Volunteers, soldiers, citizens

"No greater love is this, than one should lay down their life for another"

Our troops, all of them, are volunteers for the service. They forego rights they fight to ensure. They are full citizens, serving with honor and justifiable pride. I support their choices, even when I mourn the sacrifice.

When they return home, they deserve the full measure of our gratitude. Until then, they deserve the full measure of our support.

Our troops, their service

Action and reaction. Combat hones skills seldom used anymore in daily life. I am not oblivious to the terror that combat brings. Courage is doing what you need to do when you are scared to death. It is not some movie character standing in the face of make-believe fire. Courage is what you call what happened AFTER you survive it. Sacrifice is what it is called when you don't.

Our troops do what they have to do even when scared. It pays for US to remember what they felt and what we call it, are not always the same thing.

I support our troops, their service, their courage and their sacrifice.

Our troops

They are all of ours, whether we agree with the war or not, those are our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. Anything short of unconditional support denies those ties and leaves them adrift.

I acknowledge their service and their position as our representatives in peace and democracy and support their efforts in battle and in assistance.

I support the troops

Facing the prospect of combat, insurgent attacks, IED's, our troops step out each mission hoping that today, they met people that respect life as much as they do.

I support our troops stationed in harms way, I support those that support them from behind the fences, unconditionally.

Freedom and democracy - Supporting our troops

I support your efforts to combat those that oppose freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan by opposing and calling hypocrits those that oppose your efforts here at home. We, safe in our little communities, lack the courage and honor of you who face horrors every day.

I for one, support and defend your efforts, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

I support the troops

To OUR troops: Congrats for an extraordinary job well done. Your continuing efforts to promote democracy and freedom are not going unnoticed. You face a hydra but standing toe to toe is a losing proposition only to the other side.

My support continues to be unwavering.

In support of the troops

In every battle, in every war, there are heros and villians. Intentions, actions and results are all available to those that don't participate, to those that are faced with death, I shall not second guess.

I support our troops unconditionally in their efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and thank them for the service and sacrifice.

The troops serve at our behest

We have asked the troops to serve in distant lands to provide support, comfort and protection to peoples seeking democracy, we should do no less than support them in their efforts.

I support the troops, their efforts, their sacrifices and do so unconditionally.

I support the troops

I support our troops and their mission in Afghanistan and Iraq. Further, that support is unconditional.

I support our troops and their mission

Every day for the next 200 days, I am going to post this on this blog. I am not going to add it to the sidebar because that would eliminate the need to actively remember and post this. Every day for the next 200 days I will remember the troops that have died, have suffered grievous losses and yet, accept and continue to defend their support and contribution.

The President of the United States has proclaimed that we will stay until the job is done. It is not done yet, and I will be damned if I, in the comfort of my peaceful home and neighborhood, give a seconds thought to anything less than full, unapologetic, unreserved support of our troops and their mission.

Thank you for your service and commitment.

Europe and a real World War 3

So, Russia apparently continues down a path towards re-instituting a large part of it's communist past, South America is increasingly shifting far left towards a brand of socialism thought dead by most reasonable people and Moslem jihad has sprouts in Asia and Europe.

There is almost no way that either Russia or South America would join in a Moslem uprising world wide, but they could join forces. If perchance some type of union of Russian socialism joined with South American socialism, might the jihadist take advantage of a distracted United States and promote a general uprising? There is no evidence that I have seen or heard that such a call would generate anything approaching dangerous - at least not for the majority of people, but what if Europe/NATO called for American reinforcements?

Why should we answer? Is there any reason right now why the United States should honor any previous commitment for troops or material support should a military response be required in Europe?

My general answer is found above. Honor. Over the last 5 years we have found which countries have honor and which do not. Despite the overwelming evidence that most of Western Europe lacks even the basic understanding of the term, WE would honor our commitments.

Immigration

This is a nation of immigrants. Millions upon millions of them and their families sought a better life and opportunities here.

They came. They followed the rules. Rules that required: a job, regular notification to the government where they were; no access to government welfare/benefits; in many cases, sponsorship. They worked very hard. They did their adopted country and families proud.

They are watching millions cheat their way in and their politicians helping them.

and are they pissed.....

Get it?

No to Incumbents

I have started a new website called No To Incumbents. After listening to some of the proclamations coming out of Washington on illegal immigration and high gas prices, it is no longer a one issue problem. Congress has collectively lost it's mind. Republicans thought $100 check from the government was a good idea to combat higher gas prices and Democrats said that ILLEGAL immigrants were not criminals.

Good people whom I respect have told me that they can not vote for people in the opposition party, despite overwhelming disgust with their current representatives because the opposition is just on the wrong side of core issues. Their choice of voting for someone they disrespect and find personally offensive or voting for someone with opposing core beliefs leaves them holding their nose but voting for their incumbent. Or, as almost 60% of the population does in most elections, staying home. People would rather NOT vote than vote for the lesser of two evils, having gotten tired of the lesser evil.

This has had a perverse effect on our system. First, people of high caliber will not stand against an incumbent that can raise millions in support of their re-election. Second, challengers have to take increasingly shrill positions just to get some traction. Challengers that campaign on the basis that they hold the same core beliefs but would vote different on one or two issues leave voters saying, why bother changing? We end up with opposition candidates that look like the worst caricature an incumbent can dream up.

Those of us that want to vote out every incumbent must make the case that voting out the incumbent, voting for the challenger, is in the best interest of all of us.

So, how do we make the case? Parts of this country have re-elected someone caught on tape buying and using illegal drugs and others have voted for a dead man, who won. It is obvious that rational people are either not voting, or are acting very irrationally in the voting booth.

Can you accept the argument that having a challenger that is unacceptable win, encourages a stronger challenger the next time around? Can you accept the argument that any potential damage that might be done to your deeply held beliefs by a challenger while in elected office can be undone?

Even if you did, can you have sufficient faith that while you are voting out your party's incumbent in your district, your fellow citizens are voting out their party's incumbent in their district? Part of the problem is that while all 435 congressmen are standing for re-election and therefore we could have 435 freshmen congressmen, only 32 senators are standing for re-election...68 of them will be returning next year.

I don't think any argument we make will convince you. You have to make a choice. If you accept the premise that your single vote counts, they you must accept the premise that your one vote for a challenger, no matter how unpleasant the option, will help change our current dilemma.

Saying no to incumbents takes a commitment. A willingness to accept the consequences of wiping the slate clean. Someone once said that a democracy would degenerate into a welfare state as people voted for those that could be counted on to handout government favors and those paying for them became a minority. So it has become. Churchill said democracy was the worst form of government, except for all other forms. Corruption, even the most minor of infractions, is normal behavior by our elected officials. It is a learned survival trait. The longer in office, the more ingrained it becomes.

We need to hit the reset button.

Hey, it's only 10%...

If this description fits you, you are in deep trouble:

Homebuyer in the last 5 years; have 2 or more credit cards; shop at Walmart

The FDIC has a very bleak outlook for you. According to the report, you are facing a liquidity squeeze. Rising credit card payments, higher gas prices, higher interest rates on equity refinancing are all forcing you to reduce spending....and that means, for just 10% of you, a recession in 2006-2007.

