A reader comments on my comparison of brokers and salespersons:

While I agree that the Cunningham real estate deal sounds... corrupt as hell... you are mistaken on one point. A real estate salesperson is in no way comparable to a clerk or a paralegal in a law office.

Other than having their contracts reviewed and signed off on by their broker, they have all the rights and responsiblites as a broker. And even licensed brokers who work in an office usually get their contracts reviewed and signed off by the head broker in the office, or their assistant manager.

For that reason, many of the top selling and most experienced agents do NOT have a broker's license (I didn't and I was a top agent for almost 30 years off and on) since unless you own your own firm and need one, it really doesn't serve any real world purpose to have one.

The commenter is a salesperson who has both personal and professional experience with law offices, so I will of course yield to his expertise in this matter. It is an oversimplification to say that the responsibilities of a broker are similar to that of a lawyer, or that a salesperson does not have a good deal more independence in operating than a law clerk is allowed. When I've bought and sold property in the past, my aunt, a licensed salesperson, usually handles the transaction at my end; I couldn't even tell you the name of the broker, except that it was handled by Coldwell Banker.

However, I should point out that clerks and paralegals have taken on an increasingly important role in law offices, one that he perhaps underestimates. I happen to practice in an area of law, bankruptcy, in which most of the heavy lifting in representing a client is done by paralegals. That area of law is particularly paper-intensive, so the responsibilities of obtaining information from clients, filling out forms, and arranging pleadings for filing are almost entirely done by non-professionals. The attorney's job has become focused on reviewing (and signing off on) the paperwork, meeting with the client at the initial stages of the case, and appearing in court when necessary.

In fact, in larger firms, some paralegals and clerks become even more important than the associates they assist. Because of the fact that, as far as clients are concerned, there is no distinction between lawyer and clerk, it is especially important for the lawyer to perform his supervisorial responsibilities. I believe that the earlier analogy remains apt, at least in this limited way.

An interesting factoid: the house just across the street from Rep. and Mrs. Cunningham was dumped for $905,000 in April, 2003, less than seven months before the San Diego-Area Congressman sold his condo for $1,675 million. What a market !!

War Crimes: Whom we are fighting. [link via Suburban Guerilla]

YBK [Part 6]: Bankruptcy filings were up 8% over the first quarter of 2005, an astonishing jump, since much of that period was before the public became aware of the new law. My own cursory examination of state records indicates that the totals were, in fact, down in the first two months (reflecting a two-year trend), so the jump in March must have been huge. As I have noted previously, the figures in April and May were even higher. If history holds, we should have a slight raw decline in June and July, so the next figures to come out will be crucial.

Why MZM does it:

“We can’t say too much about what we do,” MZM spokeswoman Karen Theobald said, “but we can talk about our employees.” Community involvement is a part of the company’s philosophy, carried out through charitable causes, social events and political donations. The firm prides itself on being “patriotic,” Theobald said. [emphasis added]

-Charlottesville[VA] Daily Progress, May 23, 2005, on the local philanthropic dynamo that is MZM.

YBK [Part 5]: Local blogger Mark Kleiman shorts the housing bubble. Our best local columnist, Michael Hiltzik, comments here.

In the interest of full disclosure, I, too, shorted the market three years ago, when I decided to cash in the equity in my Woodland Hills condo. The place had more than doubled in value over three years, we were supposedly on the verge then of a bankruptcy reform measure that would kill the economy, and I couldn't imagine that the bubble could last much longer....

Finally, some backing from his homies. Darrell Issa, whose vanity project in 2003 resulted in the election of a man whose idea of "education reform" is to spend $80 million on a special election this November to lengthen teacher tenure at public schools, has come to the defense of the Duke. Pointing his finger at the true malefactors, Issa focuses the blame where it belongs: at the Cunningham friend (and long-time contributor) who provided the comps doubling the value of his home, as well as the businessman whose cash purchase at that inflated price enabled the Congressman to buy a three-acre, $2.55 million spread in Rancho Santa Fe.

FWIW, Rep. Cunningham is the chief House sponsor of the amendment to ban flag burning.

This must be uncomfortable: Luanne Kittle, the wife of the editorial page editor for the San Diego Union-Tribune, has just become the Head of School at K-8 Rhoades, an independent school in Encinitas. The Director of the School is none other than Nancy Cunningham, wife of the Congressman and recent target of more than a few Union-Trib stories (see here, here, and here).

