Iraq Coalition Casualties

The Iraq Coalition Casualties website documents the coalition casualties over time. The breakdown of fatalities by month shows that March 2005 averaged 1.26 fatalities per day. Of the 25 months documented, i.e. since the invasion began, this is the fourth lowest average. Furthermore, in the period since the January election, there has been an average of 1.72 fatalities per day, the lowest of the four periods the site defines. Maybe things are getting better over there?

Bankruptcy Reform May Bring Unintended Consequences

The Commerical Law League of America, which includes 1200 bankruptcy lawyers and judges, warns: that the bankruptcy bill may have unintended consequences, and do little to address the issues it supposedly targets.

"The nation's bankruptcy laws must strike a balance that is both fundamentally fair and practically sound for all parties involved," the CLLA said in a March 15 letter to the House Judiciary Committee. "Unfortunately, the [Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection] Act is neither and, worse still, the act fails to fulfill its oft-stated purpose of eliminating abuse."

Callousness

I still refuse to speak directly to the Terri Schiavo case. I have my opinion, but I recognize that this is really a very murky question with no clear, well-defined answer. And even with my abstract, academic position on the matter, can I say what I would do if I were ever in Michael Schiavo's shoes? No. The question of allowing a loved one to die touched my family not too long ago, which perhaps explains why I am sensitive to both sides of the question.

Unfortunately, ever since the politicians got involved and hijacked the case for their own ends, the coldness and callousness of many people has been disturbing. And it comes from both sides. From those who support the husband, there is a increasingly hard attitude that of course Terri should die. Look at her. How could anyone want to keep that alive? Supporters of her parents, who want to keep Terri alive, increasingly demonize her husband, accusing him of, among other things, trying to murder his wife now to cover up his attempted murder 15 years ago. (And, by that way, that has to be one of the most asinine things to come out of this whole saga. If you've ever seen someone who has been strangled, and I have, you know that their necks are covered in garish bruises that, short of severed limbs or multiple gunshot wounds to the chest, are among the first things medical professionals are going to notice when examining a patient. And, of course, no one noticed anything when Terri was first brought in.)

Anyone forced into the position Michael Schiavo has been forced into (and these choices are made every day) must make a terribly difficult decision, one which will impact the very life of a person they love. Yet so many people, filled with opinions formed from a distance and having never had to make such a decision, simply ignore the enormity of what these men and women face and add unnecessary pain to an already impossible situation. Josh Marshall published an email from a reader who made the choice not to pull the plug on his mother and relates the condescension, shock, and opposition with which this decision was met. On other side of the fence, Andrew Sullivan records an email from a reader who made the decision to take his mother off life support and writes of the indignance of a family member at the decision. This emailer writes of those who disagreed with the choice made there, "[T]hey do it with a conviction that is rude, intrusive and without compassion or regard for those of us who have to make an anguishing decision." Those words, I imagine, would describe Marshall's emailer's experience as well.

Both these emailers and the thousands of others forced to make similar choices have faced something more agonizing than most of us can possibly comprehend. As people spout their abstract morality, they should never forget this and should show the men and women involved a lot more sympathy and a lot less contempt.

mkeonline.com: blog of the week

This blog has been nominated for mkeonline.com's blog of the week for the week of 3/31/2005-4/6/2005.

EU Mandates Removal of Windows Media Player in Europe

The European commission is requiring Microsoft to distribute a version of the Windows XP operating system without the Windows Media Player (WMP) application included. What is the point of this? Whenever Microsoft comes under fire for its monopolistic behavior, it seems the resolution is to force Microsoft to sell their operating system without some component. During the browser wars, there was a push to get MS to distribute Windows without Internet Explorer. Now, in Europe, it's WMP.

Supposedly, the idea is that MS has crushed the competition because their software is included in the initial distribution of the Windows operating system. I guess the idea is that if a user starts Windows for the first time and finds WMP there, that user will not bother to look for any other media player. Taking WMP out of the initial distribution will force the user to decide what media player to use and go get it. This argument does not make too much sense. If the user already knows about the other media players available on the web, that user will go get them whether WMP is on their system or not. If the user does not know about media players, they will go to the Microsoft website and download WMP since that would be the logical first place to go.

These are free programs that a customer can easily download. Today, I buy a copy of Windows and IE is right there. The US government wanted me to buy Windows then download IE. Other than adding hassle to my initial setup of a new PC, what's the point? If I want IE, I will get IE. If I want Firefox as my web browser, I can download it and run it. The presence of IE on my machine does not prevent me running Firefox. Similarly, the presence of WMP does not prevent me from running Real One Player or any other media player. So how does removing the MS component from the initial distribution do anything? (By the way, I use the Firefox web browser and for a long time used the Real One player, so I am not advocating those MS products.)