The report is concerned with the very large percentage of current mortgages tha are sub-prime AND have taken a significant bite out of home equity.

(Note: they are clear that up until 2005, equity was growing faster than refinancing was taking it out primarily because of the hot housing price market, an event 'heading for a soft landing' is how I have heard it portrayed this past week. However, it looks like that sequence has stopped and 2006 will be the first year that equity refinancing will exceed both equity growth AND personal income growth.)

As noted here, foreclosure rates are soaring: 72% increase nationwide over last year.

Last year over 2 million families filed bankruptcy. This year, it is expected that over a 1.2 million families will face foreclosure. These numbers represent less less than 1/2% of our families, so why do I feel nervous?

Foreclosures - A WARNING

When credit card companies and banks complained that more than a million people were filing bankruptcy and that was costing them a lot of money, people defended THE BANKS AND CREDIT CARD COMPANIES...and so did Congress with the passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. Of course, there has been no rush to reduce interest rates by credit providers as suggested by some supporters there would be....

If Congress can protect credit card companies from a million bankruptcy filers, what will they do with a million foreclosures?

Irvine, Calif. April 25, 2006 RealtyTrac(www.realtytrac.com), the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, today released its 2006 Q1 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, which showed that 323,102 properties nationwide entered some stage of foreclosure in the first quarter of 2006, a 38 percent increase from the previous quarter and a 72 percent year-over-year increase from the first quarter of 2005. The nation'’s quarterly foreclosure rate of one new foreclosure for every 358 U.S. households was higher than in any quarter of last year.

Over 850,000 properties were forclosed on last year, a 38% increase would mean 1,173,000 foreclosures this year. However, the current increase is 72%, if that were to hold 1,462,000 properties would be foreclosed on by the end of the year.

The expectation from the report is over 1.2 million foreclosures. Gas prices might not be having much impact on driving, but the homeowner is getting squeezed.

The trouble with America is...

Many pundits have called the looney left, anti-American. I have always been a little uncomfortable (just a little) with that characterization because I believe many actually have a high regard for America, just not what it stands for...which is a little like supporting the troops but not the war. Anyway, after the recent spate of name calling I wondered what exactly was it that the left disliked. I think I have an answer.

Capitalism.

The left does not like capitalism. Consider the evidence. There is a vocal movement opposing American 'globalization'. Most of us dismiss this out of hand because McDonald's wouldn't have a chance in France or anywhere else if people didn't actually BUY what they were selling. People around the world demand American goods and services, the marketplace provides them. There is no global conspiracy to put a Starbucks in every gulag or hamlet on the planet. There is I am sure a corporate conspiracy in Starbucks however to do just that! There is a cost however to having American corporations descend upon a foreign market, local companies get squeezed. Even here in this country, communities fight Wal-Mart on the basis that a Wal-Mart store will kill the small mom-pop places that line the quaint streets of their community. Capitalism has winners and losers. In the long run, for the greatest majority, capitalism is a net plus. For specific people, families, or businesses, capitalism can sink them. Adapt or die is a fundamental principle of capitalism.

Another piece of evidence. How many entertainment industry celebrities support anti-capitalism political positions? Many. How many SPORTS celebrities do so? I will state few but over the last 48 hours I have been unable to think of ONE! Why?

When Tiger Woods wins a tournament there is no denying the accomplishment. No one can say he won because he was politically connected, or he was well liked on tour, or that he won because the crowds wanted him to win. His scorecard clearly indicates the result of his efforts. Compared to equally fine golfers, on that particular four days, he was the best golfer.

When George Clooney works for 7 months on a film at a foreign location, putting in 15 hour days in terrible conditions and gives his honest best, the result can easily fail to make even a small ripple in the marketplace. His best efforts do not result in acclaim or material gain (other than the millions he makes as a fee). His best effort is ignored, counted as less than viable. Where is the fairness in the marketplace?

Liberals want to reward best efforts. Capitalism does not award honorable mentions. As long as capitalism is the system of economic activity that drives the United States, liberals and the looney left will continue to claim a fundamental unfairness in the system. They will seek to create programs and restraints that work to reduce the competitive outcomes inherent with capitalism.

Everything the left tries is tied to mitigating the effects of capitalism in our everyday lives. In schools: eliminating grading systems because it results in competitive winners and losers without considering effort. For most people such a situation is stupid on it's face. If Johnny can't read but he tries really hard, he CAN'T READ. Promotion or posturing that his effort is commendable ignores the result, he CAN'T READ. If anyone suggested that Phil Mickelson should get the same trophy and prize money as Tiger just because, despite coming in second, he tried really hard, they would be laughed off the course. How much more damaging is it to a child in the second grade that has mastered reading to find themselves promoted to third grade with someone else that can not read. What are we teaching them? Don't try so hard...promotion will happen anyway.

Even culture suffers competitive pressures. If democracy and capitalism succeed, then socialism fails. If France's economy continues to decline, if it's culture increasingly becomes irrelevant on the world stage, then can we say that France is being out-competed? Capitalism favors the strong and penalizes the weak. Liberals do not like that the weak suffer just because they are weak. It is fundamentally unfair. They want to claim that France's culture is just as important and relevant as American culture even if the obvious decline suggests the contrary.

It informs immigration as well. If someone comes here looking for a job, or to have a better life, why can't we just let them? Because they are cheating. No one expects Tiger to start on the second hole when everyone else has to start on the first. To the immigrants that came here legally, illegal immigration is a slap in the face. It is the third grader that works hard but finds his second grade friend on the same page despite failing.

To liberals, failure is part of what is wrong with our system of democracy and capitalism. It is the fundamental error of liberalism. Equal effort does not lead to equal outcome. Nor should it. As long as liberals continue to hold America and capitalism in low regard and joyfully assist other losers in cheating a system they see as flawed, we will be weaker than we should be and the Osama's of the world will continue to take advantage of that weakness.

COWARDS

COWARDS:

Republican Congressmen that support ANYTHING but deportation for illegal immigrants because they might appear to be insensitive towards immigrants. Legal immigrants are disgusted that illegals are being treated with kid gloves and pandered to. Apparently, the only other group that is being coddled as much as illegal immigrants is convicted child-molesters.

Politicians that support a windfall-profits-tax as a response to high gas prices when for the last 20 years they have opposed virtually every attempt at increasing the level of production of fuel from domestic sources (which they have also opposed increasing).

The Left for failing to support this country and it's troops in a time of combat. That's right, failure to support the country and troops. Those troops are serving voluntarily and have been doing so in many cases by RE-ENLISTING. Those calling for the withdrawal are willing to let the people of other nations suffer under dictatorships. Don't bother bringing up any other country currently with a dictator unless you are SPECIFICALLY calling for us to commit troops and resources to their overthrow - which you are most emphatically NOT. If the passengers on United 93, faced with certain death, can do the right thing, then you in your comfortable homes and lives can either support the war on terror OR SHUT UP.

