If Jackson Diehl is a thoughtless warmonger, Richard Cohen is an indescribably stupid man. Everything I said about Diehl's advocacy of war with Syria can be said six-fold about Cohen's argument. I'm not even going to take it apart piece by piece because that would involve rewriting my article on Diehl. I'm just going to focus on one thing. Cohen wants Obama to do something about the civil war in Syria right now. Like Diehl, he wants the president to exercise more leadership and stop the growing civil war.

Time is not on the side of moderation or accommodation. The longer the killing goes on, the more radical and extreme the anti-Assad forces become. The intelligentsia that initially supported the movement will be marginalized by Islamic extremists — volunteers from nearby Arab countries who can’t abide Assad and his secularism.

Does Richard Cohen know how "radical and extreme" the anti-Assad forces are right now? Does he think they share Assad's secularism?

The composition of the Syrian opposition is largely unknown (to quote Butch Cassidy: “Who are those guys?”).

If I didn't know better, I'd think Cohen was urging us to help put down the insurgency. After all, if the problem is that there is a civil war and the opposition is filled with radicals and religious extremists, isn't the best solution to help Assad crush them into submission?

That Cohen can make the argument he is making with no apparent cognitive dissonance is astounding.

Also, remember when Diehl said that the Turks could easily invade and occupy a big slice of Syria because they once mobilized their troops on the Syrian border? That's pretty bad logic. But Cohen outdoes him by papering over all the difficulties of getting intimately involved in Syria's civil war.

Still, none of this is insurmountable. Israel was able to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 apparently without losing a single airplane — and whatever Israel can do, the United States can do as well. What’s missing at the moment is not the wherewithal to deal militarily with the Assad regime but the will to do so — and to do so expeditiously. This is a matter of leadership and, so far, Barack Obama has provided precious little.

This comes after Cohen recommend that we "bomb Syrian military installations and impose a no-fly zone." Apparently, unlike Diehl, he doesn't think we need to create a "humanitarian corridor." We can settle this thing from the air.

Not every military action is a quagmire — and, anyway, quagmires can be avoided by using air power. The military interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya did not require boots on the ground. They ended when they were finished — a brilliant exit strategy.

Cohen lived through the Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars and still he tells us that quagmires can be avoided by using airpower. We can stop all the killing in Syria simply by bombing stuff. Hey, it worked in Kosovo and (kind of, not really) in Libya, so why not Syria?

The only thing I can say in Cohen's favor is that he, unlike Diehl, at least had the good taste to make his case as a pitch to save lives. But advocating war when you don't even know who the opposition is or why they're fighting or what would make them stop fighting or what they'd do if they won? Lazily advocating for American involvement in a conflict you don't understand in the least?

I guess that is just what the Washington Post is for these days.

We have records of the popular vote in our presidential elections going back to 1824. In all that time, there have been only 11 presidents who were elected to a second (consecutive) term. With the exception of the first, Andrew Jackson, every president who has been reelected has received a higher percentage of the popular vote the second time around. Here's the list, with their percentage improvement:

Andrew Jackson: -1.2%
Abraham Lincoln: +15.5%
Ulysses Grant: +2.9%
William McKinley: +0.5%
Woodrow Wilson: +7.4%
Franklin Roosevelt: +3.4% (-6.1%, -1.4%)
Dwight Eisenhower: +2.2%
Richard Nixon: +17.4%
Ronald Reagan: +8.0%
Bill Clinton: +7.4%
George W. Bush: +2.8%

Grover Cleveland also won a second term, but it was non-consecutive and does not concern us here. We can look at the individual circumstances of each of these elections and find reasons why the popular vote percentage increased. Reagan and Clinton faced fairly strong third-party challengers in their first election, for example, which kept their numbers down. Lincoln's reelection took place during the Civil War. But the point remains that presidents tend to have two fates: they are rejected, or they win reelection by a larger margin. We have to go back to the election of 1832 to find a counterexample. So, why do so many people assume that Obama will win reelection, but by a narrower margin?