This approach seems predicated on the assumption that only one media player at a time can be installed on a PC. If the user has WMP, they cannot or will not use any other media player. That's plain ignorance. Such silliness is what one would expect when governing bodies get into the business of designing software.

What I really love about the EU decision is that MS must "remov[e] references in product documents and packaging that warn that certain products won't work without Media Player." So the EU does not want MS to tell Europeans that their software might not work! That's hilarious! I guess knowing that some program is not going to function without WMP would bias users into using WMP. The EU would rather break existing software and have users use only Real One than have software that actually works. (It must be easy to be a software developer for the EU since it appears actual functioning is not required of their software.)

Politology: Graphing Social Security

The Politology blog took a break from covering the bankruptcy bill to provide a graphical presentation on the future of the Social Security trust fund. I've attempted to explain in words what the issues are, as I understand them myself, but these graphs lay out the basic issue quite clearly and simply.

The first graph shows what the president has been talking about. (The graphs are generated dynamically, so I cannot copy them into this post.) Around 2018, the trust fund will go into deficit. In other words, from this point on we will be taking more money out of the fund than we are putting in. This chart shows essentially the rate of growth of the trust fund, which will be negative after about 2018.

The second graph shows the ratio of trust fund assets to expenditures (this can be thought of qualitatively as the actual value of the trust fund) over time. This shows that the fund will have a positive value until the early 2040's.

Political Polarization

Polidata has published an interesting table showing presidential election results by House district for the last four presidential elections. What is interesting are the third and fourth rows of the table which count the number of House districts where the party that won the House election differed from the party that won the presidential, e.g. a Democrat won the House seat but the Republican candidate for president won the presidential vote in that district. These are called split-ticket districts. There is a clear trend that the number of such districts is declining.

Year	Split-ticket districts
1992	103
1996	110
2000	86
2004	59

The Washington Post has written on these findings. The declining number of split-ticket districts reflect the ongoing polarization of American voters.

The steady decline in districts where voters pick different parties to represent them in the White House and Congress reflects in part the effects of the redistricting process, which has created more and more strongly Republican or strongly Democratic districts. But the trend also underscores what political scientists and party strategists have known for several years, which is that party identification is now a powerful indicator of how someone votes in national elections.

Also of note is that, even with the declining numbers, the split-ticket is a reliable predictor of election results. In three of the four elections covered, the winner also won the split-ticket race. Only Clinton in 1992 failed to win this race, and that's probably more a measure of how dissatisfied everyone was with both candidates in that particular election. That was the only election listed in which both candidates scored high in split-ticket districts, reflecting the difficulties both Bush and Clinton had getting support within their own parties.

Viking Improvement

Charles Robinson excerpts an email from a reader and replies:

I have suffered with the Minnesota Vikings since the 1970s. This is a franchise that is still going nowhere. Not only is Mike Tice a meathead of a coach, but a dishonest one at that.
Brian McLane
New York, N.Y.

The scalping issues aside, the Vikings have actually made some strides toward improving themselves this offseason. Depending on the results of the draft, this could be a greatly improved team – even without Randy Moss.

Ya think? Let's see. Defense. Last year's pathetic secondary now features two outstanding corners and a very good safety in Darren Sharper, so that unit should be one of the best in the league next year. Linebackers? Picked up two, including Sam Cowart, a well regarded player formerly with the Jets. Defensive line? They've added another well regarded player in Pat Williams (left tackle, the second best free agent at the position, according to Scout.com) to go with Kevin Williams (left end). They have the makings of one of the top defenses in the NFC next year. (I do think they should have gone for a linebacker in free agency as well. They certainly have the cap space, and the Ravens' Edgerton Hartwell and the Steelers' Kendrell Bell were out there for a while. But they still did well.)

Offense, you say? Nate Burleson had better stats, in nearly all categories, last year than Randy Moss. He had more catches, yards, more yards per game, more first downs, and fewer fumbles than Moss. In terms of catches, Moss was third on the team. (Admittedly, he missed three games due to injury.) Moss' one statistical victory was in touchdowns, certainly the most important. But there's little reason to believe Burleson can't step up a bit in that category. Besides, having done so well in free agency filling holes on the defense, the Vikings are now free to address wide receiver with that 7th pick they picked up for Moss.