The ACLU for supporting the Westboro Baptist Church. The Phelps family leads the list of 'hate groups'.

Where are they?

Over the last few days some protests have occurred related to the situation in Darfur, Sudan. As most are aware, this oversized pit of a country has had an ongoing civil war pitting the Arab government against the African rebels. In part it is religion, Moslems killing Christians, but mostly it is one set of tribes killing another set of tribes. You might ask what they are fighting over and land would be a small answer. Oil is another small answer. Sudan produces a bunch (million or so barrels) of oil a day that mostly goes to China...keep that in the back of your mind as on a rare occasion you hear that China has vetoed another resolution in the UN against Sudan. No accusations....just a comment.

Now the problem in Sudan is not new. As a matter of fact it has been going on for years. If you haven't been hearing about it regularly, you should probably be asking the peace activitists, the anti-war protestors and the media where they have been on Darfur?

You won't get much of a response. The US is not in Sudan....nothing for them to protest about therefore. Of course if we were to go into Sudan to stop the killing, would it be oil we were there about? Would we be getting in the middle of a civil war we have no business being in?

Of course the protestors over the last few days are calling for the US to do SOMETHING.....so they can protest it is uncalled for, too much, too little, too imperialistic....SOMETHING....

Millions protested the US involvement in Iraq. Where are they?
Millions protested the US acts of imperialism. Where are they?
Millions protested the globalization impact of the US. Where are they?

Why they are home, planning protests on Monday in support of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Maybe I am being unfair. Let us look at the situation in Darfur and what 'they' are doing about it:

DARFUR PEACE TALKS IN ABUJA
Peace talks to end the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region have resumed today in Nigeria's capital. Sam Olukoya reports from Lagos.

The peace talks include representatives of the Sudanese government and rebels operating in the Darfur region. Although the negotiations have been on for about a year without success, the rebels say they are hopeful that a final agreement will be reached during this latest round of talks. The split among the rebel groups is blamed for the failure of previous talks. This time, the rebels will present a united front. An upsurge in fighting has further underscored the need to urgently end the crisis. African Union peacekeepers in the region were recently killed in the face of repeated ceasefire violations. The Darfur crisis started two years ago when rebels of Black African origin took up arms against the Arab-dominated government. They accused the
Sudanese government of discriminating against Black Africans. The crisis escalated when pro-government Arab militias started attacking the African population. Over 70,000 people have died in two years of conflict in the Darfur region and more than a third of Darfur's six million inhabitants have fled their homes. For Free Speech Radio News, this is Sam Olukoya in Lagos.

http://www.fsrn.org/news/20051130_news.html

Note: this was from last November. But we need to go back a bit...

Thursday, September 9, 2004 Posted: 3:54 PM EDT (1954 GMT)
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that "genocide has been committed" in the Sudanese region of Darfur.

An international law expert said the statement does not require the United States to act, but establishes a basis for it to intervene under international law.

"That Powell has said this is politically significant," said Hurst Hannum, professor of international law at the Fletcher School at Tufts University in Boston. "It doesn't trigger any legal consequences ...(but) there will certainly be more of a push for something to be done."

Talks are continuing in the Nigerian capital of Abuja to "resolve the political dispute driving the conflict," the United Nations said.

Talks that continued up to today! With no results. Of course the use of the word genocide has created it's own little upset. The EU thinks that the US was overstating the case (again...), that the events in Darfur are in fact only, "crimes against humanity". Isn't that nice! Tens of thousands dead and it is only a crime against humanity....

But governments are notoriously slow to commit. Often the first ones on the ground in situations like Darfur are the aid groups. And many are and have been in Darfur for YEARS. We don't hear much about them because they don't care where the aid comes from, only that it keeps coming and that hopefully, help will come with it. But some organizations are more about the politics and less about the aid...

Sojourners
Darfur - As atrocities occurred in the Sudan we worked with Rev. Brian McLaren and the Cedar Ridge Community Church to organize five interfaith worship services in the spirit of justice targeting Washington, D.C.'s key media and policymaking institutions to generate awareness and pressure to end the crisis in Darfur. With our support you organized more than 100 concurrent events throughout the country. We will continue to lift up Darfur in future actions until peace and security is restored.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=060105

We Can End the Darfur Genocide
Sojourners is teaming up with our good friends at the Save Darfur Coalition and nearly 100 organizations to gather 1 million signatures on postcards to President Bush.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.home

Yes that's right! Postcards to President Bush! $.05 a card, $.39 a stamp. One million cards...that is almost $500,000 that could actually be spent on AID to Darfur....but that would not get as much attention. Nor would the politicians have to respond to the aid, but they would have to met with the leaders of the 'movements'. And of course, a million postcards will of course go a long way to stopping illiterate tribesmen from killing illeterate villagers thousands of miles away...

Still, you do have to wonder about everyone else...where are they? SaveDarfur.org has a coallition of over 100 organizations devoted to Darfur. Over 90 of them are based (listen for it...) in the US!

An NPR report on last night's episode of The World notes that crowds are taking to the streets in Khartoum to protest a US proposal to deploy UN troops to combat the genocide in Darfur.

To a backdrop of protesters chanting "Down With US" in Arabic and (conveniently) English, correspondent Jonah Fisher noted that people seemed to be condemning the United States for its suggestion of involvement, including bits with various Sudanese Moslems professing a desire to fight the US and the UN. The report conveys the impression that there's a groundswell of anti-American fervor among Sudanese, who just want to keep a Sudanese problem as a Sudanese issue.

http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/03/20060308.shtml

Even the suggestion by the US that more needs to be done is met with protests. This is what the left has wrought. Anti-Americanism: Right or wrong, America is bad. Motives are suspect, aid is tainted, even positive suggestions evil. The protesters currently demanding action by the US are ignoring the will and wishes of the people that are the subject of their demands. Are not the Sudanese capable of making their own choices...and if those choices are mass slaughter, well, anything America is against, the protestors have to be for.....right?

What is the will of the Sudanese people? "Leave us alone!" So what are the protesters clamoring for? Imperialism??

Where are they? The protestors we have heard so much from:

BURUNDI AND EASTERN CONGO: Horror and hope from the heart of Africa

13 October 2005
by Eric Schiller
[Note: Schiller is a part of a four-person Christian Peacemaker Team (CPT) exploratory delegation to the Great Lakes region of Africa.]

I am now in the heart of Africa in the Eastern Congo, just across from the border of Burundi. So many horrific acts have been committed here in the past years. But people are also rebuilding hope.

http://www.cpt.org/africa/africa.php

Opps....not in Sudan...no Americans or Brits to save them if they should happen to, you know, piss someone off.

The UN has been such a stinker when it comes to action. But they can pass resolutions:

UN Resolutions

Resolution 1593 passed March 31, 2005 referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. The Court can now begin investigating and prosecuting those responsible for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Resolution 1591 passed March 29, 2005 imposes an arms embargo on the government of Sudan, imposes targeted sanctions (travel ban and asset freezes) on those determined to be responsible for, and “demands” that the government of Sudan stop using air attacks against villages in Darfur.

