Downing Street Blues: Again, as with the DSM, this briefing paper, to be published in tomorrow's Times of London, from a meeting which took place two days earlier, dishonors Blair more than it does Bush. The one shred that defenders of the war still clung to as justification was that Saddam had "violated" UN Resolutions concerning inspections. Now it turns out that even the Blair Cabinet knew that was bogus; they had already agreed to go to war months earlier, and they were just looking for an excuse. The Bush-Blair relationship is as one-sided as the typical prison "romance"'; Bush should just start calling the P.M. "meat".

Anyways, here's the latest outrage:

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)

Summary

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.

(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.

(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.

Introduction

1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.

3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.

4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.

The Goal

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

US Military Planning

6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.

7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.

The Viability of the Plans

8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.

UK Military Contribution

9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.

The Conditions Necessary for Military Action

10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.

Justification

11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.

13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully
operational.

14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.

An International Coalition

15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.

16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.

17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.

A Quiescent Israel-Palestine

18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.

Benefits/Risks

19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.

Domestic Opinion

20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.

Timescales

21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.

22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that:

(a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels;

And there the memo "ends"; according to the Times of London, the last page is missing.

Last week was the busiest week, in terms of traffic, that this site has ever had without having a single post linked to by the Big Feet of the Blogosphere. And it now appears that I have two fans in Norway, who together constitute close to a quarter of my visits. Is there something about Smythe's World that just translates well to a Nordic audience? If there is, tell me what it is, and I'll do more of it.

Jesse Taylor and friends are doing some all-day thoroughbred blogging at Pandagon today, for the benefit of Amnesty International. So quit wasting time here, get with the program, and use your ill-gotten gains for some good....

Summer Sanders: In her own words.

Did you know that if you press the "Make a Donation" button on the right side of the screen, you can actually give me a gratuity for my blogging? And you don't even have to be American, either; it doesn't matter if you live in the San Fernando Valley, or Trondheim, Norway. Blew my mind too.

The Downing Street Memo: After having read this document, it's not hard to imagine why this might be a bigger story overseas than here in America. Bush and his cronies no longer even pretend that concepts like the "truth" are very important, and his political base doesn't have a problem with it. The DSM just tells us something we already knew. In Great Britain, on the other hand, the thought that their Prime Minister, the heir and successor to leaders such as Walpole, Pitt, Disraeli, Gladstone, Churchill, Atlee and Wilson, could have been played so blatantly by a character such as Bush...well, it makes one yearn for the days of the vigorous, strong leadership of Neville Chamberlain.

In any event, here it is, courtesy of the Times of London. I have emphasized particular sections dealing with our manipulation of intelligence to bolster the case for war, and the British attempt to create a rationale for war based on alleged violations of previous U.N. Resolutions:

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

"C", by the way, was Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI-6; like the rest of you, I always assumed he was called "M". Sir Richard resigned shortly after war began in Iraq.

Perhaps if they were to nominate a former slave-holder to lead the Civil Rights Commission...another good column from Michael Hiltzik, on the nominee from the Bush Administration to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, Chris Cox. BTW, why is it that every good columnist for the LA Times (ie., Hiltzik, Lopez, Simers, Brownstein) writes for sections of the paper other than the Op-Ed?

Bush Lied: Why Steve Nash was a deserving MVP this season.

YBK, Part 3: Previously (here and here), I wrote about the frightening possibility that the Housing Bubble might burst at or before the time the new Bankruptcy Law goes into effect. To show the strong correllation between the number of bankruptcy filings and the value of residential property, I have compiled a chart to show the relationship between the percentage of bankruptcy filings per state in 2004 and the rise in property values since 2000, based on statistics from the U.S. Trustee's Office and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.

The numbers in red represent states that have an above-average percentage of bankruptcy filings per 10,000 residents (for example, Utah, which has had the lowest growth in residential property values over the past five years, also had the highest ratio of bankruptcy filings in the country). As you can see, states where the value of residential property has skyrocketed in recent years are at the top of the list in terms of bankruptcy avoidance, while states that have experienced mild growth are at the bottom (the big exception, of course, is Nevada, which, for reasons easy to understand, has seen both a property explosion and has had a relatively high number of filings over the years). If/when we begin to see a decline in states like California, Massachusetts and New York, which have relatively few filings in relation to their population, the result could be catastrophic.

The answer to the Quickie Trivia question from May 26 is...John Miller, who homered in his first plate appearance with the New York Yankees in 1966, and his last plate appearance with the Dodgers in 1969. Those were the only two home runs of Miller's career. Paul Gillespie, a catcher with the Chicago Cubs, also homered in his first (1942) and last (1945) regular season plate appearances, but spoiled things by subsequently going 0 for 6 in the 1945 World Series.

One of the more fascinating aspects of writing a blog is discovering that you have readers out there that you've never met, that seem to have no logical connection to you, but who visit your site with remarkable consistency. For example, according to my referral logs, two of my most frequent visitors are from New Mexico and Norway, or at least use web providers from those locations. I'm almost certain that I know of no one from New Mexico or Norway, nor have I ever written about topics that would be of obvious interest to people from those locations. So, please, when you have the time, introduce yourselves....

Let's get this straight. George Bush is not considered to be a moron because he was a C-student at Yale. He's thought to be a moron because he has no intellectual curiosity, possesses not a shred of self-doubt, and has little interest in the opinion of others. I suppose the fact that he rarely cracks open a book may be a factor as well. He also happens to be one of the most unpleasant a-holes ever to come to power in the West, his faux-religious sentiments notwithstanding. In any event, such traits are likely a sign of intellectual insecurity, but are not necessarily inconsistent with being a good President.

Unfortunately, the people he surrounds himself with are not the sharpest tools in the shed, either. His economic policies have been disastrous, his foreign policy is short-sighted and has been consistently characterized by a lack of preparation, whether it entailed dealing with pre-attack warnings before 9/11 or what to do after the fall of Saddam. He is a very able politician, but skill in that area is determined by shrewdness in dealing with the public, not intelligence. The ability to exploit the class anger and racial divisiveness in the Red States does not require a politician to be a genius, just as the exploitation of that base superstition which is euphemistically called "Fundamentalist Christianity" does not require any great philosophical understanding of the world.