Basically, the Vikings have no excuse (other than they are the Vikings) for not being a primary Super Bowl contender next year.

Believe it or not, I'm a Packer fan! Hence, the pain with which I write this.

Comic Insight

A Dilbert cartoon last week contained a pretty insightful statement:



What I liked was the middle panel. We live in an age of increasing polarization. People don't want to hear the facts, they want the soundbites. People want news media and, yes, bloggers who spin their coverage in a way friendly to them. What we lose in the process is any sense of real analysis of the issues of the day.

Sanctity of Marriage

Commenting on the Schiavo case, on which I will not directly comment, Dahlia Lithwick writes

Congressional Republicans who have staked their careers and the last election on the "sanctity of marriage" have turned this case into a mockery of that very institution.

All through the debate on gay marriage, conservatives railed on and on about the sanctity of marriage. How often did we hear that marriage must be "defended"? One of the fundamental elements of this case is the institution of marriage.

One of the legal consequences of marriage is that the spouse becomes the guardian if the other becomes incapacitated. Lithwick explains

The law says that when one marries one takes on a whole host of legal rights and duties that trump your parents' wishes. Marriage is a sacred and intimate promise.

Terri Schiavo has unquestionably become incapacitated, automatically making her husband her guardian. That's part of the institution of marriage conservatives are so eager to defend. But now they want to demean and diminish marriage by allowing, where convenient, parents' rights to trump those of the spouse. Embattled House Majority leader Tom DeLay, turning the attention away from his numerous ethics problems, said

I don't know what transpired between Terri and her husband. All I know is Terri is alive. ... Unless she has specifically written instructions in her hand, with her signature, I don't care what her husband says.

Marriage, it seems, is sacred only when convenient.

Bloggers as Campaign Contributors

As noted on this blog and in many others, the applicability of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act to internet activities such as blogging and bulk emailing has come before the FEC. A key question was what constitutes a campaign contribution? The FEC has now published its proposed regulation revisions to accommodate internet activity. Of interest is § 100.94 which addresses uncompensated activity that is not a contribution. Essentially, if a person performs internet activity, e.g. writes blog postings, "using computer equipment and services"

• "that he or she personally owns," or
  
• "available at any public facility," or
  
• "in his or her residential premises"
  

then that activity is not a campaign contribution. The list of exclusions is flawed. What if I post to my blog from a friend's computer in their home? What if I post from work? What if I post from a college campus computer lab? (The computer lab might be considered an Internet Cafe, which is part of the definition of public facility. But since the lab is not open to the public, I don't know.)

Conyers on Bloggers' Rights

The question of what rights and privileges should be extended to bloggers has been raised in multiple ways recently. The application of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act to blogs raised the question of whether or not bloggers should be given the press exemption. The recent Apple lawsuit raised questions about a blogger's right to protect confidential sources, as members of the media would. Representative John Conyers writes:

Bloggers should be classified as journalists and given First Amendment protections based on the function they perform, not the form of their transmissions. Properly understood, the First Amendment applies to all those who report with journalistic integrity--offline or online.

This should be a fairly simple and obvious point. The particular medium used to distribute information does not define the press. The term "press" describes a function, not a distribution medium. (Imagine someone arguing that radio reporter is a journalist, but the same reporter on television is not, because TV does not distribute journalism.) Therefore, if a blogger is performing a journalistic function, he or she should be entitled to the rights of a journalist.

Money Talks Even Louder

Previously, I have linked to a study that showed the credit card industry's campaign contributions to Democrats who support the bankruptcy bill. The money trail winds on. Commenting on the motivations behind a letter written by Democrats in the House urging that the bill be rammed through as fast as possible, David Sirota is quoted:

“And a look at campaign finance records shows why — the House Democrats who signed the letter pocketed a combined $750,000 in their two-year campaigns for Congress in 2004. To put that in perspective, that’s the equivalent of the industry giving these members $1,000 every single day of the last two years,” Sirota wrote, relying on figures from opensecrets.org.

It's also interesting to note the priorities of the Democratic party. Sirota's boss at the CAP, John Podesta, was hauled before the New Democrat Coalition to answer for Sirota's memo.

Nearly every lawmaker who arrived at Thursday’s meeting with Podesta, former President Clinton’s last chief of staff, voiced concern about the Sirota broadside, calling it overtly personal and unhelpful to the two organizations’ shared goal of helping the Democratic Party grow.

Note that no one actually cared that Sirota was making a point. The concern was that airing such dirty laundry would make centrist Democrats look bad. Sirota wasn't calling out the corruption of those centrist Democrats, he was "attacking centrist Democrats for their pro-business stances."