Resolution 1590 passed March 24, 2005 establishes a 10,000 member peacekeeping force in Southern Sudan to enforce the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The accord was signed in January, ending more than 20 years of civil war between northern and southern Sudan. In addition to 10,000 military personnel, the United Nations Mission in Sudan will also include 715 civilian police and is set to have an initial six-month mandate. The resolution does not directly address the situation in Darfur, but the Security Council is hopeful that effects of a lasting peace in southern Sudan will spill over into the troubled western region.


September 18, 2004
Resolution 1564, passed on September 18, 2004 called for the creation of a Commission of Inquiry to determine whether genocide has occurred and threatened possible sanctions against the government of Sudan if it does not stop the violence.


Resolution 1556, passed on July 30, 2004, gave the government of Sudan 30 days to disarm the Janjaweed and threatening economic and military sanctions if the orders were not carried out.

Notice that the UN force isn't going to Darfur, they just hope that if there is peace in the region, it will make the murderers more peaceful...ah come on guys, play nice...

Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on Darfur
May 10, 2005
A large number of internally displaced persons in the western Sudanese region of Darfur are unlikely to return to their homes in the immediate future, according to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s monthly report to the Security Council

Report of the Secretary-General on UN assistance to the AU mission in Darfur
May 3, 2005
The report states that prevailing insecurity continues to impede the delivery of humanitarian assistance and inhibits those displaced from returning home

UN Commission of Inquiry Report
January 25, 2005
The UN dispatched a commission of inquiry to investigate the situation in Darfur and “reports of violations against international human rights law and international humanitarian law.” The commission found that “Government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced
disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur on a widespread and systematic basis.”

A commission of inquiry...2 years after the mass murders began. But hey, ya need to know what the problem is before actually doing something.

This is the problem with peaceniks. They want to TALK. Even if it means standing in front of a bulldozer, TALKING stops everything bad from happening. A dialogue. Can't we just sit and talk like rational human beings and work it out? NO, apparently. Cutting up children and tossing the parts into wells is preferred to talking. So, if all you want to do is talk and all they want to do is kill, where are WE?

Amid the negotiations, the plight of 3 million refugees in Darfur has worsened. The U.N. World Food Program said Friday that it was cutting rations in half, citing a lack of funds.

Yep. Postcards good, aid, well, postcards good, Bush BAD.

Annan's latest appeal for funding reflects growing frustration as the United Nations has failed to collect even half of the $350 million it requested in March to run its relief operation in Darfur, a violence-torn, impoverished province roughly the size of France. In an effort to reach that goal, Annan will send private letters asking Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Belgium -- which have provided a total of just over $11.5 million in contributions since March -- to increase their funding for the United Nations' operations.

TOTAL $11.5 million! Are not the protesters against imperial America always complaining that we don't give enough? That other countries give more of their GDP in aid than we do? Where are the protesters complaining that the aid flow is running a little thin from a few of the BIG donors.

But it is not just Japan and the silly Europeans...

A senior U.N. official said that contributions from the four richest Gulf states -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates -- which will also get a plea from Annan, have been "totally insignificant."

Why should these countries be funding aid? Nominally, the government of Sudan is Moslem and they are just wiping out a few infidels. What's the problem?

"Surprisingly, it's been an uphill struggle to get normally generous donors to wake up to this unfolding catastrophe," said Jan Egeland, the U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "It would be a tragedy if now that we have finally broken down this Berlin Wall created by the Sudanese government around Darfur, we would lack the resources" to address the humanitarian crisis.

Egeland said that the bulk of the U.N. operations have been sustained by the United States, which has underwritten 45 percent of the U.N. budget for the issue, and Britain, the Netherlands and Norway.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19343-2004Jul27.html

It must kill him to admit that the US is funding 45% of the aid for Darfur. When we don't send troops, we send money. Of course, things might have changed since 2004....listen to Jose Barroso...

The U.S. and the EU: A Bilateral Partnership for Global Solutions
Speaker: Jose Barroso, President, European Commission

May 13, 2005

Council on Foreign Relations, New York, N.Y.

BARROSO: Oh, we are doing, we are by far the largest donor to Darfur. Once again, I’m sorry to speak about dollars or euros, but we are by far the biggest contributor now to Sudan and to Darfur in terms of aid. And we are supporting that process. We are supporting generally that process.

Now, we are doing it directly to those involved, and also to enhancing the capability— institutional capabilities—of the African Union. So they can provide themselves security. So, we are not considering at this stage foreign troops sent by the European Union, as the operation that is taking place in Congo, in Democratic Republic of Congo. So we are very much in favor of working in the framework of the United Nations or of the international organizations on those— or the regional organizations on providing security. Because security is the first issue.

Opps...from http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/evaluations/csed/g8africa_050624.pdf

Since 2003, the US has provided $545 million to Sudan for humanitarian assistance in Darfur while the EU has provided $290 million (Euro) SINCE 1993.

The number comparisons for 2005 are equally lopsidded, see:
http://ocha.unog.ch/fts/reports/pdf/OCHA_10_14738.xls

So, where are they? The millions of protesters against Bush and the United States? Well...they are home...sending postcards....or they are somewhere else, safe. Darfur is an unsafe place and well, there is nothing there and if they want to slaughter themselves, if Bush is against it...WAIT, IF BUSH IS FOR GOING INTO SUDAN AGAINST THE SUDANESE WISHS, LET'S GET A PROTEST GOING!!

A short comment about George Clooney. He took a risk, he is speaking out. Bravo for him. Thank you sir. (Hope you don't mind if I reserve just a wee bit of my enthusiasm to see what you do later...)

Bankruptcy Reform - An Analysis

So, here we are. Six months after the BARF (bankruptcy reform) went into effect and the results so far have to be heartening to those millionaire card company CEO's. Todd Zywicki sure is impressed:

From Bankrate.com

In addition to stopping the abuse, Zywicki says the law protects consumers.

"It's got a number of consumer-protection provisions, such as greater restrictions of debtors to reaffirm debts and penalty provisions for creditors that don't accept good-faith efforts for debtors to repay voluntary payment plans."

However, some of the people that have to suffer from Professor Zywicki's love child have a different opinion:

Judge opinion (quoted by Todd Zwyicki in a post on the subject):

Here's what Judge Markell wrote in his opinion in In re Kane, 336 B.R. 477 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2006) (I couldn't find the opinion on-line other than in Westlaw) at page 481:

This court concurs with Judges Mark and Riegle--the cap applies to all debtors who do not satisfy the 1,215-day rule--but for different reasons than either of them advanced. Whether the text is ambiguous or not, it is still possible to consider and implement what Congress unambiguously intended and to overcome the drafters' unfortunate choice of words. [FN7]

FN7. Section 522(p) is one of many examples of poor drafting in the new bankruptcy law, which Professor Todd Zywicki assured the Senate Judiciary Committee was "fine as it is," adding, "There is no word that I would change in this particular piece of legislation." SEN. JUD. COMMITTEE, Hearing on S. 256: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, 109th Cong., unofficial transcript (March 10, 2005).