No doubt, people are relying on some data. Polling numbers, mainly. But polls this far out are fairly meaningless, and Obama has a comfortable lead in almost all of them. I've been reading articles about the Indiana Senate race between Richard Lugar and Richard Mourdock, and I consistently see it predicted that Obama will not win in Indiana this time around. I sometimes hear the same thing said about North Carolina and Virginia. But, here's my guess, based on history. If Obama loses in Indiana or North Carolina or Virginia, it means he has lost the election. But, if he wins reelection, he will win all three of those states and some new states that he lost four years ago. What states might those be? Arizona and Missouri are possibilities. Georgia and Montana and the Dakotas are not out of the question. It might surprise you, but even South Carolina isn't out of the question.

For all the Republicans' efforts, President Obama is nowhere near as polarizing as George W. Bush or Bill Clinton (post-Lewinsky) turned out to be. And the GOP has completely left the mainstream of American politics. I think that Dick Lugar is going to lose his primary next Tuesday. Do you know what that means?

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Last time around, the GOP lost the support of Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell. Now, perhaps it will be Dick Lugar, John Danforth, and Olympia Snowe. Maybe even Lisa Murkowski. After all, she was booed this weekend at the Alaska GOP Convention, and the Paulistas took over control of the state party:

FAIRBANKS — Ron Paul might have finished a distant third in Alaska’s Republican presidential primary race, but the Texas congressman and his supporters won big at the Republican state convention this weekend.

In a tense and at times openly confrontational convention, Paul’s supporters came out in force to express their distaste with what they call “establishment Republicans” and successfully took control of much of the party.

The biggest victory the Paul supporters took home this weekend was the chairmanship of the Alaska GOP. Russ Millette, a Paul supporter, was elected to replace retiring party Chairman Randy Ruedrich at the state GOP convention in Anchorage.

These are the types of events that cause people to switch long-standing allegiances. For some, it happened when they impeached Clinton, or when they stole the 2000 election or when they invaded Iraq or after Abu Ghraib or when they sent John Bolton to the United Nations or when they intervened in the Terri Schiavo case or when they let New Orleans drown. I know people who switched in each and every one of those cases. I'm sure there are some who finally made the jump after the debt ceiling fiasco. There are limits for almost everyone. The truth is that the GOP isn't just ceding the center-right to the Democrats. They're force-feeding the center-right to us. And the election results should reflect that.

it appears that most of my time today is going to be dedicated to wiping Finn's runny nose. It's like a faucet. I did discover, however, that the British committee charged with investigating (pdf) Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has determined that Murdoch "is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company." I can't pretend to understand the UK's regulatory scheme, but it seems like this particular use of language might be important:

More than 6,000 possible victims [of illegal spying] have been identified and the police have so far made a number of arrests in connection with an investigation reopened in January 2011 - although no charges have yet been brought.

Media regulator Ofcom is currently looking into that issue, and reacting to the report, a spokesman said: "Ofcom has a duty under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 to be satisfied that any person holding a broadcasting licence is, and remains, fit and proper to do so.

David Cameron's official spokesman said the government would consider the report's findings.

Asked whether the prime minister regarded Rupert Murdoch as a fit person to run a media company, he said: "That is a matter for the regulatory authorities, not for the government."

So, it appears that the committee's finding is not binding on the regulatory agency but it might inform their opinion. The committee's ruling on Murdoch and his son was split, with all the Tories claiming it was partisan.

Labour MPs and the sole Liberal Democrat on the committee, Adrian Sanders, voted together in a bloc of six against the five Conservatives to insert the criticisms of Rupert Murdoch and toughen up the remarks about his son James. But the MPs were united in their criticism of other former News International employees.

I'd love to see a similar ruling from our own Congress. Wouldn't you?

It is probably little-remembered that Bob Dole ran as Gerald Ford's running mate in 1976 and that he had a debate with vice-presidential candidate Walter Mondale. During that debate, Bob Dole created some controversy when he said that World War One and Two, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War were all "Democratic wars." By that he meant that our involvement in all those wars began under Democratic presidents. It was a true statement, but the way he said it made it sound like these were all wars of choice irresponsibly launched by Democrats. I'd argue strenuously against the irresponsibility of fighting in World War Two, but the other three are certainly open for debate. My point here is that it wasn't that long ago that the Democrats had the reputation for having a "muscular foreign policy." To be sure, that reputation had begun to erode in a major way in the decade before 1976. That's part of what made Dole's comments seem so bizarre. But we fought and won the World Wars under Democratic presidents and we started the Korean and Vietnam Wars under Democratic presidents, only to see both of them sloppily resolved by Republicans.