Having said that, WTF was Kerry's rationale in not signing that damned form? That his grades at Yale were about the same as Bush's? Jeez, would anyone have cared about that? If people did care about that, he could have always pointed out that he had the higher grades during the only relevant period, the two years both he and Bush were together at Yale (1964-1966). The question about which of the two candidates was the more intelligent was quite dramatically resolved not when they attended college four decades ago, but over the three debates last year, in which Kerry kicked Bush's ass.

More to the point, why didn't Kerry want his military records out? Over the past few months, I've read rumors that the reason Kerry didn't want to sign Form SF-180 releasing all of his military records was that they would prove he exaggerated his service record, as the SBV's claimed, or that he had received a dishonorable discharge that he later expunged from his record. Even I thought that he was probably embarrassed about something; my guess is that he had contracted an STD over in Vietnam. It turns out, none of that was true.

Instead, the newly-released records make him look even better than before, if the Boston Globe (hardly a sympathetic paper to the Senator) is to be believed. The same lying dirtbags who accused Kerry of faking his injuries and exaggerating his combat performance are now shown to have written commendations for young John Kerry, calling him "one of the finest young officers with whom I have served"..."the acknowledged leader of his peer group," and ..."highly recommended for promotion."

Would it have mattered? For his opponents, no; the whole point of the Swift Boat accusations wasn't that they were true, but that the slander was repeated, again and again, by people who honestly didn't care. The fact that many of the people who pushed the story were bloggers with law degrees is part of the shame of my profession. For others, Kerry's war record (and Bush's dereliction of same) was a direct repudiation of their lives, that it could be possible to love one's country and serve it courageously while still being a critic of its policies; it was no coincidence that the chickenbloggers were most vociferous on this issue. If he had signed the form, they would have ignored it, since it was more important to pretend Kerry had something to hide.

But such partisans are a minority. The Swift Boat Ads were only played in a few states, but seemed to have had an especially dramatic impact in Ohio. A stronger response by Kerry could have swung that state into his column. Ultimately, he's responsible for not seizing the opportunity.

YBK, Part Two: Part of my concern about “YBK” stems from my experience when I first started practicing bankruptcy law in Southern California. In the mid-90’s, grifters and con-artists, with more than a few attorneys at their side, would mark people on the verge of losing their homes. They would utilize several different legal maneuvers to separate the victim from his dwindling assets, many of which included the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

In bankruptcy, the filer immediately receives an “automatic stay”, a court order which immediately halts all collection activity, including the prosecution and enforcement of civil suits, foreclosures, and other efforts by the secured lender to obtain the right of possession to the home or automobile. In the typical Chapter 13 case, a debtor who has defaulted on his mortgage will use the automatic stay to prevent a foreclosure sale, and submit for court approval a plan to repay the amount in default, usually over three years, while keeping current on future monthly payments as they come due.

Before the housing boom of the late-90’s, we witnessed in Southern California an explosion in bankruptcy filings, including a disproportionately high number of Chapter 13’s. These occurred in spite of an otherwise strong economy, then at the height of the dotcom boom and amidst national prosperity. Those who hadn’t made it, burdened with heavy debt, and unable to utilize the equity in their homes to refinance, chose to do whatever was necessary to hang on until things got better.

From 1996 to 1999, California averaged over 196,000 bankruptcies a year, with a high of 213,213 in 1998 (in comparison, there were only 122,696 filings last year). During that same four-year period, there was an average of over 37,000 Chapter 13 petitions filed, including 40,286 in 1997. Last year, only 17,117 Chapter 13’s were filed in California, a downward trend that, as I noted last week, has continued even during the recent explosion in filings following passage of the new law. The difference between 1998, the height of the dot com boom, when the national budget ran a surplus, and now, is that while the rest of the economy went to hell in a handbasket, the housing market exploded.

But before we had an “exploding” housing market, bankruptcy was the popular option for people desperate to save their homes, led, in no small part, by some of the worst bottomfeeders in our society. These articles (here and here) show the lengths to which some scam artists will prey on those who’ve fallen behind on their mortgage. Using public records, they find out who has a Notice of Default recorded on their property, or even a Notice of Trustee’s Sale, which sets the date for foreclosure, and will send out mailings offering a solution.

From there, two scams were popular. One was to file a bankruptcy, and use the automatic stay to postpone the foreclosure sale. Since the fees for filing a Chapter 13 are lower, and the burden it imposes on the mortgagor to prove bad faith is much higher, it usually could be sold to a prospective debtor pretty easily. Hopefully, the debtor would remain current under the plan, buy some valuable time, and keep his home.

All too frequently, however, the party filing the Chapter 13 simply didn’t have the wherewithal to pay off his debts, and the whole exercise was pointless. The debtor would not be given adequate legal advice as to what his obligations were under a 13, and he’d show up at the initial creditors meeting without payments, which would lead to the immediate dismissal of his case. He could immediately refile, and if he played his cards right, he could file several cases consecutively, but ultimately, he would still lose his home.

Frequently, the debtor would never even be told that he had to attend this meeting in the first place, and see his case dismissed with an additional bar on refilling for six months. And, of course, he would still lose his home, plus have a bankruptcy filing on his credit.

Those were the lucky ones.

Some of the more sophisticated scams involved a debtor “signing” over title to his property to a third party. He would be told to begin making mortgage payments to a different entity, which would in turn pay off his arrearage. What the debtor didn’t know was that the third party had no plans to make any payments. Instead, the entity would accept the mortgage payments from the homeowner, file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, either under the debtor’s name or under the name of a fictitious party, and use the automatic stay to buy time, fooling the debtor into believing that the foreclosure had been permanently postponed.

But of course, it had only been temporarily delayed. One particular con man set up a whole series of “trusts” that did little more than transfer fractional interests in real property between each other. The “trust” would then file bankruptcy. In order to get assigned to a particular judge who was known for his “do nothing” stand on bankruptcy fraud, information would be included on the bankruptcy petition linking the new case with a previous case before the same judge. If the debtor ceased making payments to the con man, the bankruptcies would cease, and the home would be foreclosed; at that point, the debtor would lose both the home and his credit rating, plus be the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI for activities of which he had been completely unaware.

Some of the more brazen scams involved outright forgery. Someone who filed bankruptcy previously would later discover that his petition had been “refiled”, using a different address, with the intention of using the automatic stay to protect someone else’s property. On several occasions, the “debtor” didn’t even bother to file a new case; he simply whited-out the case number on a copy of someone else’s petition, added a new name and case number, and voila, instant bankruptcy.