Professor Zywicki whined:

Much to my surprise and dismay, it appears that I have been badly misquoted by Federal Bankruptcy Judge (and former law professor) Bruce Markell regarding my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding BAPCPA. Not only did Judge Markell grossly take my words out of context in a published judicial opinion but I understand that he did the same thing in a recent speech to the a local bankruptcy lawyers association

Oh, poor baby. Of the 48 comments on Zywicki's post, about 45 of them said that the Professor WAS NOT TAKEN out of context. The remainder only suggested that the Judge's opinion was a valid opinion even if they disagreed with it. However, in fact, it was clear from a reading that Professor Zywicki did in fact endorse the bill as written without any need whatsoever for amendment.

That said, I went after the dear Professor in this post. One of my peeves was with the issue of fraud:

Yet, you reference a claim by the FBI that as many as 10% of bankruptcy filings are fraudulent. We are not aware of any debtors being arrested in the two districts we work in at any time in the last 7 years. The total number of filings during that time is over 150,000. A case from this week is illustrative of the scrutiny the trustees in this district use: a client appeared at the 341 wearing a single earring (a man). The trustee noted no jewelry was listed on the schedules and required amendments to be filed. Does this constitute fraud?

Professor Zywicki's claim is recalled again in the Bankrate piece:

Supporters of the law frequently cite fraud as the catalyst for change and point to findings by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which estimated that 10 percent of bankruptcies have involved fraud, with "hiding of assets" as the most common type. Feldstein believes, based on bankruptcy petitions his researchers have examined, that the percentage is an understatement.

Bullshit. Pure and simple. If 10% of the cases involved fraud, there would be 1,500,000 people facing federal prison over the last 10 years. In fact, the FBI has prosecuted less than 1000 cases in the last 10 years! Far from widespread, the issue is practically non-existent. Bankruptcy fraud cases are so rare, the FBI issues PRESS RELEASES when they get a case!

Professor Zywicki cited in his testimony and it was reported again in the Bankrate piece, a report produced by "SMR Research Corp., a market research firm". Does anyone know who the clients of SMR are? Why it is the banks and credit card companies. This is the same firm that helps credit card companies TARGET consumers for pre-bankruptcy cards .... sorry, credit cards. Do you think a company that helps credit card companies increase the number of active cards is going to suggest...they are promoting bad risks? Nahhh.

I went after SMR's report in this post also.

So, we have SMR and Professor Zywicki rehashing their position from the pre-signing days, claiming two things in the Bankrate piece: 1) it is too early to tell if the law has had much impact; and two, it has brought much needed relief to the credit card industry.

First, the impact: Filings are down 80% nationwide in the first 6 months of the new law. Even allowing for the idea that people that would have filed over the last six months rushed to be the law, filings should have rebounded by now. Roughly speaking, an additional 400,000 cases were filed in September and October over the previous years average. That is roughly 25% of the annual rate over the previous 3 years. If we had spread those 400,000 cases over the last 6 months, filing rates would still be down 45%.

Worse, one factor that drives people to bankruptcy is a threatened foreclosure. Foreclosures are up 50-60% so far this year. These people, previously a reasonable bankruptcy candidate, are just walking away in droves.

Second the credit card industry. On average, the credit card companies reported between a 1 and 2 percent reduction in PROFIT for the third quarter last year. (the period of heaviest pre-law filings). There has been of course NO reduction in interest rates. There has been an increase in the minimum monthly payments however.

Other factors. The fee to file bankruptcy changed with the new law. Chapter 13 went down - to encourage more chapter 13's we were told, and Chapter 7 fees were raised 30%. That lasted less than 6 months. On April 9th, fees for chapter 7 went up, again and Chapter 13 fees were increased 30%.

Let us look at a few other items in the Bankrate piece:

Financial organizations and researchers have listed 10 ways they believe the bankruptcy law combats consumer fraud:

• A petitioner's lawyer must agree to review all financial claims and must sign off on the accuracy of the claims. Lawyers and petitioners can be penalized for fraud.

Sounds good right? Now think about a criminal attorney swearing that the client s/he represents is telling the truth. Now imagine what happens to the attorney when the client is found guilty. Why the court can demand payment from the attorney for court costs and potentially find him/her guilty of lying to a court! THAT is what the bankruptcy law has done to attorneys. Can you imagine attorneys quitting the practice? Don't imagine, it is happening.

• Petitioners must file copies of their recent tax forms. This filing eliminates falsification of income and rids the bankruptcy system of criminals and other persons who don't file income tax returns.

Because of course, only criminals fail to file tax returns.

• The U.S. Trustee program, which regulates bankruptcy laws, will contract with a third party to conduct audits for at least one out of every 250 bankruptcy filings in each federal judicial district.

A demand of a previous policy. Can you imagine an attorney that would risk their livelihood for a $750 fee from a bankruptcy client?

• Mandatory bankruptcy credit counseling before filing provides debtors with alternatives to bankruptcy. It's designed to deal with "bad-apple debtors' attorneys" and "bankruptcy mills" that push people into bankruptcy without telling consumers all their options. The required counseling after a debtor files is intended to cut down on repeat filers. In addition, the counseling provision adds an additional paper trail for fraud investigators.

Here is a good one. A report on credit counseling results for the last quarter of 2005 (after the law went into effect) was discussed by me here. Primary result: 97% of people taking the pre-bankruptcy filing counseling, could not afford $100 a month towards their unsecured debts. This is 10 percentage points ABOVE the number of chapter 7 filers pre-law. Average of 13% of all filers were Chapter 13 repayment plans.

One final comment on Professor Zywicki. He commented back in 2005 that only 10-15% of filers would be affected by the new law. I said bull shit then, I say bullshit now. First, everyone has to pay the $50 for the credit counseling; everyone has to pay $90 more in filing fees, and attorneys (with their license and livelihood on the chopping block for every case) have raised their fees (almost every district we have heard from - about 1/3 of them) about 100%. That's right. Doubled. Why? Bankruptcy mills have undercut every attorney out there. The cost to file a bankruptcy in 2005 was virtually the same as in 1990. The mills are folding up and attorney's that 'dabbled' in bankruptcy have left. Fees have responded. The ones most hurt by all of the above? The least able to afford it.

The Bankruptcy Law does have a lot of supporters, unfortunately for consumers, none of them have to suffer. Judges, trustees, and attorneys have all reported the same: the law added much to the confusion surrounding filings, added expensive burdens to the courts and consumers and in the end, did nothing to fix the problems.

But the Banks and Credit Card Companies are happy!

The World's Bodyguard

The left would have us believe that it is not our place to get involved in the affairs of other countries - that they don't like - and the right would have us believe that it is our moral obligation to help those less fortunate.

A pox on both their houses.