While the GOP talked a lot of anti-communist smack, they hadn't actually put any of our boys in harm's way between 1941 and 1976. Sure, Nixon extended the Vietnam War, but he also ended it. The Republicans didn't become the actual war party until Carter had some bad luck in his attempt the rescue the Iranian hostages and Reagan became president.

I mention this because I take a position midway between Josh Marshall and digby. I think Josh's view of machismo in politics is oversimplified and somewhat insulting to the voters' intelligence. I think digby is wringing her hands a bit too much.

Marshall sees the attack on Romney for not having the guts or wisdom to go get bin-Laden as a way of emasculating him. He's thinks this is a legitimate strategy and he thinks it's effective because swing voters respond to these manly/unmanly cues. Digby doesn't necessarily dispute Josh's analysis; she just bemoans it.

I'm not quite as ecstatic that we have an awesome manly man who can out macho the opposition with tough orders to kill our evil enemies. I tend to think it reinforces some unfortunate characteristics of our politics, which Marshall defines above. Not to mention that I don't know anyone who really believes that Democrats can possibly be masculine enough to win this in the long term. The Party of gays, women and kids is never going to out-macho the Republicans. (They might be able to do it if they commit to totally abandoning those constituencies, so I suppose there's still hope ...) I have no doubt that Barack Obama will be remembered as a very manly president because of his national security policies. But if you're on Team Blue, enjoy it. It's a one-time thing. I doubt very seriously that will mean a thing to any other Democrat running for office now or in the future.

Why is digby wrong? Well, for starters, she just defined the Democratic Party as the party of gays, women, and kids. That's pretty self-limiting, don't you think? Was FDR's Democratic Party limited to gays, women, and kids? Was JFK's or LBJ's Democratic Party limited in that way? I'm not attacking her here, but I think she left out the part about the blacks and the Latinos and Asians and the Native Americans. But she also just ceded the white male adult vote, and I see no reason to do that.

The main point is that liberals can govern this country with toughness and brains, and we should expect to lay our enemies low when we go about things in an intelligent manner. There's nothing to apologize for. The Republicans started a war with a country that didn't attack us and ran that war terribly. There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't take full credit for focusing on our true enemies and defeating them. Contra Marshall, this is no mere schoolyard taunting. This is an actual record of success.

I think they're both wrong.

Rich Lowry is seeing starbursts again. This time they aren't coming from Sarah Palin's winking eyes, but from seeing torturer-in-chief Jose Rodriguez make a "persuasive" case for torture on 60 Minutes. Not kidding. Also, fail. But they recently fired someone for being too racist, so it's all good.

With Republicans grumbling that Newt Gingrich shouldn't be allowed to speak at the Republican National Convention and with (so far) no official Romney endorsements from Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, and no concession from Ron Paul, there aren't a whole lot of candidates to fill the primetime speaking slots. In 2008, the Democrats were able to create four nights of excitement and buzz at their convention. Let's look back at each night and try to figure out who would be the equivalents for the GOP.

1st Night's Principal Speakers
Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, author, attorney, and former First Daughter
Edward M. Kennedy, United States Senator from Massachusetts
Michelle Obama, attorney, public servant, and executive; wife of Barack Obama
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, congresswoman, Convention Chair

Who is the Republican equivalent of Caroline Kennedy? This would be a beloved (unelected) member of a well-respected Republican political family. How many Republican families still command respect? The Bush family is tarnished, although not beyond redemption. The Dole family wouldn't fit the bill. Perhaps the Cheney family would do, because Michael Reagan isn't getting near the podium and Ronnie's other kids are Democrats. That leaves us a choice between Liz and Mary Cheney. Since Mary is openly lesbian, I kind of doubt she'd open the primetime ceremonies. I'm going with the charming Liz Cheney here.

