It's not just the U.S. that's seeing its housing market crater. Home foreclosures are up 30% in the United Kingdom, according to the BBC.

What does not destroy me...: The Villaraigosa-Salinas story dies with a whimper. She is now the most well-known reporter in the city, and is clearly headed for bigger things than Spanish-language TV. And the Mayor can now sweep this scandal into the ether, and carry on as before.

It's easy to see why Hillary hates Obama. Indeed, it's easy to see why the lefty blogosphere seems to hold him with such contempt. There is a fearlessness about Barack Obama, an unwillingness to fellate the Establishment, whether it be the party base or the Queen Beez who are meeting in Chicago this weekend, that reminds progressives of the last Democratic President. Clinton, remember, was from the conservative wing of the party, and signed a bill that all but ended welfare, and supported a free trade agreement that was a valentine to the wealthy, and maintained a balanced budget. His health care plan, which was one of his few liberal maneuvers in office, failed spectacularly.

And yet progressives loved him every step of the way, while conservative Democrats never trusted him, never had his back, and always acted the role of a Fifth Column. We knew that when the chips were down, Clinton was on our side, precisely because he would fight hard for the battles that really counted to liberals, even if the battles were mainly defensive in nature over his last six years in office. Far from alienating the base, his "Sista Soldja" moments solidified our support, because it showed that he respected us enough not to mince words.

More importantly, he had the right enemies. Conservatives hated him, as did that contingent of lefties, usually found on the pages of The Nation or at meetings of the Green Party, whose power comes from their ability to sabotage progressive causes in the interest of ideological purity. When Clinton lied under oath, it was progressives that stood by him, turning what would ordinarily have been an offense that justified his removal from office into a rallying cry. We knew that Clinton told the truth about the things that really matter, even if he risked losing our votes in the process.

I have a feeling that Sen. Obama can inspire the same loyalty.

It seems hard to believe today, but when I first starting blogging five years ago, this guy was The Enemy. Andrew Sullivan was the reason why many of us started blogging in the first place, if only to shut up his smug English face. Come to think of it, it's not as if he's changed his views; his damascene moment came after the revelations of Abu Ghraib, when he realized the Bushies were false prophets. Whatever the reason, his blog is still as sharp and passionate as ever, a rare feat for a medium that encourages popular bloggers to dumb down their content, and make more strident their ideology, in order to reach larger audiences.

But the French love Jerry Lewis: "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip", that much unloved and unwatched critical disaster, is getting rave reviews in, of all places, Great Britain.

More than a quarter century ago, I was attending high school with a short, stumpy kid several grades behind me named Matt "Sex Dwarf" Weiner*. Even then, he had a wicked sense of humor and a sharp mind, and it was obvious that either great things were going to happen to him, or we were going to read of him getting into a shootout with federal agents at some polygamous cult in Idaho. He ended up going to college back east, then to SC Film, and the last time I saw him he was getting cheated out of a return date as champion on "Jeopardy."

After a decade or so of toiling in the trenches in Hollywood, including a stint on a sitcom that my sister worked on, Matthew Weiner ended up writing for some much beloved shows, then getting a job as a glorified gofer for David Chase, for which he received some justified props. Which, in turn, has led to this: his very own show, "Mad Men", on AMC Channel. It's not an understatement to say that it's the best new show on cable since both "The Shield" and "The Wire" debuted in 2002. It recaptures a not-so-distant moment in American history, in a way that doesn't condescend to its audience, and like most good television nowadays, it follows the MoneyBall principal of featuring unknown but talented character actors instead of "names." So watch it when it comes on, TiVo it, and watch it again. Then buy the DVD in four months.

There was clearly something in the water back at Harvard High twenty-five years, from a fountain which I did not partake....

*Also, the younger brother of the subject of this post.

One of the few TV shows in the 70's that played live, non-pre-recorded, non-lipsynced music was the one hosted by the Tom Snyder, who died yesterday. Here is a clip featuring my favorite band from high school, the Only One That Really Mattered:

I'm afraid the subtlety of this went completely over Mr. Frey's head.

FredoWatch: Dishonest, or just plain dumb? It's a question Bush observers have asked for quite awhile now:

The accusation that Gonzales has been deceptive in his public remarks has erupted this summer into a full-blown political crisis for the Bush administration, as the beleaguered attorney general struggles repeatedly to explain to Congress the removal of a batch of U.S. attorneys, the wiretapping program and other actions.

In each case, Gonzales has appeared to lawmakers to be shielding uncomfortable facts about the Bush administration's conduct on sensitive matters. A series of misstatements and omissions has come to define his tenure at the helm of the Justice Department and is the central reason that lawmakers in both parties have been trying for months to push him out of his job.

Yet controversy over Gonzales's candor about George W. Bush's conduct or policies has actually dogged him for more than a decade, since he worked for Bush in Texas.

Whether Gonzales has deliberately told untruths or is merely hampered by his memory has been the subject of intense debate among members of Congress, legal scholars and others who have watched him over the years. Some regard his verbal difficulties as a strategic ploy on behalf of a president to whom he owes his career; others see a public official overwhelmed by the magnitude of his responsibilities.