The Left:
"Why Iraq? North Korea HAS nukes...why don't we attack them?"
Such mindless stupidity. The fact that North Korea could practically hand toss those couple of nukes on major population centers in South Korea leading to mass casualties seems beyond their ability to comprehend.
"They can't harm us, they are no threat."
A couple of guys from "them" hop a plane and fly it into a building. Harm and threat.
"Why can't Iran have nukes? We have them..."
If you can not see the difference between Iran and the United States...oh, wait, you can, we are imperialist, they just want to defend themselves.....right...and the threat from their leader to wipe Israel from the map, well, that's Israel's problem right?

The Right:
"They have a right to liberty."
Yea, and they have a responsibility to fight for it. It is not our responsibility to do it for them, help them yes, but not build the house and hand them the keys.
"If not us, who?"
The world, the part that proclaims itself civilized, has had it's military needs provided by the US for the last 60 years. They have forgotten that the absence of their military was not the reason for the absence of conflict. The Balkans proved that when faced with armed conflict in their own backyard, they have lost all will and means to deal with it. However, that does not mean we should continue to provide for them.
"They are a threat and must be faced"
Iran and North Korea and Syria are NOT threats to the United States. They can and will take opportunities to inflict casualties where and when possible against Americans, but there is no country, or even group of countries currently on this planet with the capability of inflicting permanent damage on the United States. Even if a nuke explodes in New York or Washington. Ignoring the utter stupidity such an act suggests, the repercussions against the perpetrators would exceed Dresden and Hiroshima by such a magnitude as I could imagine the entire world would be actually stunned into silence...for a time. I like to think no one is that stupid, but I know better. However. I see no reason for preemption. This is a change for me. Primarily because a large portion of AMERICANS are such whining cowards that our government fights wars short-sheeted. A large vocal portion of the American population can not conceive of a reason for war. It might take the deaths of a million fellow Americans on American soil to convince them otherwise. I am not asking for, or hoping for such an attack. I believe that given time, it WILL occur. And the longer people continue the whining and anti-war protesting, the MORE likely it will happen.

So. For the last 30 years or so, people have complained that we were acting like the world's police and who gave us that right? It was not a right, it was an obligation because so many countries in the world abdicated their responsibility to provide for their own defense. So much so that they began, and do believe, that their lack of responsibility in fact was a right.
The last 15 years, those same people have changed their words and increased their strident tone. Calling our actions imperialist. Again, such shear stupidity and ignorance should be dismissed out of hand, except it is coming from "learned and respected" sources. I am neither and it is stupidity and ignorance that fuels their beliefs.

I am tired of the shit we get for doing the right things. First, almost no one outside this country thinks it is the right thing we do, and second, a large portion of our own population does not believe or support it either. I don't always agree with the President, but I was taught that if you do the right things, a lot of people are not going to like you. It seems from the President's approval rating he is doing a lot of the right things.

I do not want to be protectionist or to withdraw into a shell. Too much of our economy relies on the outside world - although I believe that we could survive better than any other country if we were to do so. I do want every US military base in every other country closed and the military withdrawn to our shores. I believe that we can not do so for Iraq. Now, or for the foreseeable future. But there is no reason to still have troops in Europe or Asia.

I am tired of being the world's bodyguard. Time for everyone else to step up (or not) and take responsibility for their own survival. If Iran wants to nuke Israel, it faces a short existence as a net glass exporter. If North Korea wants to starve itself into oblivion, so be it. If Africa wants to continue slaughtering it's own population, let it. If South America wants to revert to socialist peasantry, I can live with it.

Is it the right thing to do? No, but what I think is right is no longer shared by the vast majority of non-Americans, nor by the 'apparent' majority of Americans.

The Rule of Law

About a year ago, we had a client that owed money to the IRS. They filed bankruptcy and planned on repaying the IRS debt along with much of the rest of their debts. However, the IRS did not file a claim in the bankruptcy by the deadline. (They must if they want to receive money from the bankruptcy trustee.) A trial was held to determine if the IRS could still receive their money despite not filing on time. In court, on the record, the Judge ruled that the IRS had failed to file their claim on time and the law said they could not therefore receive funds from the Trustee. He further stated that his boss, the appellate court, held the same position. But he thought that was unfair to the IRS and ruled in their favor. Our client of course could appeal, but they are afterall, bankrupt and the cost to appeal was beyond them. However, they had planned on repaying the IRS, so there were no 'new' costs associated with the loss.

A couple of weeks ago, at trial, a Judge at the Circuit Court level said to the opposing counsel, "those sections don't apply in this case counsel...give me something to work with..." She eventually ruled against our clients and claimed that a wrongful act that did not cause a partnership dissolution was cause for denying our clients the right to join in the winding up of the affairs of the partnership. Again, it is very appealable and almost certain to be overturned. But after 5 years with no payment from them to us, three trials and hundreds of hours of work, they are practically at the poverty line and we don't handle appeals.

A conversation with a court clerk about illegal immigration turned ugly, I was called a racist because I called illegal immigrants criminals.

A non-citizen, here for almost 30 years, will be deported after serving time for confessing that he did in fact raise funds and support terrorist organizations after spending 5 years complaining that he not only did not raise funds or support terrorists, but that he was the victim of racism and bigotry.

Another non-citizen, here on a student visa, has been arrested and will likely be deported for calling for the assassination of the President and others. Many are coming to his defense saying he didn't mean for it to really happen.

A potential client came in today to talk finances, but a quick check of the court docket found a recent traffic ticket....for inattentive driving. Nothing else, just talking on the phone while driving on the Interstate. $175 fine. It didn't help his finances....

Getting justice requires money. I know, it is not supposed to be that way but attorneys every day represent clients that have not, can not, many never, pay for their services. A former client came in today to ask for a payment plan for fees they did not pay last year. $25 a month for 6.5 years, no interest.

A bankruptcy Trustee will receive $24k in fees for paying $6k in debts, and last year, the same trustee received $17k in fees to pay $7k in debts. Just two recent cases. He has been cited by the court for taking excessive fees in the past.

The law is a wonderful thing. It is however, used and abused daily. After the last couple of years of working for an attorney I can tell you without a doubt, the law favors one side...the side with the money.

Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the other forms. I would suggest that our legal system is the worst, except for all the other legal systems.

Iraq and the Anti-War Rant

Yesterday, about 36,000 residents of the 210,000+ people that live in Madison, voted in the spring election referendum calling for the troops in Iraq to be brought home now. Of course the impact of such a vote on REALITY, is zero. No troops will be positioned because the people of Madison want it so.

We can start off with a discussion of the relatively low turnout, but why bother. I voted. Most people don't. The vote totals were 24,344 for bringing the troops home and 11,252 against bringing the troops home. I voted against the referendum.

We attacked another country with an army estimated at 500,000, took control of an area the size of California, and we have lost just over 2,300 troops in three years. We have lost less troops in combat, troops that volunteered to serve and are willingly re-enlisting in large numbers, than civilians on 9/11.

For that priceless cost, two countries have been freed from tyranny and horrors seldom seen in the civilized world. However, 24,344 people in Madison decided that they have their comforts and to hell with anyone else.