Now, who is the Republican equivalent of Teddy Kennedy? This would be a very long-serving senator from a respected family who is tremendously popular with the base and a whipping boy for the other side. There simply isn't anyone who fits that bill. The elder statesmen of the GOP caucus in the Senate are all hated by the base: Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, John McCain. I think the best they can do is Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. A more exciting option would be Marco Rubio, provided he isn't on the ticket. Or, maybe, Scott Brown could use the boost for his campaign against Elizabeth Warren (a nod to the middle and a boost for Massachusetts-style conservatism). I'll go with Rubio. So, here's the first night lineup:

Liz Cheney
Marco Rubio
Ann Romney
John Boehner

2nd Night's Principal Speakers
Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States Senator from New York, former Congressional and Carter administration lawyer, and former First Lady of the United States; runner-up for the 2008 Democratic nomination
Mark Warner, keynote speaker, former Virginia governor and candidate for United States Senate

The most obvious equivalent to Hillary Clinton would be Rick Santorum, if only because they both finished in second place. But Santorum hardly stacks up against Hillary. Laura Bush would make more sense, but they still have to figure out if her husband will be allowed within 300 miles of the convention. There's no good answer here, and it's hard to envision a Santorum speech that would be helpful, but I'll give Santorum the slot by default.

The second slot should be filled by someone who is an up-and-comer. In 2004, it was Barack Obama. In 2008, it was Mark Warner. What's the equivalent this time around? It could be a candidate for the U.S. Senate like Jeff Flake of Arizona or Heather Wilson of New Mexico or Josh Mandel of Ohio. I'll go with Mr. Mandel.

So, here's the second night lineup:

Rick Santorum
Josh Mandel

Can you feel the excitement?

3rd Night's Principal Speakers
Joe Biden, United States Senator from Delaware and 2008 Democratic nominee for Vice President of the United States
Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States

Now we get to the heavy hitters. We open with the vice-presidential nominee, who I will assume to be Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. Certainly, Romney could go for someone more exciting like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or Marco Rubio of Florida. For now, I'll go with the safe choice.

And who can compete with the Big Dog? Not George W. Bush. Not George H.W. Bush. Perhaps this is the slot for Jeb. Or, why not reach out to women and minorities in a token and insulting way? Let's bet on Condoleeza Rice.

Here's our awesome third night lineup:

Sen. Rob Portman
Condoleeza Rice

4th Night's Principal Speakers
Al Gore, 45th Vice President of the United States
Barack Obama, United States then-Senator from Illinois

And here we face limited choices. Will it be John McCain or Dick Cheney? I think McCain retains slightly more good will and we already had a Cheney speak on the first night.

So, here's the lineup for the final night:

John McCain
Mitt Romney

Let's do one more thing here. Let's compare the likely lineups of the Republican vs. the Democratic speakers this year.

1st Night's Principal Speakers
Liz Cheney
Marco Rubio
Ann Romney
John Boehner

Chelsea Clinton
John Kerry
Michelle Obama
Nancy Pelosi

2nd Night's Principal Speakers
Rick Santorum
Josh Mandel

Hillary Clinton
Elizabeth Warren

3rd Night's Principal Speakers
Sen. Rob Portman
Condoleeza Rice

Joe Biden
Bill Clinton

4th Night's Principal Speakers
John McCain
Mitt Romney

Al Gore
Barack Obama

Which set of speakers seems better suited to excite the base and win over the middle? Which set of speakers indicates a healthy party and which set demonstrates a party in fatal decline?

If Jackson Diehl has a humanitarian bone in his body, he doesn't display it in his mocking call for an American-led war in Syria. While Diehl notes that Bashar al-Assad's regime is killing civilians, he doesn't even stop to condemn it; he merely mentions it in passing. Instead, he focuses on "the failure of the United Nations or Syria’s neighbors to stop the country’s slide into civil war in the absence of U.S. leadership." He details the failed efforts, in turn, of Turkey, the Arab League, Russia, and U.N. envoy Kofi Annan. He says that Sunni Arab efforts to arm the opposition have "floundered." And then he lays out a doozy of an argument. He explains why Turkey has failed to create a "humanitarian corridor" in Syria:

[Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, a mercurial man, was infuriated. He allowed opposition leaders, including the Free Syrian Army, to take refuge and organize in Turkey. He repeatedly suggested that he supported the creation of a humanitarian corridor or refuge in Syria — in other words, a strip of territory that would be taken over by outside powers and if necessary, defended with military force.

But there is no humanitarian corridor. The reason is fairly simple: The Turkish military would not launch such a bold initiative without the active backing of the United States, if not NATO as a whole. It’s not that Turkey can’t do it: In 1998, it successfully intimidated the Syrian regime simply by massing its large army on the border.