Among the politicians to receive the blessings of the largesse of Mitchell Wade, benefactor to San Diego Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, is none other than Katherine Harris (R-FL), to the tune of $10,000 in the last election cycle (no word on whether she sold him a house as well), plus an additional $44,000 from officers, employees of his company, MZM, Inc. Apparently, his company, a DC-based military contractor, has also been very active in local Republican politics, says the San Diego Union-Tribune, with potentially illegal contributions being coerced out of employees to the company PAC.

UPDATE [6/21]: In fact, MZM was the largest single contributor to both Harris and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) in the last election cycle (but, interestingly, not to Cunningham). A public watchdog filed a complaint today against MZM and Mitchell Wade with the F.E.C.

Did you know it's easier for both men and women to have orgasms when they're wearing socks? Explains everything....

Sideshow Bob? Perhaps the poorest-timed article in Slate since one of its pundits began a pool last January about how quickly Kerry would withdraw from the primaries.

The wonderful thing about the Golden Age in which we live is that so much information is now easily accessible to the public. If you are licensed to do anything by a state agency (or not, as the case may be), a few clicks with a mouse will provide you the basic data lickety-split.

And so it is with the family friend and retainer of Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Elizabeth Todd. Those of you who have visited Talking Points Memo recently may have heard the name in connection with her role in the mysterious sale of his home two years ago to a defense contractor, Mitchell Wade, on whose yacht the GOP Congressman lives while in Washington. As you may know, Mr. Wade purchased his friend's home, in a straight cash transaction, for $1.675 million; Mr. Wade then waited several months to resell the property for $975,000, a loss of almost 42%. Even in this inflated market, that whole transaction seemed rather unseemly. Ms. Todd provided the comps for the sale that are now under scrutiny by the FBI.

As the San Diego Union-Tribune pointed out a couple of days ago, Ms. Todd has been licensed by the state since April, 2002, and her subsequent sale of a home to Representative Cunningham the following year was her first-ever deal. But what the article only mentions in passing is that, in fact, Elizabeth Todd is not a licensed real estate broker, at least according to the state. She is a licensed salesperson.

The difference between the two licenses is enormous. A broker must have at least two years of real estate experience, take numorous college-level courses and pass a rigorous exam to be licensed. A salesperson, on the other hand, may have no experience, needs to pass only three courses and a relatively simple exam, but must work under the supervision of a broker in any deal in which she participates. In other words, her position is equivalent to that of a paralegal or clerk at a law office.

So anything she did concerning the sale of the original Cunningham manse, including providing comps, would have to be first vetted by someone else, a broker (state records indicate that she is employed by The Willis Allen Co., whose CEO, Andrew Nelson, contributed over $15 grand to GOP causes (incl. the Duke) in the last election cycle). Maybe that will exonerate her, but, in any event, the plot thickens....

The kerning, the kerning... In what may well be the silliest claim in the history of the blogosphere, we now have an assertion that the Downing Street Memo and related documents are forgeries. Why? Because the reporter in question (an employee of that infamous leftist America-basher, Rupert Murdoch) transcribed the copies of the originals he received, by way of an "old-fashioned typewriter", then destroyed the source documents to protect his source. Like Captain Queeg and his strawberries, the Bushies and their shills keep returning to the same meme, oblivious to the fact (as with the Rathergate docs) that the principals involved did not challenge their authenticity.

So is it a big deal? According to the blogger who "broke" this story, Captain's Quarters,

...a lack of protest from Downing Street after being asked to authenticate retyped copies of alleged minutes of secret meetings does NOT constitute verification. The same exact argument came up with the Killian memos in Rathergate and the Newsweek Qu'ran-flushing report last month. In both cases, the documents or sources turned out to be fakes. It's the reporters' job to provide verification, not simply a demurral by officials to opine on their authenticity. If that isn't obvious, then centuries of evidentiary procedure in American and English common law have gone for naught, as well as traditions of journalistic responsibility and professionalism. After all, this argument just means that reporters can type out anything they like and the burden of proof shifts from the accuser to the accused in proving them false -- hardly the process endorsed in libel and slander cases in the US, at least. [emphasis added]

It should be obvious why that argument doesn't hold water. The legal standards in a civil or criminal case must necessarily be more stringent than the standards the rest of society uses in its daily life. To hold someone liable for a tort such as defamation, or to convict a person of a crime, we require that the rules of evidence be more strict and exacting. Such things as the Hearsay Rule, the Best Evidence Rule, and the presumption of innocence burden trial attorneys in order to lessen the possibility that the wrong person gets convicted.