I would like to believe that only 24,344 people in Madison are so callous and indifferent to the plight of others. But I know it is not true. Those 24,344 are just the tip of the iceberg. Of course they will complain that in fact it is their caring that causes them to support such a referendum. They are wrong. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq WERE NOT better off under their previous governments. And while North Koreans are inarguably some of the worst off people on the planet, it would cost tens of thousands of lives and the infrastructure of an entire country (South Korea) to change their plight. If Americans are unwilling to support the relatively low cost of Iraq, I can not imagine them even considering North Korea, despite their flippant attitude on the subject.

I can not imagine for a second that Clinton, Gore or Kerry would still be in either Afghanistan or Iraq - hell, I can't imagine we would have gone in there in the first place with either Clinton or Gore.

24,344 Madisonians proved yesterday that they do not care about the people of other countries, do not care about our troops but do care about their own comforts. Fortunately for us, the people in Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the world, we can 'safely' ignore them.

Foreclosures

Todd Zywicki of Senate fame for his support of the bankruptcy bill has complained that a judge that quoted his Senate testimony did so out of context. It was a whine of excellent proportions and I ignore it here. However, I did post a comment on his blog, recreated here for all to read:

Todd,

He is not the only judge bad-mouthing the law. Hundreds of judges, trustees, bankruptcy attorneys and a large number of law school professors wrote extensively on what was wrong with that bill. Sen Feingold happens to be my Senator and I do not like him, but unlike the Republican Senator from Wisconsin who voted for the bill, he opposed both the intent and way the bill was rammed through. Your characterization only lent support for the effort and if you don't like the result, well, you are not one of the thousands of debtors that have to deal with it.

We were one of the voices in the wilderness shouting that the law was bad. From my blog and on my partners law office website , we tried to warn people.

Needed or not (and we didn't think it was needed to address the issues you so broadly claimed needed addressing), the law is a non-functioning nightmare.

Two issues most clearly stand out. Bankruptcies are down almost 80% nationwide - as intended by the bill - but foreclosures are up as much as 50% in some areas (68% in our district), so the reasons for people to file have not changed.

Second, the attorney fees, court filing fees (slated to go up AGAIN on April 9th), and the cost of credit counseling have made it very difficult for the people 'least likely to be affected by the law' to actually afford adequate representation.

Proclaim 'out of context' all you want, the judges and attorneys that have to deal with what you considered fine legislation for the next 20-30 years will remember your contribution for a long time. And if they immortalize you in their decisions, well, what more could an attorney want!?

****************

Well, I did want to follow up on the one set of numbers I referenced in the comment with some hard numbers:

Metro Denver foreclosures increased to 1,523 in the first month of 2006, the highest number on record in Metro Denver. Compared to January 2005, the number of foreclosures in Metro Denver stands 37.1% higher. Denver, Adams and Douglas
counties reported the highest levels of foreclosure activity in January 2006 in terms of percentage gains from January 2005. Although all seven Metro Denver counties reported heightened foreclosure activity, Boulder, Arapahoe
and Broomfield counties reported the smallest percentage increases. The largest number of foreclosures in January occurred in Adams, Denver and Arapahoe counties.

Source MetroDenver.org

Indiana lead the nation with its foreclosure rate was nearly 1 percent. The Midwest has had the roughest time lately in the country as stagnant employment and rising energy costs have hit the region hard.

Source The Realestate Bloggers

After recording more than 9,000 foreclosures in 2005, Wayne County ended January with 3,364 homes in active foreclosure, the highest of any county in the nation by more than 1,000."

Source Get Foreclosures Blogspot

"“This is the third straight month the U.S. foreclosure rate has moved higher, and it'’s the second straight month new foreclosures have topped 100,000",” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac.

Source RealtyTrac.com


If more people than ever are facing foreclosure and fewer people are filing bankruptcy...we have many more homes being liquidated and many more people falling off the homeowner rolls. This is neither good for the real estate markets nor the industries supported by home ownership.

Hey Todd...don't you feel proud!??

Evil

[cross posted to Religious Agnostics ]

Last night I marveled at the number of people that defend the indefensible.

On the radio, someone was talking about amnesty and registering illegals and all I could think of is gun control. If only the good people registered their guns, all the criminals would still be out there with guns. If all the good illegal (oxymoron?) aliens register, what will we do with all the bad illegal aliens? The marches going on against immigration reform - would anyone else find a march by looters demanding the abolishment of theft laws absurd? Illegal immigrants are proven law breakers. I would like to say that anyone arrested and brought before a judge for breaking a law "with good reason" will still have to pay a penalty but...

A version of Jessica's Law was passed in Ohio over strong opposition. I know the argument - mandatory sentencing takes the justice out of the system. In many places I agree with that, however, as long as judges continue to consider predators of children to have a momentary lapse in judgment, I want to prevent such lapses from happening on the bench.

NAMBLA. Is there any reason this organization exists? Why hasn't the population of this country risen up and lynched every single one of the members? I generally am against vigilatism, but please, someone...anyone?

Here in Madison on April 4th, a measure is on the ballot calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. There are signs all over this town calling on voters to say yes. I wanted to buy a dozen cans of yellow spray paint and paint yellow stripes on every sign I could find - two problems, one, someone is going to remember a woman buying a dozen cans of yellow spray paint when the news reports the 'vandalism' and two, it would take more than 100 cans to get all the signs...

Jill Carroll was released and proclaimed that her captors 'treated her well'. Being kidnapped, having your translator killed in front of you, being forced to plead for your life on video and being held for 3 months against your will IS NOT BEING TREATED WELL.

Islam is NOT a civilized religion. Some, maybe a majority, of Moslems are civilized. But any government or religion that seeks to kill someone for changing their religion IS NOT CIVILIZED.

As a mob, and this country is no better than a mob at this time, we have lost the capacity to recognize evil. Even the concept of evil is mocked or dismissed.

Looters are excused because they only wanted food and water.
Illegal immigrants are excused because they only want jobs.
Kidnappers are excused because 'we' invaded their country.
Child rapists are excused because they need treatment.
Murderers are excused because 'we' supported Israel.
Religions are excused because 'we' lack sensitivity.
Countries are excused because they are 'democratic'.

Evil does not start as a full blown country spanning movement, it starts small, day by day eroding our will to address it. I am not religious but if you can not see the evil growing in this country, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

** By the way, if your first thought was of a political party or politician, you are clueless ***

Why You Should Be Voting

About a year ago, this blog, joined with many others in voicing strong opposition to what would become the new bankruptcy law. Among the most interesting results of that experience was my awareness that our political system was dangerously out of whack.

Of course, many of you will snort and loudly say "DUH!".

How many times have we heard of some nut case shouting about some piece of legislation that would doom people and thought, get over it. Last year, I was one of those nut cases. Legislation that would impact less than 1/2 of 1% of our population was rammed through Congress on the premise that a significant portion of those affected were criminals and they should not be allowed to get away with it.