But this crisis has exposed the weaknesses in Erdogan’s regional ambitions. As a former imperial power under the Ottomans, Turkey cannot intervene in an Arab state without risking a broad backlash. Its mildly Islamist Sunni government raises suspicions among Syria’s large Christian and Kurdish minorities — not to mention Assad’s Alawites.

The logic here is terrible. Turkey could create a humanitarian corridor in Syria because they once amassed their troops at the border. Imagine if someone said that the US could successfully occupy Iraq because in 1990 they amassed troops on the Kuwaiti border. He says that Turkey can do this but that they can't do it because they are seen as an imperial power with a history of lording it over the Arabs. All they need is US and NATO backing, but they risk a "broad backlash." Isn't that a synonym for an insurgency?

Mr. Diehl does not explain why Turkey's history with the Arabs is a problem while Europe and America's history with the Arabs is not a problem. However, he does at least hint at the fact that Syria has other problems.

Sectarian tensions have also undermined the Arab League’s effort to assert itself. Sunni states, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, that have been eager to intervene have been checked by Shiite governments in Iraq and Lebanon. Meanwhile, independent efforts by the Gulf states to provide arms to the opposition have floundered.

As for Russia, its bid to reestablish itself as a player in the Middle East by brokering a Syrian settlement is also failing. The Kremlin wants to save Assad, but he refuses to take even the modest steps needed to open the way for a regime-preserving deal. Moscow can prevent the Security Council from authorizing tougher sanctions or military intervention, and it can supply the Syrian army with weapons and fuel. But the past few weeks have shown that it can’t stop Syria’s slide into civil war.

So, there it is. Despite the brutality of Assad's regime, Russia, Iraq, Lebanon, and (obviously) Iran do not want to see the regime overthrown. Things break down along sectarian lines, with Sunnis generally in favor of regime change and Shi'ites generally opposed. Syria is technically ruled by the Alawites, who are a schismatic branch of Shi'a Islam. That explains why they are so closely aligned with Iran and with Hizbollah-dominated Lebanon. It also means that this civil war is about a lot more than humanitarianism. The CIA Factbook says that Syria is 90% Arab, and 74% Sunni Muslim. Alawites and Druze combined comprise only 16% of the population. We can predict how the Alawites would fare in a democratic system, or a Sunni dictatorship. That is why they fight so tenaciously.

The fundamental dishonesty of Mr. Diehl's argument becomes apparent when we consider these facts. What he wants is not to prevent a civil war but for the opposition forces to win a civil war. I can hope for that, too, in an abstract way. Why should 74% of the population who are Sunni Muslim be ruled over by less than 16% who are Alawites? Why should Syrians live under a dictatorship at all? Why should Assad's brutality be tolerated? And why not deny Iran a major ally that seems to do nothing but cause trouble for Lebanon and Israel? For political, strategic, and humanitarian reasons, and based on the principle of self-determination, I can certainly hope that the Sunni opposition prevails and throws the regime out.

But it would help if we were honest about what we want. It would also help if we were more realistic about the situation. This is a conflict between Russia and the United States, between Iran and the United States, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, between Iran and Israel, between Sunni Arab states and the Shi'a, between Alawites and the people they oppress in Syria, between Turkey and Syria, and between the European colonial powers and the anti-colonial forces and sentiments of the region.

Should we inject ourselves into this mess with a "humanitarian corridor" occupation? Having just left Iraq where we empowered the Shi'a majority, should we invade Syria in order to empower the Sunnis? These are the questions we need to be asking. But Mr. Diehl doesn't ask them. Instead, we get this:

The United States, after all, is more than capable of creating and defending a humanitarian zone in Syria, with help from Turkey and NATO. If it were to support the arming of the Free Syrian Army, there is little question that the army would soon have more weapons. Many in the Syrian opposition believe that merely the announcement of such U.S. initiatives would cause Assad’s regime to crumble from within.

What’s missing, of course, is a decision by President Obama to make that commitment. To do so, he would have to set aside the idea that any action must be authorized by the U.N. Security Council. He would have to forge an ad hoc coalition with Turkey and other NATO members, led by the United States. And he would have to order U.S. diplomats to work intensively with Syria’s opposition movements and ethnic communities to build an accord on a post-Assad order.

In other words, Obama would have to behave as if the United States were still what Bill Clinton understood it to be: the indispensable nation.

