpler: a gay prostitute obtained entry to the White House by pretending to be a journalist. So who was/were his client(s)? Was there blackmail involved? Did he obtain inside dope (such as the stories he "broke" on the Daschle-Thune race, or on the Rathergate forgeries) from his clients? Everything else is just inside baseball for the media.

I cannot let this day go by without wishing a happy 40th birthday to a very special person, my sister Jennifer. Hope you're having fun in Paris.

Rev. Gene Scott dead: Beloved by stoners, parodied by Robin Williams, immortalized by Werner Herzog, this televangelist was a ubiquitous presence on local TV for over three decades. No hypocrite he: denunciations of abortion and conspiratorial ravings about gay cartoon characters were not his style. His sermons went off on historical tangents that would have been the envy of Umberto Eco, and perhaps his most distinctive habit was to replay, over and over, the same hymn when he was dissastified with the amount of money he was raising. "I want to know, I want to know if Jesus welcomes me there...."

Paul Krugman has another timely column, this time on the likelihood that the Bush Administration will gin up some new "terrorist threat" to take the focus off its floundering domestic programs (in this case, the D.O.A. efforts to gut Social Security):

The ultimate demonstration of Mr. Bush's true priorities was his attempt to appoint Bernard Kerik as homeland security director. Either the administration didn't bother to do even the most basic background checks, or it regarded protecting the nation from terrorists as a matter of so little importance that it didn't matter who was in charge.

My point is that Mr. Bush's critics are falling into an unnecessary trap if they focus only on domestic policies, and allow Mr. Bush to keep his undeserved reputation as someone who keeps Americans safe. National security policy should not be a refuge to which Mr. Bush can flee when his domestic agenda falls apart.

Bush's "undeserved reputation" referred to above is especially nagging. The public gives him credit for preventing another major terrorist attack on American soil in the 3-plus years since 9/11, but it wasn't as if there was anything comparable to that in the 3-plus years before 9/11. For the WTC to fall, it took years of planning, a cadre of dozens of highly motivated wackos, and an incredible string of luck, facilitated by an Administration staffed with Peter Principal rejects and white "recipients" of affirmative action, euphemistically called "neoconservatives", that were too filled with their own arrogant self-importance to pay attention to the signs in front of them.

In short, even if we had done nothing after 9/11, it is still unlikely we would have had to face a similar attack in the last three years, just as we did not face a similar attack in the six-plus years after Oklahoma City. Krugman's point, that the Administration continues to overlook obvious areas where terrorists could attack in favor of ideological boogeymen overseas, does lead to the frightening conclusion that our luck may soon run out.