From today's Washington Post. I'm going to go with dishonest on this one. If there's one thing you learn while practicing law, it's that you put everything in writing. That way, if there's ever a dispute later on, you won't get caught making a misstatement of fact to a judge, or have your testimony discredited by someone who has the evidence. Gonzalez isn't just a lying corrupt hack charged with helming the nation's chief law enforcement agency; he is, more unforgivably, incompetent.

A crossroads: Up until this week, I have been skeptical of calls for the impeachment of the President. I felt that the system had been abused by the GOP during the second term of President Clinton, and still feel that Congress should be loath to overturn the results of a national election. Without substantial bipartisan support, impeachment seemed a frivolous pursuit, a masturbatory gesture without substance.

Impeaching the Vice President has seemed to be the wiser course; Dick Cheney is ever more unpopular than George Bush, has abused his power (which is even more galling, since the Constitution does not grant him any power to abuse), led a shadow government which combined ideological cupidity in pursuit of destructive ends with an unforgivable reliance on an incompetent cabal, and blatantly obstructed justice during the Valerie Plame investigation. Besides, even Republicans in Congress have come to realize what a cancer Cheney is, and the temptation to permit the President to choose his replacement before the 2008 election might swing the necessary members of the minority to make his removal a possibility.

Impeaching George Bush is another thing entirely. Democrats, remembering how badly the 1998 impeachment debacle backfired on the GOP (which included the loss of sufficient seats in the Senate to give the Democrats a majority in 2001), have been understandably reluctant to do anything which might rally the public around an historically unpopular President, so even the most rudimentary steps required to begin an impeachment inquiry have been avoided so far.

That must end. Now.

Congress must go on record and reclaim its historical prerogatives, both as a check on abusive executive branch authority, and as the voice of the people in challenging an aggressive tyrant. It must be the position of the Democratic leadership in the House that an impeachment inquiry commence immediately, against both the President and Vice President. This must not be a partisan endeavor; Republicans in Congress who see this as a "power grab" by the Democrats should appeased, either by having the current Congressional leadership stepping aside from the Presidential succession in favor of the Secretary of State, or by electing a Republican Speaker on the eve of a removal vote in the Senate.

Certainly, it should already be clear to enough members of the GOP that the same powers and the same abuses that this Administration has exercised can also be wielded by Democrats. If nothing is done now, it may be too late to reign in the Presidency two years hence, whether that position is held by Hillary or Mitt, Thompson or Obama. And as anyone who has studied government and public policy can tell you, liberal policies favoring an expanded government tend to be more permanent. The same means used to stonewall inquiry into Cheney's energy taskforce can also be utilized in favor of national health care, or making tax rates more progressive.

Another blogger put it even more plainer today:

Though other events in recent months and years have had graver consequences in themselves, I'm not sure I've seen a more open, casual or brazen display of the attitude that the body of rules which our whole system is built on just don't apply to this White House.

Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.

Whether because of prudence and pragmatism or mere intellectual inertia, I still have the same opinion on the big question: impeachment. But I think we're moving on to dangerous ground right now, more so than some of us realize. And I'm less sure now under these circumstances that operating by rules of 'normal politics' is justifiable or acquits us of our duty to our country.

--Josh Marshall

Say what you will about Roberts and Alito, the fact that Abu Gonzo was on the short list of Supreme Court nominees, but was thwarted only because the Far Right didn't think he was conservative enough is a testament to the notion that God protects fools, drunks, children, and the United States of America.

While we're on the issue of bankruptcy, and the ramifications of the 2005 legislation, here's an interesting way to neuter its negative impact: slash the budget for the entity that's supposed to determine whether a bankruptcy was filed in good faith.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act (BARF) was a provision that created a presumption that debtors who made over the medium income for a state were filing the case in bad faith if they chose Chapter 7 relief. That presumption could be overcome if the debtor were to show that after taking his monthly expenses into account, he would not have sufficient funds to repay at least ten percent of his unsecured debts over a five year period under a Chapter 13 plan. In reality, the presumption is almost always overcome, in large part because debtors who make just over the medium can show that their reasonable monthly expenses easily exceed their gross income, while many of those who make well over the medium have always filed under Chapters 11 or 13.

But it is, nonetheless, a hassle for debtors, who are charged a higher amount by their attorneys (such as me) for the burden of dealing with the U.S. Trustee's office, which has the mandate under the new law to raise the presumption whenever appropriate. That includes analyzing and preparing the schedules filed with the court, demanding further supporting documentation (in many cases, that entails credit card receipts going back a year), and filing motions to dismiss with the court.