Back then, I was principally a counsel for institutional lenders, so I would get cases like the ones described above on a daily basis. Then, in 1999, a combination of factors, led principally by an improvement in the housing market which alleviated the root cause, but also due to the efforts of the local U.S. Trustee, Maureen Tighe (now a Bankruptcy Judge in the SFV), and the attorneys on her staff, to more vigorously pursue fraud, the Central District began to see a decrease in foreclosure scams. Chapter 13 filings declined, much of my workload disappeared, and I was forced to pursue the joys of sole practitioning.

So it is with a great deal of trepidation that I see this same thing happening again: homeowners unable to refinance because their equity has been exhausted, unable to keep current on their mortgages, but still hoping against hope that their homes might be saved. Bankruptcy, like any other area of law, can be gamed by the unscrupulous, who will look at the new law as a challenge, not a barrier.

I wonder if the Bushies realize that even trying to distinguish between G-mo and Stalin Era gulags is a sign that Osama has, indeed, won the "war". The America I grew up in and loved was a tolerant beacon of freedom, settling for nothing less than the highest standards of justice and due process for itself and others. Since the Towers fell, our leaders seem to have forgotten those aspirations, aiming instead for Brezhnevian authoritarianism at home, while developing electoral-based kleptocracies abroad. We should be better than that.

It's a couple years old, but here's a funny piece on Oscar-winning actress-turned-Labour M.P. Glenda Jackson, attending her first baseball game in San Francisco at the tail-end of the 2003 season (a 5-0 Dodger win, btw). Jackson, who was at one time her country's Minister of Transportation, recently won reelection to her fourth term, and has settled into life as a backbencher, vociferously attacking the Blair Government's position on Iraq and calling for his resignation.

I don't want to second-guess the execs at NBC-Universal who green-lit Cindarella Man, since they probably make ten times what I do, but wouldn't a movie based on the life story of Max Baer have been much more interesting? California fighter, starts off his career being compared with Jack Dempsey because of his power punching, kills a man in the ring, goes into a funk-induced shell as a result, then moves to New York City, adopts a persona as a "Jewish" fighter, destroys Fascist symbols Max Schmelling and Primo Carnera en route to winning the heavyweight title...and that's just the First Act. His son and namesake played Jethro Bodine on "The Beverly Hillbillies", but he was also a decent actor in his own right (The Harder They Fall, etc.)

"We've got an in-house joke here: How much time would he have gotten if he had stolen a color TV?" A slice of Red State Justice, courtesy of War Liberal. Once he completes parole, he will be eligible to vote in future elections; Alabama changed its law a few years back, mainly due to budgetary problems. At least the chap who got life out here for stealing a slice of pizza had a couple of other prior felonies....

The dumbest column ever written.

YBK: When the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act was signed by the President on April 20, one of the predictable consequences was that we would see a surge in bankruptcy filings before the law would go into effect six months later. A similar increase occurred in March and April, 2001, when the same bill almost passed both houses of Congress. Sure enough, since the media first began to focus on the bill as it was winding its way through Congress, in early March, filings have gone up dramatically nationwide, as people delinquent on their debts attempt to get in before the laws become more stringent. Bankruptcy petitions went up 60% in the month immediately after the Senate passed its version, setting a monthly record of 165,459, and were 8.5% higher than they were the previous March. In April, that record was broken: 170,130 people sought bankruptcy protection, a 16% gain from the previous year.

As an attorney who has practiced bankruptcy law for over a dozen years, there has been plenty of anecdotal evidence I can attest to, from a hiring surge at local firms specializing in creditor representation to an increase in inquiries from potential clients, who ask if they can still file bankruptcy “before it’s too late”. One of the ironies of the passage of the recent law is that it has proven to be a boon to bankruptcy professionals, both in the form of higher filings before it goes into effect, and the potential to provide clients with more billable services afterward.

This trend can be seen throughout the country, In Colorado, bankruptcy filings were up 24% from a year ago in March and April; in Iowa, a 25% increase; in Ohio, one district reported a surge of 16% in April, and a 27% increase for the month of May. In Utah, a state whose filing rate has been almost twice that of the national average since 2000, Chapter 7 filings nearly doubled their yearly total in March and April alone, even though the total number of bankruptcies remained steady. And in Hawaii, filings for the month of May were up almost 35% from the numbers for the previous year.

In the federal district in which I practice, the Central District of California, the increase has been more modest; a 3.4% rise in March and April of this year, compared with the same period last year. In terms of bankruptcy filings, the Central District has traditionally had the highest figures in the nation, as well as being on the cutting edge of some of the more innovative forms of bankruptcy fraud. Due largely to the high percentage of immigrants, who are more susceptible to the entreaties of “paralegals”, petition mills and other such scum, the numbers out here were high to begin with, and it has only been in the last 5-6 years that the numbers began to inch downward thanks to more aggressive enforcement of anti-fraud laws by the Justice Department.

Looking inside the numbers, however, a very scary picture emerges. While the total number of filings has remained stable in the Central District, the number of Chapter 7 petitions (the most basic type of bankruptcy, disfavored by the new law) since March has skyrocketed. The increase in filings from the first two months of this year to the next two months, which was approximately 33%, as well as the increase from 2004 (8% over the past two months), has been staggering, with what had been a steady downward trend over the past three years reversing itself overnight. Since that same downward trend continued with Chapter 13 filings, which remain down almost 45% for the year so far, it’s clear that people are opting to file under Chapter 7 in droves rather than seeking the repayment alternative favored under the recent law. And although the official figures for May, 2005, aren't out yet, preliminary calculations indicate that total filings for last month are up close to 17% for the month, with Chapter 7 filings coming in even higher.

So what does it all mean? Well, Chapter 13 filings in the LA area have decreased by almost 2/3 since 2000, a result of the real estate boom lifting the relative wealth of homeowners, who file most such bankruptcies. When a medical emergency strikes, or a job is lost, or credit card debt becomes too onerous, homeowners have the option of borrowing on the equity of their homes, and averting the need to seek bankruptcy protection.

Not filing bankruptcy at a time when personal debt first becomes onerous has a very beneficial impact on the economy; it means that the costs incurred by creditors writing off bad debts aren’t passed along to consumers in the form of higher interest rates and late filing fees. A 1998 study concluded that in order to maintain the same level of profitability, a credit card company needs to pass along the costs incurred by a single bankruptcy on up to 46 billpayers, in the form of higher penalties for late-payments and overcharges. That study notes that those penalties disproportionately effect people who are already in a precarious debt situation, and, in turn, leads to a cycle where filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy becomes a preferable option.