Video Games Kill?

Charles Cooper writes

A recent piece on CBS' "60 Minutes" explained how the video game "Grand Theft Auto" supposedly inspired an Alabama teen to murder three police officers. Interesting hypothesis, but how about this alternative: Sometimes stupidity is the best explanation. Instead of blaming the tragedy on the video game publisher, the CBS producer might have done well to examine whether this kid was simply a sociopath in the making.

Whenever somebody does something really bad, we want to blame someone. But, for some reason, we often don't want to blame the person who did it. It has been common for years to blame violence on movies, music, and now video games. The problem with those arguments is simple: what about all the people who don't become psychopaths? Millions of people have played GTA (it's an extremely popular game), one went out and shot some policemen. If the game is responsible, then why have the millions minus one who also played not shot anyone? It just doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't take a degree in psychology to understand that something was wrong with this kid. But lawyers aren't going to get much money claiming the kid was messed up. Politicians won't get too much TV time saying the kid is responsible. We need someone to blame (for purposes of lawsuits, TV coverage, and generally to feel better about ourselves), so we blame the people who made a game.

Compassion

Writing about the lessons learned from personal life experiences, Mark Schmitt writes

But what has always bothered me about such examples is that their compassion seems so narrowly and literally focused on the specific misfortune that their family encountered. Having a child who suffers from mental illness would indeed make one particularly passionate about funding for mental health, sure. But shouldn't it also lead to a deeper understanding that there are a lot of families, in all kinds of situations beyond their control, who need help from government? Shouldn't having a son whose illness leads to suicide open your eyes to something more than a belief that we need more money for suicide help-lines? Shouldn't it call into question the entire winners-win/losers-lose ideology of the current Republican Party? Shouldn't it also lead to an understanding that if we want to live in a society that provides a robust system of public support for those who need help -- whether for mental illness or any of the other misfortunes that life hands out at random -- we will need a government with adequate institutions and revenues to provide those things?

Gas Prices

Andrew Kantor has an interesting comment on the apparent record gas prices we are seeing now. Adjusting for inflation, gas has been much more expensive in the past, at a time when the typical car's gas mileage was considerably less than today's cars. According to the chart he includes showing the inflation-adjusted average price per gallon over time, gas is actually cheaper now than at just about any time since 1949.

Bankruptcy Bill Talking Points

BizzyBlog has written detailed talking points about the bankruptcy bill, pointing out the factual errors and exaggerations the bill's supporters trot out to support their case.

Stephen King's The Stand

I have recently finished reading The Stand by Stephen King. This is the first King book I've read, so I had little idea what to expect. My familiarity with King is through the movies made from his books, usually horror movies. The Stand is not a horror movie, though there are some graphic and horrifying portions. My son, who is a big King fan and who recommended the book to me, asked that I post a review.

For such a long book, the overall plot is surprisingly simple. The novel is divided into three "books", and within each book little actually happens. In the first book, a devastating plague developed by the US military escapes and quickly decimates the global human population. The first book simply documents the spread of the plague. In the second book, the American survivors of the plague begin gathering into two groups, one lead by Mother Abigail, a very old black woman from the mid-west whose group will eventually be based in Boulder, and another lead by the so-called Dark Man headquartered in Las Vegas. Abigail's group is the focus of the story, and her people are haunted by constant dreams of her and the Dark Man. The second book documents the gathering of both groups. In the third book, the Boulder group begins the process of putting civilization back together by forming a government of sorts and getting the utilities back online. The Dark Man is an evil dictator who spends his time knocking out opposition and assembling a war machine that will destroy Boulder. There is a final confrontation between the two groups which resolves the fundamental tension, and then a long epilogue to close out the story.

There is a strong, underlying religious element to The Stand, so Abigail and the Dark Man take on spiritual dimensions. Abigail is a committed Christian woman who is lead by God. The Dark Man is demon-possessed and is an agent of Satan. The final confrontation between the two groups, then, is ultimately a battle of good against evil.

It would seem difficult to enjoy a book of over 1000 pages where so little actually happens. The first book, which is really just setup for the rest of the story, is over 300 pages. The book seems to meander along with no real focus on the underlying story. For example, the Trash Can man is introduced early in the book, along with the other characters, but then disappears until near the end, where he serves as the catalyst for a very real Deus ex machina climax. The Dark Man's activities are all but ignored for the entire second book and much of the third. It seems like a more focused book would have kept the characters in better balance. On the other hand, King is hardly the first author to write like this. The Lord of the Rings trilogy meanders quite a bit as well, especially in the Fellowship of the Ring volume, but that was pretty successful, I think. Like Rings, the first volume of The Stand is difficult to get through.