It's disingenuous to suggest that the Obama administration's only consideration is whether or not they can get authority from the UN Security Council. They clearly cannot get such authorization because both Russia and China would exercise their vetoes. Could the United States easily create and defend a humanitarian corridor? Nothing else that Mr. Diehl wrote supports the claim that we could. We'd face a nasty insurgency. Nothing suggests that the competing forces and interests in Syria can be resolved by "intensive" diplomatic work. If the idea is to create some structure that leads to the "consent of the governed," that's nothing but wishful thinking that takes no account of reality.

But, even here, Mr. Diehl's argument is confused and disorganized. He wants us to not only create a humanitarian corridor, but to arm the opposition. Since these are not supposed to be mutually exclusive policies, that just means that we'd invade and fight with the opposition until they prevailed. This becomes even more clear when you examine Syrian society and realize that the populations are completely intermingled. While there are a few towns that are in open revolt, in most places there is no way to separate the Alawite from the Druze from the Sunni from the Kurd from the Christian from the Jew. To protect people from the government, we'd effectively be engaged in ethnic and sectarian resettlement.

Mr. Diehl's argument is crafted to say that the only reason civil war is breaking out in Syria is because the only country capable of preventing it (the indispensable nation, America) is sitting on its hands. But what he really wants is for America to fight in the Syrian civil war until it is concluded and the Assad regime is defeated.

He not only makes that job sound too easy, he makes the aftermath sound like a cakewalk. A slam dunk, if you will.

The truth is that it would be an unholy mess. And we'd be right in the middle of it. Again.

We've listened to people like Jackson Diehl too many times. It's time to marginalize him.

Indeed, you can go to jail even if you don't owe any money if the collection company for your medical provider thinks you do:

A breast cancer survivor who was sent to prison over a mistaken $280 medical bill has highlighted the return of debtor's prisons in the U.S.

Illinois resident Lisa Lindsay had received the medical bill in error and was told she did not have to pay up.

However, the bill was turned over to a collection agency and state troopers arrived at her home and took her away in handcuffs.

So, cancer survivor Lisa Lindsay eventually paid the bill she didn't owe + $600 for legal and court fees just to be sure this never happened to her again, or at least for this non-existent debt. Better safe than sorry, right?

At this point you might be saying to yourself, WTF? I thought the US eliminated debtors' prisons in the early 19th century. Silly rabbit. There's more than one way to trick the justice system to skin people in debt using the power of the state to put them in jail as a way to coerce payments from people like Lisa.

The case of Lindsay as well as others suggests that more people than ever before in the U.S are being thrown in 'debtor's prisons' for not being able to pay back loans. [...]

Debt collectors have become so aggressive claim some that poor people who are behind on payments of as little as $25 a month are being sent to jail.[...]

How is this done? Well the collection company files a small claims lawsuit. If you fail to appear, or file a responsive pleading, or make some other common legal mistake, or simply have the collection agency claim they served you by mail (allowed in many cases where the claims are not large) when they really didn't because you've moved, where in the hospital at the time, or they just flat out lied in their affidavit of service, the court can hold you in contempt of court. And that's when the sheriff deputies or state troopers may show up at your door to place those handcuffs on you, sick, disabled or whatever.

Acting within the law, debtors aren't arrested for nonpayment, rather for failing to arrive to court hearings thereby falling foul of contempt of court laws. This results in a police arrest warrant being issued for 'failure to appear', the debtor is tracked down, packed off to jail and can only get out by paying the set bail bond which of course matches the amount owed.

Of course not every state allows such practices, but many do. And while it has been employed against many people who have fallen behind on paying their bills in this economy, the arrest of people who can't pay their medical bills because they lost health insurance or their jobs, or simply they have student debt. they cannot repay because they can't find a job, is particularly egregious.

And people wonder why privatization of prisons is increasing. Well, when you can toss people in jail for almost anything, including the inability to pay their debts, prisons become an even bigger profit center. Last year alone, thousands of individuals were jailed as a result of unscrupulous practices by collection companies like the one that sent Lisa Lindsay to jail for a $280 debt she didn't even owe:

NPR reports that it’s becoming increasingly common for people to serve jail time as a result of their debt. Because of “sloppy, incomplete or even false documentation,” many borrowers facing jail time don’t even know they’re being sued by creditors ... Sean Matthews, a homeless New Orleans construction worker, was incarcerated for five months for $498 of legal debt, while his jail time cost the city six times that much. Some debtors are even forced to pay for their jail time themselves, adding to their financial troubles.