But with residential foreclosures beginning to rise, and adjustable rate interest loans becoming increasingly harder and harder to remain current, the possibility that the “housing bubble” might finally burst may be at hand. If it does burst, or if enough people behind on their mortgages think it’s about to burst before the new law goes into effect, the potential for a bankruptcy panic in September and October of this year may come to pass. A "Perfect Storm", in which the combination of a sluggish economy, overextended credit, mortgage defaults, a housing bubble, and the certainty that after October 17 it will be impossible for many people to escape the burden of their debts, would create an economic Chernobyl that will wipe out the economy.

Don't Believe the Hype: Typically entertaining Michael Hiltzik column, on how a Paris Hilton ad being broadcast only on the West Coast became a national controversy.

Why we loved Elvis:

... [President Clinton] was going over papers with his staff on the upcoming Presidential Medal of Freedom awards. Spontaneously, he launched into a little riff for his assembled aides. His nominee for the prestigious award this year would be none other than the famous [Watergate editor] Ben Bradlee, husband of Sally Quinn.

The aides looked on in puzzled amusement.

"Anyone who sleeps with that bitch deserves a medal!" he explained.

The joy of pets, courtesy of John Cole.

Pardon me if I don't shed any tears for Oriana Fallaci. Having been almost destroyed in the last century by an ideology of racist, anti-Semitic fear-mongering, it is understandable for European governments to have laws on their books that attempt to stop another Hitler from coming to power. In Italy, laws condemning the use of false or slanderous attacks on religions, and the people who follow religions, are clearly designed to prevent something like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or, in Fallaci's case, her latest screed comparing Muslims to rats, from being used to justify death camps, the way they were sixty years ago. That this prosecution is being brought by an independent judiciary, in defiance of the Italian government (in which the modern-day Fascist Party plays a key role in the ruling coalition), and has been denounced by the Minister of Justice, Roberto Castelli, is an example of the robust exercise of freedom, not of a return to fascism, as some bloggers have claimed.

Americans who view this prosecution as an affront to civil liberties should note that libel and defamation laws have been on the books for centuries, both in this country and elsewhere. The doctrine of slander per se, which holds that there are certain statement that are assumed to be defamatory, exists in our own tort laws, and is not inconsistent with the First Amendment. Although I hope we never criminalize slander and defamation in the U.S., it would have less effect on our liberties if we did than most of the Patriot Act has had. And I will certainly not weep if the Robert Faurisson's and Oriana Fallaci's of the world have to spend time justifying their hate in a courtroom.

Castelli, by the way, perhaps let the cat out of the bag in defending Fallaci, telling a radio interviewer that "In Europe we are seeing the birth of a movement that is looking to silence those who don't follow a single mindset, within which it is forbidden to speak ill of Islam, of homosexuals or of the children of homosexuals." Good to know that....

Heard of the "Al Qaeda Training Manual"? For those who are unwilling to accept the fact that some pretty nasty stuff is going on at our gulags rehabilitation centers at G-mo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, the "Al Qaeda Training Manual" (hereafter, the "AQTM", or the "Manual") is what explains why all those terrible allegations about beatings, torture, and Koran-flushing have been made by detainees. You see, the thinking among certain circles in the blogosphere and talk radio (see here, here, here, here, and here) is that the detainees who've been making some of these claims were told what to do and say out of this Al Qaeda playbook (including the detainees who have been released after we concluded they weren't connected to Al Qaeda), so that even though much of the alleged torture was well-documented by our guys (and, in the case of Abu Ghraib, well-photographed), the prisoners are still lying about everything, or at least lying about everything that didn't involve Pvt. England.

Having an hour to kill this afternoon, I decided to read the AQTM, to see how it was that I, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the rest of the MSM had been so completely duped. Let's just say that if I wanted to draft a brief for the defense in this matter, showing that the Koran-flushing tales are little more than an Islamist version of the hippies-spat-on-Vietnam Vets urban legend, the AQTM would probably not be the strongest evidence at my disposal. For one thing, much of the material is clearly dated, as this passage (p. 16) reveals:

The member of the Organization must be Moslem. How can an unbeliever, someone from a revealed religion [Christian, Jew], a secular person, a communist, etc. protect Islam and Moslems and defend their goals and secrets when he does not believe in that religion [Islam]? The Israeli Army requires that a fighter be of the Jewish religion. Likewise, the command leadership in the Afghan and Russian armies requires any one with an officer’s position to be a member of the communist party.

One would hope that our enemies would crack open a newspaper at some point over the past fifteen years, or at least know that their former allies in the Afghani government were not communists. This error is ironic, since later in the AQTM the reader is instructed (pp. 21-2) to avail himself of the benefits of the Free Press:

In order to gather enemy information, the Military Organization can use means such as magazines, publications, periodicals, and official printed matter. Through these means, it is possible to learn about major government events and about the news, meetings, and travel of Presidents, ministers, and commanders.

Thus, it isn't just the violent rhetoric, the apocolyptic attitude, and the bellicose manner that the bloggers of the Right and the jihadists have in common; they also share a parasitic connection to the news media, which they use voraciously (and selectively), all while trying to destroy that very institution. And, assuming the authenticity of the AQTM, both groups apparently have a hard time believing that the Cold War is finally over.

Another interesting fact is that the names "Al Qaeda" and "Osama" never appear anywhere in the manual. In fact, the AQTM seems more consistent with an "old school" terrorist network that concerned itself with the random assasination, kidnapping and spying than on the ambitious program of OBL. There's nothing in the manual that would provide tips on how to get into a flight school, or how to strap enough explosive material onto one's body to blow up the Rose Bowl, or even survival tips for living in caves. Most of is is just common sense advice, such as don't discuss what you're doing with your wife, or don't try to be conspicuous in a crowd.

And a lot of it is quite chilling, too, if one assumes the authenticity of the AQTM, in the same manner that The Anarchists Cookbook isn't an easy read. But unfortunately for the Soft-on-Torture crowd, nowhere in the Manual does it instruct anyone to lie about torture, or to fabricate instances of Koran-abuse. There is a passage (p.16) that instructs prisoners to "...insist on proving that torture was inflicted upon them by State Security [investigators] before the judge," but considering that this was probably written well before 9/11, and was aimed at movements within Arab countries (p.9), such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt and Syria, where the torture of prisoners would have been the rule, not the exception, this is merely evidence that they should document the pain inflicted upon them for reasons of propoganda, and can hardly be construed as evidence that our accusers are plying misinformation about their treatment.