But those aren't the standards the rest of us live by. Michael Jackson should be presumed innocent by his jurors when he's being tried by the state for pedophilia, but that's not the standard a mother of a twelve-year old should use when deciding whether to let her son attend a sleepover at the Neverland Ranch. If Tony Blair ever is indicted for war crimes, or if Congress moves to impeach Bush based on the DSM, than of course the originals must be introduced as evidence (that is, if Bush or his English bitch ever decide to challenge their authenticity), and any hearsay issues will have to be dealt with by the prosecution. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to give them a free pass in the meantime. [link via Kevin Drum]

YBK [Part 4]: Massachusetts, the state that has had the highest growth in real estate prices in the nation since 1980, as well as one of the lowest bankruptcy rates, has experienced a 28% increase in foreclosures over the past so far this year. If a meltdown is going to take place in the fall, than Massachusetts will be the canary in the coalmine.

BTW, the oft-mentioned chart relating home values, bankruptcy filings and voting behavior in the 2004 Presidential race is here. Have fun with it. My previous YBK posts are here, here and here.

This is the passage from Senator Durbin's speech that has caused all the to-do. Judge for yourself whether this statement is offensive, or whether the conduct he describes really is a "day at the beach":

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor."

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Again, the critical question to ask is whether this sort of treatment is closer to what the Nazis did to P.O.W.'s during WWII, or to what we expect the behaviour of Americans to be, based on our own ideals and principals. If you accept the actions at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as appropriate, even desirable, during a state of "war", than Osama bin Laden has truly won.

Ass Clown of the Day:

Well, he gets out of it in terms of the fact that there's an allegation of mistreatment. But what the FBI memo alleges, and it is an allegation, is, you know, would be considered a day at the beach in the Soviet gulag or Nazi...I mean, what was so horrific in the memo, and I'm not saying, you know, there aren't legitimate questions there, is that someone is chained to a floor and forced to defecate on themselves, and has loud rock music playing. Excuse me? I mean, you know, Auschwitz? Bergen Belsen? The Soviet gulag? I think they would have been very happy to be allowed to defecate on themselves.

--Chris Wallace, Fox News (emphasis mine, with link via Radioblogger), on Senator Durbin's speech criticizing human rights abuses at G-mo. Note in particular Mr. Wallace's initial understanding that Pol Pot and the Killing Fields occurred in Thailand.

Those of you who have read Josh Marshall's blog over the last week know that he has written a pretty devastating expose of San Diego-Area Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, whose coziness with a defense contractor has manifested itself in various tawdry ways. Democrats should not get their hopes up about capturing his district in 2006, however. Although he's considered to have the most vulnerable district among Republicans in California (David Dreier won by a narrower margin in 2004, but that was due to certain factors, including a conservative talk radio campaign to boot him in order to send a message on immigration, that will not likely be in play next time), he still won by 22% last time. Any other Republican would be able to defend the seat, so Democrats' hopes hinge on Cunningham getting renominated with these problems still hanging over his head.

Question of the Day:

"Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?"

--ABC White House Correspondent Terry Moran, trying to pin down the oleaginous Scott McClellan on the "waning" strength of the Iraqi Insurgency.

James "Mr. 36,000" Glassman writes that all this talk about the Housing Bubble is overblown. Translation: SELL NOW !!

Guantanamo: It's more humane than Treblinka !! The ADL comes out foursquare in defense of G-Mo, in a press release that reads like it had been drafted by David Irving (the reference to "alleged excesses at the Guantanamo Bay facility" is a particularly nice touch). Objections to criticisms about our little torture camps are starting to sound a little like that Chris Rock routine...you're SUPPOSED to follow the Geneva Conventions !! [link via AmericaBlog]

So, who wants to climb Mt. McKinley?

A good summary of the impact stemming from the Bankruptcy Reform Act so far, in the Orlando Sentinel. Filings nationwide for the first quarter were up 8% over the previous quarter, which is particularly significant since a) filings were significantly down in the first two months of the year, so the surge in filings shown above occurred in only one month, March; and b) the measure wasn't signed by President Bush until mid-April, well after the end of the first quarter.