In the end, what makes the book work are the details within each section. While doing little to push the underlying plot forward, many interesting characters show up and it is interesting to observe as they contemplate issues like medicine, law enforcement, and basic governance. These ordinary men and women are called on to make some difficult choices, and the characters King creates are totally realistic as they face these gray areas. The characters and story is also realistic in that no character is safe. King ends up killing off many of the main characters before the story is done. And, while he is absent from the story line for a considerable time, there is always the underlying question of how the good guys in Boulder will resolve the fundamental conflict with the Dark Man. All of this serves to keep the reader interested and coming back for more.

The greatest disappointment in the novel is in the climax. Everything builds toward the final confrontation between the Free Zone (the Boulder crowd) and the Dark Man's forces in Las Vegas. This is the stand of the title, the stand of the good against the demon. But their stand doesn't amount to much: three guys from the Zone walk to Vegas, get arrested, and die. But God uses this, and the actions of the Trash Can man, to bring about the resolution in what I've already described as a very real Deus ex machina.

I know this review is coming off as critical of the novel. I am critical of parts, but overall the novel is a success. King fashions interesting characters and puts them in equally interesting (one cannot say realistic since they inhabit a world so vastly different than ours that realism has little meaning) situations. The story works its way into your imagination and keeps you turning the pages to see what will happen. King's writing style is easily accessible and pleasant. In the end, I look forward to reading more of King's work.

Money Talks

Capital Eye (link courtesy of TPM) has published an analysis of the campaign contributions of the leading credit card companies to Senators between 1999 and 2004. Unsurprisingly, those who got more money from the industry tended to vote in favor the industry-sponsored bankruptcy bill.

An analysis of the contributions shows that senators who voted to pass the bill raised an average of nearly twice as much between 1999 and 2004 from the finance and credit industry as those who voted against the bill.

What I found interesting was the break down of contributions by party:



This chart shows the industry shelling out much more money to Democrats than to Republicans for their yes votes. One would expect conservatives to generally support the bill. (Actually, there is considerable conservative grass roots opposition out there, but at the establishment level, big business typically wins Republican votes.) So, either the Democrats simply had a higher price tag for their vote, or the industry was seeking bipartisan support for the bill, which would present it in a better light, and so they threw more money at the Democrats to bring them on board. The success of this campaign is seen when Senator Biden wrote in the LA Times, "But over several congresses it has earned the kind of bipartisan consensus only balanced legislation can achieve." The Capital Eye analysis shows Biden got the third highest contribution totals from the industry.

Bankruptcy: Bipartisan Letter To The House

Politology has a link to a letter drafted by a group of bankruptcy law professors sent to the House Judiciary committee, which is currently considering the bankruptcy bill.

Bankruptcy Protest: A Coalition

There is now a blogosphere coalition against the bankruptcy bill, which this blog fully endorses. It's not over yet.

Bankruptcy Bill: Breach of Faith

Redstate.org has written a good analysis of the bankruptcy bill, much along the same lines as I have written. I won't quote the whole thing, but the summary is

I'm not going to bore you with a million links to analyses of the bill and its politics -- they are found easily enough. The point here is fairly simple: The bill is basically a gift to corporate lenders that tightens requirements on consumers while paradoxically loosening restrictions on credit card companies. The argument for the bill goes something like this: The record number of bankruptcies in America is indicative of a lack of personal responsibility made possible through too-lax bankruptcy laws; these bankruptcies in turn force up costs and interest rates for responsible consumers; ergo, if we tighten bankruptcy requirements, American consumers and the credit industry will be better off.

This argument is almost wholly false for several reasons

A commenter on that post includes excerpts from various documents on the web that elucidate the problems with the bill.

Bankruptcy Bill

The Senate is moving toward passing the bankruptcy reform bill. This bill is a bad idea for one simple reason: it's motivation is founded on erroneous assumptions. AP writes

Backers have been pushing the legislation for eight years, arguing that bankruptcy frequently is the last refuge of gamblers, impulsive shoppers, divorced or separated fathers avoiding child support, and multimillionaires — often celebrities — who buy mansions in states with liberal homestead exemptions to shelter assets from creditors.

In other words, those filing for bankruptcy are portrayed as either deadbeats running up debts of their own free will and then trying to get out of them, or the wealthy trying to protect their mansions and fortunes. This is inaccurate and misleading in several ways.