As it turns out, the Bush Administration is now acknowledging that they did have reports that the Koran had been deliberately mistreated by interrogators. Better luck next time, fellas.

Quickie Trivia: With his release by the Phillies yesterday, the major league career of Jose Offerman is apparently at an end. Assuming that another major league team is not gullible enough to sign him, Offy will go into the record books as the second player in major league history to have homered in both his first, and his final, plate appearances. Who was the first?

Last night's season finale of Alias sure had the feel of a Final Episode Ever, at least up until the last two seconds of the show. The Rambaldi mystery solved, Sloane saving the day by sacrificing his own daughter to save the planet, and the oh-so-cool offing of the Palpitinesque Derevko sister, Elena...all seeming to indicate a valedictory of sorts for the show, which has finally achieved respectable ratings in its fourth season. Then, out of nowhere, the shocking final moment; I doubt that any show has ever thrown in a cliffhanger on such sudden notice, almost as if the producers tossed in the car crash at the last second once they were assured the show was going to be renewed for another season.

I noticed 24 did much the same thing on Monday. The shot of Jack Bauer walking into the sunrise, having been disowned by the government he served and by the woman he loved, officially a non-person; no cliffhanger, just a dangler for the fans in the event the show (or Kiefer S.) didn't return.

I think it should go without saying that the agreement to let Owen, Brown and Pryor receive floor votes on their nominations should not be seen as setting a precedent for future Supreme Court nominations. The standard should naturally be higher for the nation's highest court than for the Court of Appeals; a judge whose politics may be acceptable in the context of an appellate court with dozens of sitting judges, and whose decisions are appealable, may be deemed too extreme in the context of a smaller court whose decisions are final and binding. And since one of the three judges (ie., Janice Rogers) may be headed for a defeat before the full Senate, it would hardly behoove the Bushies to interpret the agreement as a license to nominate Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

In addition, the agreement to maintain the filibuster against at least two other nominees is evidence that the agreement was based more on political horsetrading than on anything that could be used as binding precedent for the future. William Myers and Henry Saad are no less conservative than the Fortunate Three, and there doesn't appear to be anything in the public record that would indicate that either is personally corrupt. Their exclusion was clearly intended by the Gang of Fourteen to be a signal that the filibuster could be used in certain circumstances against judicial nominees, without defining what those circumstances might be. Pretending that this language ties the hands of any Democratic Senator when it comes to the next Supreme Court nominee reflects the stupid tendency of liberals to find defeat in any compromise.

This is not unqualified good news for Democrats. The filibuster remains an option for the future, and it may prevent the rubberstamping of a Clarence Thomas or an Antonin Scalia to the position of Chief Justice. Republican Senators also stood up to the Christian Right on this issue; the long-term ramifications of defying Dr. Dobson and his acolytes will be felt on future nominations. The agreement also affirms the principle that "advice and consent" entails the consultation with members of both parties before nomination, a proviso that Democrats can use in the future to justify any "extraordinary circumstance" triggering a filibuster.

It's also a defeat for Bill Frist, who clearly didn't have the backing of his party's rank-and-file, so that's cool as well. By allowing votes on some of the appellate nominees, the Democrats look reasonable and moderate, while forcing Snowe, Chafee, DeWine, et al., to take a position on the worthiness of Janice Brown and Patricia Owen that is really going to matter; the "threat" of the filibuster allowed them to vote for some of Bush's more extreme picks without fear that their vote would matter, a safety net that at least with some of these picks no longer exists. And lastly, keeping enough Democrats in line on future cloture votes was going to be more difficult than it was last year, when the party had four more Senators, so this deal strengthens Harry Reid enormously.

But the advantage of having a vote on the nuclear option was that if Frist lost, it would effectively act as a vote of confidence on Frist, as well as preventing Bush from stacking the appellate courts with the likes of Janice Brown. If Frist won, it would mean the beginning of the end of the filibuster, which would cause short-term pain for liberals, but as I wrote a week and a half ago, it would also allow the achievement of some wonderful progressive goals in the future. So I guess the best-case scenario would be for Bush to try to nominate some wack-job from Texas or Alabama to the Supreme Court, then have the Senate revisit this issue when more people are paying attention.

Smythe sez...Revenge of the Sith wasn't bad at all; better than Return and Clones, and much better than Phantom. What worked: great effects (if you can, see this film on a digital projection screen, or better yet, IMAX); the two Scottish actors (Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid) playing Obi-wan and the Emporer, respectively; the final 45 minutes, which features the slaughter of the Jedi and the emergence of the Empire. What didn't: uninvolving battle scenes; General Grievous; Natalie Portman and Hayden Christenson, neither of whom strikes a true note in their scenes together.

I saw the movie at the multiplex next to Universal Studios, a place I had not visited in awhile. In fact, I can recall the exact date I was last there: October 11, 1998. That was the day my father died. He had slipped into a coma a few days earlier, and it was clear that it was just a matter of time. I think I ended up seeing a movie, then going to Gladstones, a seafood restaurant which is sort of a pretentious version of Red Lobster, to nosh and watch Game 5 of the ALCS, plus whatever assorted football games were playing that Sunday.

Obviously, I wasn't really in the mood for sports that day, so I came home to be with my dad. I held his hand and spoke to him, read him the battlefield speech from Henry V that he loved so much, as well as speeches from Winston Churchill ("Sail on, O Ship of State...") and John L. Lewis ("It ill-behooves those who sup at labor's table...") that always seemed to inspire him. I don't know if he heard me, but I figured it couldn't hurt. He died that evening, in the middle of Game 4 of the NLCS; like Nick Hornby in Fever Pitch, sports play way too important a role in marking the chapters of my life. There isn't a day that goes by when I don't think back to that night, nor a week that goes by without a vivid dream about my father.

Just asking...who is Kylie Minogue?

Santorum Time: It's about time someone went after those little Eichmans in the Senate supporting the filibuster....

Ed Wood Lives: That howlingly bad script Julie Delpy was pitching about the legendary Countess Bathory last year is finally set to come to life, starring the bland/blonde French actress, who will also make her directorial debut, and her frequent screen collaborator, Ethan Hawke.

Credit Where It's Due: Here's one area where No Child Left Behind has been an unqualified success....