The increase in May has been by far the most telling number. Traditionally, March and April tend to busy months for bankruptcy attorneys, as debtors begin to take account of their finances after the Christmas season, but then work slackens off as we move toward the middle of the year. This year, the preliminary figures indicate that May was even busier than March or April, which is almost unheard of in bankruptcy court. Unless the rate of filings begins to decline as we enter the summer, we could be in for an explosive situation come September and October, before the measure takes effect.

Martha Mitchell Redux: Can't we all just agree that Howard Dean is a needed breath of fresh air AND a buffoon? That he's both a "fighting Democrat" who's willing to take the battle to the other side, AND a tactless moron?

The Democratic Party has become far too complacent in recent years, far too willing to appease Big Business and Big Religion, and it hasn't translated into wins on the only scoreboard that matters. Dean, with his Tourette's mannerisms and rhetorical shtick, gives the party a long-overdue chance to finally have a "Sista Souljah" moment with its decrepit neo-liberal/DLC wing. Since we're going to be in the minority for awhile, it's a good idea to have someone leading the charge whom you just know everyone else is going to be paying attention, for better or worse.

Finally, some Jackson news I'm interested in....

In researching the YBK issue, I've been playing around with a chart that compares the increase in home prices with the bankruptcy rate in each state (and as soon as I figure out how to hyperlink a WORD document, I'll show it to you). One of the things that I noticed when I identified the states with the highest bankruptcy rates is that those states, for the most part, were Red States (ie., they voted for Bush) in the last election. In other words, the less frequently a state's residents filed bankruptcy, the more likely they were to vote for John Kerry. I wonder if that's what Michael Barone meant when he wrote about Soft vs. Hard America.

But there's an even stronger correllation between a robust housing market and Democratic voting patterns. In fact, the correllation gets stronger the further back you go in time. While there are a handful of Blue States in the third quartile of the housing market for 2004, and only one (Michigan) near the bottom, only one Blue State (Michigan, again) was in the lower half from 2000-2004. Going back even further in time, every state (and the District of Columbia) that voted for John Kerry last year, without exception, was among the top 24 states in the country in terms of the increase in residential property values since 1980. The 27 states with the lowest rate of increase, again without exception, voted for George Bush. Only four Red States (Virginia, Florida, Nevada and Colorado), placed in the Booming 24, and Kerry was competitive in each of those states.

I don't know what it all means, but I thought I'd share that with you.

UPDATE [7/1]: Here's the chart I was referring to in the above post.

UPDATE [7/3]: Further musings on the subject, here.

Perhaps a better explanation for the demise of the "Oldies" format on FM-radio might well be that the stations playing the format suck. The local monolith, KRTH-FM, has a playlist that probably doesn't number more than three dozen songs, and as classic as "Dock of the Bay", "Stand by Me", or "Get Off of My Cloud" might be, it's painful to have to listen to them two or three times a day, surrounded by the clatter of unfunny DJ's and tire ads. No wonder the "Jack" format is catching on. [link via Hit and Run]

Regardless of how one feels about the likelihood that a wealthy pedophile was able to convince a jury to let him walk (I should point out that I feel the jury came to the correct result based on the evidence presented, and that Michael Jackson is a pervert), anytime our criminal justice system pisses off Nancy Grace is a good day.

Watergate Burglars for Truth: Funny piece by Jonathan Alter, about how talk radio, bloggers, FoxNews, et al. would have helped Nixon cover-up Watergate if it had happened today.

I wonder if Eric Alterman thought that his crack about "Little Roy" today was "witty". Dude, it's a blog. You're supposed to occasionally post about embarrassing personal matters. You blog about Springsteen, your ever-busy lecture series and whatever jihad you're having against whoever called you a "self-hating Jew" this week, and Sullivan blogs about his battle against AIDS. That includes the medication he's taking and the physical symptoms he's experiencing. Try to deal with that in a way that isn't cruel and offensive.

Minnesota 5, Los Angeles [N] 3: Great seats, best Dodger Dogs in years, but a dull interleague game Saturday night. H-sC did have a nice blast in the sixth, almost clearing the right field pavillion. He had a better game Sunday, leading to this terrible pun from the local paper of record. No fights with gang members, thank god. Before the game, there was the annual "Hollywood Stars" match-up: the biggest surprise was how well Jon Lovitz and Sarah Silverman pounded the ball.

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.