First off, as the TPM Bankruptcy blog notes, the bill does nothing to address the homestead exemptions. "The ultimate irony is that this bill, which purports to close loopholes and hold debtors accountable, opens the door to manifest manipulation by a small but wealthy group of bankruptcy filers." So those multi-millionaires will still be able to protect their $10 million mansions.

More importantly, those resorting to bankruptcy are often there through little if any fault of their own. As previously noted on this blog, over 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. One can run up huge medical bills very quickly in today's hospitals, even with health insurance. One serious illness can lead to financial ruin. When my daughter was born in 2000, she was very ill and had to be in neo-natal intensive care for two weeks. The bills came to over $25,000. Thankfully that was covered by insurance. But many Americans do not have health insurance and would therefore be stuck with that bill if they were in the same boat. Tightening the bankruptcy rules would ruin many of the families stuck in this nightmare.

When it does come to credit card debt, it is awfully hard to find sympathy for the industry. The Washington Post recently published an article detailing the business practices of the credit card industry. Reading through the article, one realizes just how important card holders at risk of bankruptcy are to the industry's business model, and consequently why the industry is so desirous of keeping these people trapped. The credit card companies, generally speaking, are extremely predatory. When card holders start getting in trouble, they pounce and try to grab as much as they can. Make your payments a few days late? Welcome to 30% interest on your account, plus monthly late fees which add to the balance. Those late fees and interest charges push your balance over the credit limit of your account? Here's some more fees to compound the problem. Once caught in their traps, it becomes very difficult for a card holder to escape. The consumer will make financially crippling payments to the creditor only to see their balance grow each month because of fees and usurious interest. This is called negative amortization, and at that point, there is no escape for the debtor because they cannot make the balance go down.

Here's a good analogy, from John Cole, to how the process works:

I give you a blogad for $1 a month. I then find out you were late paying your car insurance, so I jack the price of the blogad up to $100.00. You don't have the $100.00 to pay when due, so I charge you another $35.00 for being late, $50.00 for being over your limit, and then I charge you interest at 30%. Then, I ruin your credit rating, making it impossible to buy other blogads elsewhere. Then, when you owe about $1500 because of interest, late fees, overbalance fees, and whatever else I can cook up, you apply for bankruptcy. Even though I have received several hundred times what you initially owed me, I want Congress to re-write the bankruptcy laws that have stood for DECADES [centuries, actually] so that I can continue to get obscene profits by syphoning off some of your future earnings.

The fees alone accounted for nearly $15 billion in revenue for the credit card industry in 2004, nearly 11% of the total. The companies want card holders to get caught in this pit because they get to milk their victims dry, often getting back much more than they paid out on behalf of the debtor, taking advantage of the good faith efforts these debtors make in trying to pay what they owe. This is why the creditors are so free about offering credit to anyone and everyone. They want victims caught in their traps. The card holder who uses his or her responsibly does not do much for the company's bottom line. So, the companies find those most likely to get trapped, suck their victims dry while they struggle in vain to escape the trap, and now are working to cut off the one means of getting away. As I said, it is difficult to feel sympathy for the poor credit card companies.

Now the bill's supporters will say that these people should have been more responsible to begin with, and they just put themselves in this position. Generalizations are dangerous. Those deep in debt because of medical bills have not been irresponsible. Those who must feed their families on credit cards because they've lost their jobs, divorce, or because of a death in the family have not been irresponsible. The fact is, "90% of bankruptcies are filed following divorce, job loss, death in the family, and illness" according to the bankruptcy blog.

For the remaining 10%, those who presumably were irresponsible, how many of them end up paying back far more than their actual debt during those cycles of negative amortization? For example, the credit card company pays out $5000 on behalf of a customer. The negative amortization cycles begin and the balance grows each month. How many such customers end up paying more than $5000 before giving up and filing bankruptcy? The Post article notes,

Bankruptcy experts say that too often, by the time an individual has filed for bankruptcy or is hauled into court by creditors, he or she has repaid an amount equal to their original credit card debt plus double-digit interest, but still owes hundreds or thousands of dollars because of penalties.

So, while these people may indeed have been irresponsible to get so far in debt to begin with, they certainly have made a good faith effort to pay off their debts, and do not deserve to be punished further.