Almost four years ago, less than a week after 9/11, Andrew Sullivan made this especially disturbing attack on the patriotically incorrect:

The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column. But by striking at the heart of New York City, the terrorists ensured that at least one deep segment of the country ill-disposed toward a new president is now the most passionate in his defense.

As someone who lives in one of those coastal enclaves (Los Angeles) and matriculated at another (Berkeley), I took that very personally. Having studied American history, I knew that civil liberties are often a casualty of war, and Sullivan's broadside set off alarms to those of us who were not willing to bow down unquestioningly at the feet of our Maximum Leader. The sentiments expressed in that column was one of the reasons I decided to start this website back in April of 2002.

Having said that, I cannot think of anything that is less important to the issues of 1) Gay civil rights; 2) our use of torture and human rights deprivations at Abu Ghraib, G-mo and elsewhere; 3) the efforts by the Bush Administration to quash the free press when it attempts to look behind the curtains; 4) the troubling state of the Catholic Church, and its declining moral relevance; and 5) whatever else he may be expounding on this week, than what Andrew Sullivan wrote four days after the collapse of the Towers. Certainly, Sullivan's opinions carry no greater weight by how far he has apparently traveled in the past four years, but neither are his eloquent opinions on the above issues diminished in any way by what he said just after the Towers collapsed.

OK, so he had a louder megaphone than the rest of us did four years ago, and in the heat of the moment, he was too quick to find a scapegoat. Like so many other people, he was hopeful when he should have been skeptical, and he got suckered by the Bushies. All of that might be an interesting chapter to his biography, but it also just so happens that the GayCatholicTory is writing the most interesting s*** in the blogosphere lately. What he said four years ago should be no more germane to the present topics than Earl Warren's support for the internment of the Japanese during WWII was at the time of the Brown decision, or Robert Byrd's opinions on civil rights six decades ago are during today's filibuster debate. Grow up.

The Good German: Glenn Reynolds defends the soft-on-torture position.

L.A. Mayor: Absentee returns give Villaraigosa a narrow margin (<3%) over Hahn. A bit of a surprise, considering that the polls consistently gave the challenger a double-digit lead over the incumbent, but it still seems likely Los Angeles will have a new Mayor. The L.A. Times has a group blog covering the election, and Villaraigosa has the support of Hugh Hewitt, who feels Antonio V. is a nice, charismatic guy who will get clobbered in any gubernatorial run.

UPDATE: About a quarter of the vote is in, and Villaraigosa now has a 16+% lead. It's over.

The most frustrating type of fandom is to be an American fan of a British stage actress. If she's really good at what she does, she will spend her career doing plays at the West End, or the odd TV-movie for Channel Four, and never feel the need to go Hollywood or do anything that will make its way to my small corner of the world. While less-talented performers will come over to this country, become stars, and fade away into obscurity after their fortieth birthday, she'll be perfecting her craft, playing for the long haul.

Thus, the bittersweet discovery this week that the woman pictured at the top right corner of my website, Phoebe Nicholls, is set to appear in a play opening at the Hampstead Theatre in London, commencing in mid-June. No movies, no TV, as far as I can tell, just a performance in the one medium I have absolutely no access to, thousands of miles away. Any true fanatical interest in the work of an actor or director, whether great or mediocre, compels a desire to be a completist, to see anything and everything he's done, in order to gain a more detailed perspective of his career, to compare performances, but mainly just to indulge some idiosyncratic weirdness in oneself. Yet with Mrs. Sturridge, I can't see the one avenue in which she has most excelled; its almost like having access only to Shakespeare's sonnets, and not his plays. Sigh.

Lord, I'm pathetic....

Andrew Sullivan calls Scotty McLellan's bluff on G-mo.

It's easy to forget how stupid the Far Right is, especially when they always seem to win national elections. They do seem to have a knack for appealing to base public sentiments, and I suppose religious demogoguery does entail a certain genius, but when it comes to the actual skills necessary to govern, these people just don't have it.

Witness the on-going tour de farce concerning the Senate sub-committee investigating the "Oil-for-Food Scandal". The investigation, designed to score cheap political points against the U.N. (wow, there's corruption in the Middle East; who knew?), has now completely boomeranged. This morning's revelation by the committee that more than half of the money went to American oil companies, and was signed off by the Bush Administration, has finally caught the attention of the media. And as if that wasn't bad enough, today was the day that Loony Left M.P. George Galloway was called to testify in open session about allegations he personally received kickbacks from Saddam. There was only one problem: the committee was relying on evidence that seems to have originated from the same mill that produced the Killian Documents. Quote the Beeb:

[A] spokesman for Mr Galloway's Respect party told a press conference the document used by the Senate hearing was a forgery. The spokesman said: "The actual first document, we don't know where it is, they don't know where it is and all they have is a photocopy handed over by an unnamed source." Typographical analysis showed Mr Galloway's name was in a different typeface, a lighter shade and at a different angle to the rest of the document, he said. The spokesman suggested Mr Galloway's name had been stuck to the bottom of the list, and the document photocopied. He also cited testimony from an Iraqi who claimed he forged lists of people who profited from the oil for food scheme.

Galloway, who won a libel suit against the Daily Telegraph after revealing a similar scam, then tore the sub-committee chairman, Norman Coleman, a new one, before forcing the rest of the Republicans to strip naked and stacked into a human pyramid.

Hey, look who's got a blog...just in time, too. [link via WOC]

Query: Isn't the fact that the Bushies are "categorically" denying the Flushed Koran story strong evidence that the allegations are true? They haven't told the truth about anything else....

UPDATE: More examples of the allegation that predate the Newsweek story, here, here, and here. I don't know if this story is true, or if it is an Islamic version of the urban myth that war protesters spat on returning vets after Vietnam, but I do believe that the publishers of Newsweek should politely tell Scott McClellan where to shove his demands for a full retraction.

UPDATE [II]: TalkLeft has an even more thorough review of the allegations, all published before Newsweek ran its story, that should give the soft-on-torture crowd some pause.

Attn. Nerds This morning brings four pivotal reviews for Revenge of the Sith: the LA Times (qualified thumbs-up), the New Yorker (pan), the NY Times (full-throated rave), and Newsweek (ditto).