This past week, the House Judiciary Committee sent a shot through the bows of the credit industry by slashing the funds available for the UST to enforce the act, stating

The Committee is concerned that excessive resources are being expended on efforts by the United States Trustee Program to dismiss cases for insignificant filing defects (thereby creating added burdens on the court and debtors associated with refilings); on the unnecessary use of U.S. Trustee personnel to participate in creditors' meetings that are already handled and conducted by private trustees; and on making burdensome requests of debtors to provide documentation that has no material effect on the outcome of bankruptcy cases. Such actions by the U.S. Trustee Program are making the bankruptcy process more costly and therefore less available for those who need it. The Committee directs the U.S. Trustees to immediately examine these problems and report back two months after enactment of this Act on efforts to remedy them as soon as possible.

Without funding, the Trustee will have to drastically reduce its investigation of debtors who are above the statewide median, making the controversial provision in the new law a practical nullity. Although I expect much of the funds to be restored, thanks in no small part to a certain powerful Senate Democrat (Biden, D-Visa), this is the first step towards overturning the noxious law. There is most definitely a new sheriff in town.

Three bits of miscellany, for your review: Countrywide Mortgage, one of the nation's largest prime lenders for homes, saw its profits fall by a third in the last quarter, with one out of twenty-two loans now being in default; in Southern California, a record number of foreclosures occurred in the second quarter of 2007, with 17,408 homes being lost, an 800% increase over last year; and bankruptcy filings have more than doubled in the Central District of California so far in 2007.

Of course, bankruptcy filings in 2006 were at historic lows, in the aftermath of YBK and the passage of the new law, and the current totals are still well off the figures from the pre-BARF era. But in some areas of the country, the collapse of the real estate bubble is sparking a renewed rush to the bankruptcy courthouse. Locally, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are the new hubs of the debt relief bar, as those two rapidly expanding centers of exurban population growth witness a Perfect Storm: an oversupply of housing combined with an accelerating rate of defaults in mortgages, together with a sharp collapse in the value of homes which makes refinancing impossible. Anyone who refinanced since 2002, and/or has an adjustable rate loan, the only thing to do is pray.

For some reason, the British refer to the type of thing that gets Lindsey Lohen into trouble every couple of months as "drink-driving." I'm assuming it's because the penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), and driving while intoxicated (DWI) aren't distinguishable over there, so there's no need to make the assumption that the person behind the wheel was drunk. If that's not the case, then it must be one of those linguistic idiosyncracies, like dropping the definite article when referencing visits "to hospital."

Adventures in Babysitting:



Today, of course, it's the sort of thing that got R.Kelly into trouble....

The Constant Gardener: An excellent New Republic article, on why a blowhard like Joseph Wilson serves his country better than a mere diplomat, such as Colin Powell:

Just as the denouement of the Plame case was dominating the news earlier this month, another former diplomat revealed that he had felt his own grave doubts about Iraq around the time of Wilson's trip to Niger. This much more celebrated Washington veteran, though, kept his qualms off the record. Thus it was newsworthy when Colin Powell revealed at the Aspen Ideas Festival that he'd counseled President Bush against the conflict. "I tried to avoid this war," Powell said. "I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers."

Had he not hewed to the behavioral standards of the Washington elite, Powell might have called attention to his dissent back when it counted. He might have resigned in a high-profile huff, taken to the airwaves to play up war's dangers, written a self-aggrandizing tome that made him look like the government's last honest man. He could have optioned a feature film in which the upstanding ex-General faces down the Cheney cabal. Perhaps he'd have been photographed chatting up J-Lo about the script, or been quoted calling Rumsfeld a "scumbag." The sideshow might have penetrated the consciousness of a general public that was even then lining up for Freedom Fries and making death threats to the Dixie Chicks.

But he didn't--and the results, in spilled blood and wasted treasure, diminished national reputation and paralyzed national politics, are still with us. Alas, even Powell's reputation hasn't been saved by his choice. He's one of the few people in the world who might have stopped the Iraq train wreck; instead, he's just an ex-secretary of State who confers decorously with fellow has-beens in Aspen. There's a reason a nobody like Joe Wilson is the one pitching his story to Hollywood: The blowhard, it turns out, is the one who mattered.

It goes without saying that you should read the whole thing, although I would hope that when this story goes to film, they can come up with a better star than Jennifer Lopez.

What a way to start a morning. Congrats and salutations to my wee sister, Cat Smith, who awoke to find herself an Emmy Nominee, which, unlike being a "Pulitzer Nominee," is something that has to be earned from your peers. It's for Outstanding Art Direction (Single-Camera Show), so you probably won't see her accepting her long-overdue honors with the rest of the show business phonies; they hold the technical ceremony on a separate night. But it's nice just the same, if she wins she gets to hold the same trophy as Gandalfini and Falco, and it was the only nomination for her show (Shark), from which she has already departed for greener pastures (HBO). Rock On !!!

They Are 'a Changin: After this video, he was transfered out of Fresno by Roger Mahony. We never found out what was in the basket:



I doubt there was ever a time when the above video didn't creep out a lot of people....

Appropos of this week, three different opinions concerning The Boy Who Lived.

David Beckham, injury-prone? Often unable to earn his paycheck due to nagging ailments, especially at critical moments? Who knew?