Finally, the bankruptcy bill is misleading for another very simple reason. The system already has ample means of addressing bankruptcy claims and weeding out those who really are trying to abuse the system. I have met with lawyers to go over the process of filing for bankruptcy. Means testing is already present. The court will estimate a filer's monthly cost of living and compare that with monthly income. If what is left over is sufficient to pay off the debt in a reasonable time frame, say 4-5 years, the filer has to pay it, though the creditor is prevented from charging additional interest. If what is left over is not enough to pay the whole debt off, but perhaps only half, then the court will order that what can be paid off be paid off. This is called a chapter 13 bankruptcy, and is the most common form. Yes, in the most common form of bankruptcy, the creditor is still getting paid most or all of what is owed. The bankruptcy basically removes the fees and interest that the credit card companies love so, which is why they want it to be harder to file chapter 13.

Only if the filer's income is comparable to or less than their monthly cost of living expenses, i.e. little is left over to pay their debts, can one completely write off the debt, which is a chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The existing system already provides sufficient protection for the creditor to recover debts and to minimize abuse of the chapter 7 bankruptcy. Therefore there is no need to tighten the rules. This bill, if enacted (and the president has indicated he will sign it), will tighten the screws on working families already struggling to get by while padding the profits of predatory creditors. It is an unconscionable attack on the middle and working classes.

Bankruptcy Bill Blog

Talking Points Memo has put up a special blog to cover the progress of the bankruptcy bill. The blog is primarily authored by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren.

Jada Pinkett Smith, Heteronormative

Actress Jada Pinkett Smith was recently honored at Harvard University by the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations. Her comments at the event caused quite a controversy. The campus newspaper writes

After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith’s comments at Saturday’s Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.

Students said that some of Pinkett Smith’s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.

Her comments were termed "heteronormative" by BGLTSA co-chair Jordan Woods.

What were the comments that generated the controversy? A subsequent Crimson article says,

After being honored, Pinkett Smith gave a warm, teary thanks and shared life lessons with the audience.

“Don’t let anybody define who you are,” she said. “Don’t let them put you in a box. Don’t be afraid to break whatever ceiling anybody has put on you.”

She told the audience about her childhood with teenage parents both addicted to heroin, but triumphantly exclaimed, “I can stand here on this stage and say that I’ve proven them all wrong.”

She then addressed issues regarding the roles of men and women today.

“Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career,” she said. “They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it.”

“To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open,” she added. In an interview after the show, Counter said Pinkett Smith was “the best we’ve had thus far.

I really believe there are people I term the professionally offended, people whose job it is to be offended by something as often as possible in order to get attention. So many in today's society want to focus on not offending people (hence the removal of anything remotely evocative of Jesus at Christmas). But when there are people who look for things to be offended by, that's a no-win goal.

Invoking Hitler

Responding to Republican efforts to change the Senate rules on confirming judicial nominees, Reuters recently quote Senator Robert Byrd comparing the Republicans with Nazis, saying

"Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side," the Democrat from West Virginia said. "Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."

Needless to say, not too many people were pleased with such a comparison.

Here's a general rule I've come up with after much thought to govern public discourse. Don't invoke Hitler. All you will do is tick people off. I would think this would be obvious, but apparently it is not.

The Coming Crackdown on Political Blogging

Federal Election Commission commissioner Bradley Smith is warning of a coming clampdown on political blogging. This is a consequence of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law of 2002. The FEC excluded internet communications from its application of the law, an exclusion the courts have now overturned. How to apply the law to the internet is unclear. Does a hyperlink on a person's blog to a candidate's web site constitute a contribution to the campaign? If I write a piece praising a candidate and advocating for him or her, is that a contribution? If so, what is the value of that contribution?

This would appear to apply even beyond blogging. "[A]ny coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum." Smith writes of sending out mass emails, meaning "If I forward something from the campaign to my personal list of several hundred people, which is a great grassroots activity, that's what we're talking about having to look at." In other words, if I send something out to friends and family through email advocating a particular candidate, that could constitute a regulatable activity.

It looks to me like the issue is the law's regulations on electioneering communications. One exception to these regulations is the so-called "press exemption", which exempts the news media. It is not clear that this can be applied to bloggers and other internet users

[b]ecause the statute refers to periodicals or broadcast, and it's not clear the Internet is either of those. Second, because there's no standard for being a blogger, anyone can claim to be one, and we're back to the deregulated Internet that the judge objected to. Also I think some of my colleagues on the commission would be uncomfortable with that kind of blanket exemption.

Without Congress stepping in and explicitly addressing internet communications, "It's going to be bizarre."

Update (3/5/2005): The Decembrist has an extensive reply to Smith's comments in this interview.