The problem with using Newsweek's entirely honorable correction of its story that the Pentagon was about to admit in a report that some of its soldiers had flushed the Koran down the toilet during interrogation of POW's, as yet another excuse for lib'rul media bashing, is that the story has been around for some time:

Afghan men freed today after spending months in legal limbo as U.S. prisoners in the war on terrorism said they were generally well-fed and given medical care, but housed in cramped cells and sometimes shackled, hit and humiliated.

(snip)

Some of the men released today were close-shaven, but most kept their beards. The men who wore their beards in the long fashion of the Taliban complained most about poor treatment at the hands of Americans and insults against Islam. Ehsannullah, 29, said American soldiers who initially questioned him in Kandahar before shipping him to Guantanamo hit him and taunted him by dumping the Koran in a toilet. "It was a very bad situation for us," said Ehsannullah, who comes from the home region of the Taliban leader, Mohammad Omar. "We cried so much and shouted, 'Please do not do that to the Holy Koran.'"

Merza Khan, who had been captured in northern Afghanistan while fighting for the Taliban, said Americans in Kandahar tied him up and alternately forced him to lie face down on the ground, then squat with his hands on his head for hours. He also said he saw American soldiers throw the Koran on the ground and sit on it while in Kandahar. (emphasis mine)

--Washington Post, March 26, 2003 [link via Atrios/Avedon Carol]

Atlanta 5, Los Angeles [N] 1: Disappointing night at my first trip to the Stadium this season. Probably the best seats I've ever been legally allowed to sit in (field level, right behind home plate) merely gave me the opportunity to witness a boring, uneventful loss. Eric Gagne made his seasonal debut, allowed back-to-back home runs to the Jones Boys to start the ninth inning, then struck out the side. Julio Franco, who no doubt roomed with Otis Nixon and Cool Papa Bell in the old Negro Leagues, stole a base off the pathetic Jason Phillips. Celebrity spottings: Pat Sajak, Dodger exec Howard Sunkin*, the B.P.L.A., and "TV's Shane", Walt Goggins. No cannabis, gang tats, or drunken, belligerent, shirtless fans, but otherwise, a routine night at the ballpark.

*Classmate of author, Harvard H.S. '81.

Some random thoughts about the “Nuclear Option”:

1. If Frist is successful, the filibuster is dead. Not just for judicial nominations, but for any possible use in the future. If it is “unconstitutional” to use the tactic when debating lifetime appointments, why would it be less so when other legislation requiring a majority vote is debated? Once its use is deemed unconstitutional, it will be impossible to rationalize it in other areas. The only question will be if the Republicans move to abolish it before Social Security privatization comes up for a vote.

2. Of all the arguments made by both sides, easily the most disingenuous has been the argument made by some conservatives that the filibuster is unprecedented in judicial nominations. Besides its use against Abe Fortas in 1968, when an unsuccessful cloture vote doomed that nomination in spite of his support by a plurality in the Senate, the tactic of using extended debate in an attempt to kill judicial nominations supported by a bare majority goes back to 1841, and a full-throated filibuster occurred against the nomination of Stanley Matthews to the high court in 1881 (a compromise was later worked out, and Matthews was eventually confirmed). Prior to Bush’s election, the filibuster had been used, in one form or another, some 17 times in the previous 50 years against judicial nominees, most notably against Fortas, and more recently, against Richard Paez (led by, of all people, Bill Frist) and five other Clinton appellate nominees. And the use of the “blue slip”, while technically not a filibuster, still has the same effect: it’s a parliamentary rule used to ensure that a judicial nominee is supported by a something other than a bare majority.

To argue that those filibusters don’t count because those nominees ultimately were approved, or, in the case of Fortas, because of the unprovable assumption that he wouldn’t have had a majority in his corner, is, to say the least, dishonest. A filibuster is a filibuster, regardless of whether it is ultimately successful. After all, Strom Thurmond had the distinction of the longest filibuster on record, a twenty-four hour speech against the 1957 Civil Rights Act, all to no avail: the measure passed. But since no cloture vote was ever taken, it would be considered by the Orrin Hatchs and Hugh Hewitts of the world as a non-filibuster.

3. The abolition of the filibuster will enable the passage, in the future, of progressive legislation that otherwise would be unimaginable. For example, the Clinton healthcare package, watered down as it was, would have been law today if a straight majority had had the chance to vote on it back in 1994. In fact, President Clinton could probably have proposed a much more generous program, and subsequent Republican Congresses would have been hard-pressed to roll it back later, as Americans came to rely on the new entitlement (which, incidentally, was exactly what Bill Kristol feared, and why he was so active in opposing the Clintons).

It may be a Law of Politics that liberal legislatures can do so much more in a shorter period of time than conservatives. It certainly is true that it is easier to increase the size and powers of government than it is to roll it back. Going back to 1953, Republicans have controlled the White House for 32 of the last 53 years, and have had at least one house of Congress for 18 years. Even when the Democrats controlled Congress, its Southern wing frequently was indistinguishable from the GOP, giving conservatives de facto control on Capital Hill. Yet, during that time, the size and role of the government has increased exponentially, most of the New Deal and Great Society still in place, with the battles taking place at the margins. Civil rights for women and gays has improved immeasurably, abortion and contraception are legal, and the rubric of the safety net has remained in place, all during the Age of Reagan, Nixon and the Bushes, and with liberals, for the most part, out of power. In order to chip away at civil rights or environmental protections, conservatives must do so using liberal rhetoric; the conservative position otherwise would be unpalatable. Since progressive politics has come to mean a more expansive role for the government, its policies are more likely to have a lasting effect.

In short, liberals can afford to lose elections most of the time, since what we accomplish in eight years is more likely to stand than what Republicans can in twelve. Take away the filibuster, and the leftward push will be even more pronounced in the future. Needing only a majority vote, some things that would be otherwise unthinkable, such as massive regulation of the Oil Industry (even nationalization), Universal Health Care, a shifting of the tax burden from the middle class to the super-rich, a repeal of Taft-Hartley, would suddenly be doable. And all it would take would be one good election cycle.

4. There are very few people on either side of this debate who wouldn’t have the opposite opinion if the Democrats controlled the government and the Republicans were the ones trying to use the filibuster.

Kerry's greatest blunder, it turns out, was not appealing to this interest group...yet another popular TV series ends, in spite of my not having seen a single episode. I had also never seen an episode of NYPD Blue, Aly McBeal, and E.R., which come to think of it, is still on the air. On the other hand, I religiously watched shows such as Arrested Development, Bakersfield P.D., Get a Life, and that sitcom with Jay Mohr playing a Hollywood exec a few years back. If I watched FoxNews religiously, I could put Rupert Murdoch into Chapter 11.