Stories of surprise arrests for unpaid debt have been reported in states including Indiana, Tennessee and Washington. In Kansas City, one man ended up in jail after missing only a furniture payment. The Federal Trade Commission received more than 140,000 complaints related to debt collection in 2010, and they’ve taken 10 debt collection agencies to court for their practices in the past three years.

Since the start of 2010, judges have signed off on more than 5,000 arrest warrants since in nine counties alone. Beverly Yang, a legal aid attorney, says many debtor’s — and judges — don’t know debtor’s rights, which results in the accused being intimidated into a pay agreement. She’s seen judges interrogate debtors about why they can’t pay more and whether they are trying hard enough to find a job.

From the NPR report:

Take, for example, what happened to Robin Sanders in Illinois.

She was driving home when an officer pulled her over for having a loud muffler. But instead of sending her off with a warning, the officer arrested Sanders, and she was taken right to jail.

"That's when I found out [that] I had a warrant for failure to appear in Macoupin County. And I didn't know what it was about."

Sanders owed $730 on a medical bill. She says she didn't even know a collection agency had filed a lawsuit against her.

"They say they send out these court notices, and nobody gets them," Sanders says.

We are talking about collection companies, after all. The scum of the earth. They buy the debts for pennies on the dollar. Then they file lawsuits. They don't care if they have to lie or present false paperwork to the courts, because in most cases they are never going to be found out. They file their affidavits and the justice system believes them, because they do not have the time or personnel to verify the accuracy of those affidavits, and the people they target do not have the money to fight the illegal practices by hiring a lawyer. And it is difficult to prove a negative, i.e., that you didn't receive notice of the court date as we all know:

Washington state's House of Representatives passed [in 2011] by a 98-0 vote a bill that would require companies to provide proof a borrower has been notified about lawsuits against them before a judge could issue an arrest warrant. All 42 Republicans voted for the legislation, which is expected to pass the state's Senate and be signed into law by the governor. A trade group representing debt collectors supports the bill and says the changes are needed because some companies are abusing Washington's existing law by improperly arresting borrowers.

Look for more of these abuses in the future, particularly in states where the legislature is controlled by Republicans and the governor is a Scott Walker (ALEC Model 2.0) clone.

Netanyahu is threatening to call early elections, which is something he would not do unless he expected to improve his position. But, I wonder if he'd actually improve his position. He's certainly taking a ton of abuse lately, with the former heads of Shin Bet and the Mossad taking major shots at him this weekend. Not to mention, Egypt has reneged on their deal to provide natural gas. He can't pass a budget and he seemingly cannot resolve an impasse over whether the ultra-orthodox should be compelled to serve in the military or do other national service. And then there is this:

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who heads Yisrael Beiteinu, Netanyahu’s biggest coalition partner, told Channel Two television over the weekend that his party will decide whether to go for early elections depending on the Knesset's May 9 vote on legislation over drafting ultra-orthodox Jews

. “Our obligation to the coalition is over. We have an obligation to the voters,” Lieberman said.

A poll released Friday suggests that Netanyahu's Likud Party would fare twice as well as any other party in new elections, but would still emerge with only 31 of the 120 seats in the Knesset. It doesn't seem like that result would change much, although it appears that the Kadima Party is poised to take a major bath.

The tally would be well ahead of Labour and the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu - a current coalition partner - which would have 15 each.

The centrist opposition Kadima, currently the largest party by a hair, with 28 seats to Likud's 27 would shrink to 13 in early elections, it said.

It seems, for now, that Israel's politics are hopelessly fractured. And, while Netanyahu is facing mounting skepticism, he does seem somewhat secure in his position.

Last night at the Nerdprom, President Obama asked, "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?" His answer? "A pit bull is delicious." It was a reference to the lipstick joke Sarah Palin told at the Republican National Convention four years ago. With the passage of time, however, I think of Palin much more as a pit bull than a hockey mom. Of course, I guess her joke was a warning on that score. In any case, I think Obama's joke worked on several levels, some of which it shouldn't have.

He also said that Hillary Clinton wouldn't stop drunk-texting him from Cartagena. I wonder if the few remaining PUMAs will have a sense of humor about that one.