Update (3/9/2005): Another FEC commissioner, Ellen Weintraub, has written a piece on CNet urging bloggers to calm down, saying, "reports of a Federal Election Commission plot to 'crack down' on blogging and e-mail are wildly exaggerated." She continues

By law, we need to decide on the scope [of the regulations on internet communications] by a public vote, and the rulemaking cannot proceed without the votes of a majority of the six commissioners. At that point, we'll not only publicize what we're contemplating, we'll invite and consider public comment before we make any final decisions. That scope document (called a notice of proposed rulemaking) will be considered later this month. Until that happens, concerns about crackdowns are premature, at best.

Censorship

Ward Churchill, the self-proclaimed Indian more famous for his comments about the 9/11 attacks than his expertise in Indian oppression, recently made an appearance at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. His visit rekindled the ongoing debate about his views, at least locally. Many who have been offended by his "Some People Push Back" essay have opposed his public appearances, both at UW-Whitewater and Hamilton College, demanding that the invitation for him to speak be revoked. (These opponents succeeded at Hamilton.) Naturally, such demands trigger claims that Churchill is being censored for his views, and that such censorship is a violation of Churchill's freedom of speech.

Does Churchill have a right to hold his own views and express them freely? Absolutely. That's a fundamental right in any free society. The irony of any debate over his freedom of speech is that no one is denying his freedom of speech. The only reason this debate is even raging is that Churchill was free to publish his essay in the first place. If his rights were being challenged, the essay would have been suppressed and he would have been gagged in some way, and there would be no controversy. So freedom of speech is alive and well in the Ward Churchill saga, even though many continue to defend his right to speak his mind.

But those who disagree with Churchill have just as much a right to express their disagreement and even revulsion to his views. That is also freedom of speech. Opinions have consequences, something people in the spotlight often forget. A few years ago, Natalie Mains from the Dixie Chicks expressed a negative view of President Bush at a concert in London. The Chicks are a country band, and country fans, generally speaking, are more conservative, so many listeners were quite put out by Ms. Mains' views. Many radio stations stopped playing Dixie Chicks songs. At that, the media began portraying Mains as a victim, as a woman denied her freedom of speech. It was ridiculous. She had the freedom to express herself, and did so. But the fans have the right to express themselves, too, and they did so. Freedom of speech does not mean I have the right to say whatever I want, and you have to sit there and quietly listen with no response whatsoever short of total agreement. The choice to express one's views has consequences. It is not a violation of free speech to disagree and express that disagreement. If you don't want to face the possible consequences, then keep your mouth shut.

Now, is it censorship? Many would answer no, on the grounds that the government is not suppressing Churchill. Webster defines the verb "to censor" as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." Nothing in this definition is immediately understood to be restricted to a government. Ted Rall says, "A censor can be an editor, producer or high school principal." The difference between editing and censoring, Rall writes, is motivation. If the motivation for rejecting inclusion of a newspaper article is to conform to physical space restrictions on the page, that's editing. If it is because the article is offensive, that's censorship. This, then, leads one to conclude Hamilton College was censoring Churchill, because they revoked his invitation to speak because they disliked his essay. This line of reasoning leads to some pretty absurd conclusions. With this reasoning, Hamilton would be forced to accept any speaker, so long as they were competent in the areas on which they spoke in some objective way. Are you a violent racist, but able to give reasonable arguments to support your views? Then you have to be allowed to speak from my stage and publish your letters in my newspaper. Otherwise, I would be censoring you.

Rall continues by saying,

The First Amendment was written to protect free expression that causes discomfort, even rage, by the majority. Both the censor and the civil libertarian will probably disagree with Churchill's assessment of American collective guilt, but the true defender of free speech recognizes his own revulsion as further reason to err on the side of open discussion over silence.

But, again, who is being suppressed here? Certainly not Churchill. His essay is getting more readership now than ever. He's been transformed from obscure professor to national figure. The journal that published his essay is now nationally known. It's awfully hard to argue that anyone has suppressed Churchill's views or his expression thereof.

Therefore, going back to the question of whether or not revoking Churchill's invitation to speak is censorship, we must conclude it is not. Churchill's views are not being suppressed in any way whatsoever. The leadership of Hamilton College merely expressed their rights in deciding to not allow him to speak. Furthermore, to respond to Rall's generalization of censorship, we must realize that only a government can suppress. A newspaper cannot, because the newspaper cannot prevent some other publication from publishing a controversial piece. A college administrator cannot for the same reason. A government, on the other hand, can prevent anyone from publishing or publicly speaking.