Bucs Owner Purchases Man United: This is really a Big Deal accross the Atlantic, although it's hard to see why. Malcolm Glazer has been hot on the trail of the World's Most Popular/Overrated Sports Team for over a year, and has finally closed the deal in spite of some heated opposition from fan's groups. Other than latent anti-Semitism, it's hard to see why his interest would draw such intense antipathy. The guy is loaded*, his NFL team has never lacked for funds, and it's not as if he's going to be moving the team to Norfolk or Swansea as a bargaining ploy to get more luxury boxes built at Old Trafford. It's not as if Donald Sterling had bought the team.

*In the interest of full disclosure, Mr. Glazer is indirectly a client of mine, through his ownership of commercial property giant General Growth Properties, whose interests I represent before the local bankruptcy court.

What do liberals believe, Eric Alterman asks. Perhaps the best definition I can come up with is---a liberal believes that a person has an inherent right to believe that evolution is “just a theory”, that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice deserving of legalized discrimination, that AIDS can be transmitted by tears and sweat, that using birth control is a mortal sin condemning its practitioner to eternal damnation, that moral absolutes contained in the Bible should be the unquestioned dogma of our society, instead of the “secular humanism” practiced by the cabal of feminists, teachers, activist judges, liberal journalists, and pro-Arabists in the State Department that really runs things in America...but that it’s not a good idea to let people who believe in those things to be in charge of reforming Social Security, fighting terrorism, or for that matter, anything to do with operating heavy machinery.

The much-hyped Huffington Post kicked off this morning, so if you want to read what Mike Nichols' or Ellen Degeneres' publicists are thinking, check out the blog. It's being edited by local wunderkind Andrew Breitbart, who was Matt Drudge's Hollywood presence (although that didn't stop him from some pretty good reporting of the Tsunami last year).

UPDATE: Well, at least one critic disapproves, although it reads like one of those interminable Pauline Kael "reviews" of a Clint Eastwood movie, where it was clear that it was written well before she saw the film....

Wigan 3, Reading 1: The ancestral home of Smythe's World (mother's side), known more for its rugby team, its supporting role in a George Orwell book, and as the hometown for 90's one-shot group The Verve, qualified for the English Premier League on the last day of the season, where they get to match-up next year with Arsenal, Man United and Chelsea. One of the cooler things about soccer leagues in Europe is the system of relegation and promotion, where the three or four worst teams get dumped into the minors, while the top teams in the lower division get bumped up. It certainly leads to greater accountability for team management; a Donald Sterling-type owner, who profits no matter how bad his team is, would be next-to-impossible overseas.

I've thought it odd that the Bush Administration hasn't been as obsessed about the Oil-for-Food "scandal" as their cheerleaders in the blogosphere. You'd think anything that shows the U.N. in a bad light would be like manna from heaven for these guys, but it turns out, they may have had reason not to dwell on corruption in someone else's backyard. The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the even more questionable activities of the Development Fund for Iraq, where hundreds of millions of dollars are unaccounted for under American supervision.

When you can't even count on the character of Nancy Grace, what is our legal system coming to?

Desperate Housewife? Laura Bush lied !!!

I don't care how reactionary this makes me sound, this billboard sickens me. As a lifelong Angeleno, I have been more than willing to accept, even laugh at, jokes and ridicule about my city. But for some media conglomerate, in a desperate reach for ratings, to link Los Angeles with a corrupt pseudo-democracy, ruled by a one-party oligarchy in thrall to oil companies, kleptocrats, and the scions of a few elite families, a government possessed of not a shred of human decency, backward and intolerant to the core, paying only lip service to civil liberties and due process, and utterly contemptuous of the rights of minorities, in total betrayal of its own honorable revolutionary past, is, to me, vile and repugnant.

It almost makes me wish someone would put up a billboard linking Los Angeles to Mexico....

Prof. Warren informs us of a cute little valentine Congress included in the "reform" act it just passed, a 30% increase in the filing fee for debtors. Ostensibly to finance the appointment of 28 new judges to the Bankruptcy Court, which will be all-the-more necessary to deal with what the bill's sponsors promised would be a steep decline in filings under the new law, the professor points out that the math just doesn't add up.

Although she sees the surplus from the fee hike going into general revenues, acting as a hidden "tax increase" upon the segment of the population most vulnerable, there is another explanation as to how the money will be spent. In the past, filing fees have gone up in direct correlation with the increase in the minimum assessment paid out in what are called "no asset" cases to the Chapter 7 Trustee, the court-appointed administrator who oversees the debtor's estate in every filing. The Trustee makes money off the big estates that he liquidates on behalf of creditors, for which he receives a pre-set percentage, but his office keeps afloat on what he earns from the "no asset" cases, which constitute the overwhelming majority (say, at least 80% of the cases assigned to him). When there are a lot of estates to administer, that assessment is a steady source of income, and if it's too low, the ability of the Trustee to go after estates with larger assets suffers.

Bankruptcies, of course, are likely going to go down, at least initially, when the act goes into effect in five and a half months. In addition, asset cases will become a rarity under the new law, since debtors with substantial assets free and clear of liens will be forced (along with everyone else whose income exceeds the local average) into Chapter 13, where creditors are repaid through a court-approved plan, or even into the more expensive (and complicated) Chapter 11.
So why the increase? Clearly, Chapter 7 Trustees will continue to play a vital role in the new system; I suspect that the U.S. Trustee will be forced to rely on them to bring many of the motions called for under the new law, including those that seek to convert or dismiss many of the cases that have now been defined as having been filed in "bad faith". But with fewer filings, those administrators will have less money to work with, while incurring exponentially higher costs. In fact, it is precisely this additional paperwork that will make bankruptcy law even more lucrative for its practitioners.

Thus, the seemingly ludicrous fee increase is being promoted to finance some of the chaos that will ensue at the end of the year, when the new law goes into effect. The Trustees are going to see their minimum assessments increased, the court administration will see an increase in its funding, and judges will receive a reduction in their workload, thanks to the appointment of the 28 new judges. And of course, lawyers like myself are going to do quite well under the new law. The only people who lose are going to be the poor suckers who are forced to resort to the bankruptcy courts for relief from their debts. But then again, that's the whole point, isn't it?

The War on Terror: How we lost.