There are a lot of crazy people in the world. There have to be better ways for people to spend their time.

If we can cut a deal with Iran that will allow them to enrich uranium up to 5% purity in exchange for meeting the international community's demands for transparency on their nuclear activities, that is actually an excellent deal. Part of that deal would entail Iran shipping all its 20% enriched uranium out of the country. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but my understanding is that Iran has no reason to enrich to 20% other than to learn how to enrich to a weapons grade purity. At 5%, they can meet any medical needs they might have. It is unambiguously Iran's right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferaton Treaty to have a domestic nuclear energy program provided that they meet the other requirements of the treaty. If we insist they do no enrichment at all, even after they meet our demands for transparency and inspections, then we will be the ones violating the NPT. Yet, Congress will not stand for any talk of letting Iran enrich anything, ever, to any degree of purity. The only way around this is to get members of Israel's cabinet to explain to Congress that the deal makes sense. In an election year, Netanyahu's government is probably unwilling to do that and, even if they were, the Republicans would almost definitely ignore them and go ahead and politicize the issue. So, I'm not very hopeful that we're about to see a peaceful and satisfactory breakthrough on the Iranian predicament. Still, there is hope:

Israeli officials have talked of attacking Iranian's nuclear facilities before they are so advanced and hidden so deeply underground that they are invulnerable to bombs.

But Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in an interview last month with the Jerusalem Post, outlined goals that would allow Iran to retain some low-enriched uranium for nonmilitary purposes. He did not call for an end to all enrichment.

"There have been many signals lately that the red line has shifted and they're no longer pushing for full suspension," said Michael Singh, who served as President George W. Bush's top Iran advisor and who strongly opposes allowing Iran to enrich any uranium.

George Perkovich, a nonproliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he was among the U.S. hawks who believed until recently that "you have to hold the line on enrichment by Iran."

Now, he said, "that view has been overtaken by events." Iran has enriched more uranium, public support for the program is widespread, and the prospects of giving up all enrichment "has become a nationalist taboo in Iran."

The real issue is that the hawks around Netanyahu and the neo-conservatives in this country are really pursuing a policy of regime change. Any negotiation that leaves the Mullahs in power in Teheran is not going to be acceptable to them. And they have enough clout to cripple any rational response in DC.

I generally like Dan Balz but this piece is pretty ridiculous. Gingrich ran one of the most shameless campaigns in American history. Even most of the troglodytes in his own party are ashamed of him. Balz acts like he was surprisingly restrained and disciplined. And then he asks the most boring question imaginable: What's next for the disgraced former Speaker?

In the end, Gingrich the historian managed to make history, though not the kind he might have dreamed about. He became the first Republican in the modern era to win the South Carolina primary and lose the nomination. It has been that kind of year for the former House speaker.

What now? He has managed to keep himself in the forefront of his party for decades. He does not lack for energy or desire to think through what his party needs to win in November and beyond and what conservatism needs to prosper.

Will there be another chapter in the Gingrich political story? There is no way to answer that at this moment other than to say: There always has been.

He'll go back to selling stupid books to morons and trying to get five-figure checks for bloviating at chicken dinners. Let's talk about something less easy to predict.

Mitt Romney recently advised students that they should borrow money from their parents so they could get an education or start a business. That's not bad advice if your parents have the money to loan you. But he said this while Congress was debating whether to keep interest rates low on student loans. In context, he's saying "don't borrow money from a bank or the government, borrow it from your parents." You see, that way you don't have to worry about the going interest rate unless your parents are going to charge you interest at the going rate. I guess Mitt Romney assumes that parents will just fork over their money with no interest attached. Maybe some families operate that way, but not all. What's interesting about this is that Romney paid for his college with what appears to have been a gift from his parents. Ann Romney tells it:

They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income. It was tiny. And I didn’t have money to carpet the floor. But you can get remnants, samples, so I glued them together, all different colors. It looked awful, but it was carpeting.

We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time. The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year—it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.

Now, George Romney was a wise man and a kind father. And he set his son up nicely so he could focus on his studies. It paid off very nicely, as Romney graduated at the top of his class at BYU. Maybe every father should set aside birthday money for their children and invest it in the hope that it will pay off 16 times over. That sounds like a plan!

It also sounds tone deaf.

What do you think?