My former political party, the Republicans, acted the way the Ted Kennedy's of the world always complain they act - serve the corporate interest and the hell with the citizen. I can not tell you how much it hurt me to claim Ted Kennedy was right. I could not remain a Republican. Everything that they should have stood for was corrupted by that law. In a letter to President Bush and email to Sen Herb Kohl, I renounced my support of the Republicans that supported that law, promised to work actively against their attempts at re-election and would consider myself party-less for the first time in my adult life.

It should be shouted at every opportunity that Congress has abdicated its role as the representatives of THE PEOPLE. It is not just earmarks. Bill after bill, law after law is designed to create a benefit for a select few. And if the consequences can be limited to individuals without sufficient political clout (money) to prevent it, all the better.

I have suggested, here and elsewhere, that the first step in correcting the problem is to vote every single incumbent out of office. All of them. Unfortunately, almost every Congressperson has a sufficient base in their own district that will claim their representative is one of the good guys and should be left in. But I am wrong. Changing the Congress will not change the process. The bureaucracy and the lobbyists create a parasite/host symbiosis - you try and figure which is which because I can't tell - that is only minimally affected by whatever warm body occupies a seat on Capitol Hill.

No one in their right mind would seek political office. All you need to know about the vetting process is that unless you are 1) politically connected and sponsored; 2)without a blemish - figuratively and literally; 3) completely compliant with the monied interests; 4) politically correct for your area, you are going to be smeared like a mouse under an 18-wheeler. We have thousands of people with the experience and skill to represent us in Congress - but who wouldn't touch the idea of running for office with a 10 mile pole.

This past weekend, someone asked me my opinion of Hillary Clinton's position on illegal immigration. I said it didn't matter. She was pandering to whatever group she was talking to at the time. But it is not just Sen Clinton. They ALL do it. Sen Feingold claimed principle was driving his censure resolution but two things suggest he was pandering also. First, there was/is no impact except politically to the President with passage of his resolution. If he really wanted to impress upon the President and others that the President was acting illegally and should be called on it, he would have sponsored a bill of impeachment. Second, despite protests to the contrary, we are in a war and his resolution complained of the prosecution of that war. It is the President as Commander-in-Chief that has the Constitutional authority to wage war, and Congress - at one time - voted to approve that authority. If Sen Feingold feels the President is not acting correctly with regard to the war, he can sponsor legislation WITHDRAWING Congressional approval. But he did neither of those things. So, like others, it was political pandering.

I voted for Feingold in the past, it won't happen again. I voted for Bush, and will not have the chance to vote against him in the future. I will vote against Sen Kohl this time around and I will vote against every single incumbent on the ballot. It is not a perfect solution, or even a relatively good start, but until politicians start to really worry about their 'careers', no one, NOT A SINGLE ONE, will ever get my vote twice.

When your choice is the lesser of two evils, it is time to change how you get your choices.

Bankruptcy for the little people:

One of the features of bankruptcy reform proponents pointed to was the change in filing fees. An actual reduction in the cost to file a Chapter 13 from $194 to $189. The change in Chapter 7 fees went from $209 to $274, to encourage people to file Chapter 13s apparently. However, a few pointed out that if someone could still qualify to file a Chapter 7 (under the median income filers) the higher fees and extra costs of credit counseling would have a negative impact. The response was that the higher cost was a small one. Tell that to someone that paid $20 to fill their gas tank last year and $40 to do it this year.

Well, in an effort to balance the federal budget, those wonderful congresspeople have corrected the error of their ways. Less than 6 months after the new bankruptcy reform went into effect, the fees for filing bankruptcy are increasing.

Effective April 9th, the filing fee for a Chapter 7 will increase $25 to $299. And the filing fee for a Chapter 13 will go UP TO $274.

Don't cha love it!?

Oh, you were serious?

I just deleted a ten paragraph rant against the Republicans and Democrats because the two groups actually think they are doing well, it is just the fanatics of both parties that have lost it.

Sorry folks.

Republicans:
1. You have screwed up just about everything you have touched in the last 5.5 years.
2. What you haven't screwed up, you have ignored to our sure-to-be sorrow.
3. You have assumed that being the least of two evils was good enough to get elected.

Democrats:
1. Being the opposition party is not a platform.
2. The war on terror is not a video game that can be reset if we fail.
3. When the President turns to lead the country forward, it is NOT an invitation to stab him in the back.
4. Almost every single problem Bush and the Republicans have screwed up on BEGAN ON DEMOCRATIC WATCHES.

Our own government bureaucrats:
1. The State Department actively opposes the Administration.
2. The CIA intentionally intervenes in American politics.
3. The Immigration Department is corrupt and compromised.

Our own institutions:
1. The Mainstream Press considers national secrets political tools.
2. Colleges and universities are not teaching, they are breeding hatred of American culture and freedoms
3. The culture media (movies and music) work actively to destroy families and to support cultural segregation.

What are the right answers? Here is my problem, and ours:
1. The UN is not a democratic or freedom promoting institution and we should abandon it.
2. Islam is a threat to the freedoms and liberties we value and support.
3. Current common culture is worse than crass, it is vulgar and offensive.
4. Rights have responsibilities and for too long, we have ignored the disconnect that exists now.
5. Respect is EARNED, not bestowed.
6. Diversity is neither a goal, nor a means, it is a characteristic.

Some obvious examples of what is wrong:
1. A newspaper published details of two national secrets, but refused to publish an editorial cartoon because it might offend someone.
2. "The life of a pimp is hard" won an Academy Award.
3. A ban on partial birth abortion may be illegal.
4. A million illegal aliens are crossing our borders every year.
5. The spokesman for the Taliban is attending one of our top universities, gratis.
6. A Senator wants to sanction the President (an action with no other consequences than political gain) for attempting to catch people planning to kill innocents.
7. We had men on the Moon 36 years ago. We have had one shuttle launch in the last 4 years.
8. My daughter's school will be paid $250,000 this year to teach her and her 24 school mates. 90% of them will be unable to compete with the 5th graders in virtually every other industrialized country by the end of the school year.

Any suggestion I make to correct a problem we ALL agree exists, will be proclaimed as an assault on freedom of...., or offensive to...., or interference with...

And there in lies the problem that is at the heart of all our problems, only I can take responsibility for my actions, I can not force YOU to do the same.

In Wisconsin News - Part 2

Seems to be a day for Wisconsin stuff.

Other bloggers have commented on some recent rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (WSC) and the likely impact those rulings will have on the economic future of Wisconsin. I have not engaged nor commented on those rulings as law (for all my actual interest in it) is basically very boring to the average person.

Ok, slap me on the back of the head....it should not be I agree and my own response to the Bankruptcy Reform Act is an indication that I actually do pay attention and call others to do so also.

However, an authoritative voice making an analysis is worth listening to. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justise Diane Sykes gave a lecture about the recent WSC rulings and her concern is justified not just from the legal, but from the economic points of view.

Worth the read if you are from Wisconsin or do business here.

BTW: Milestone, this is my 100th post!

In Wisconsin News

I have not been very verbose on Wisconsin politics because I am usually so negative on the whole lot that everything I try to write sounds shrill. Still, a couple of things just pissed me off yesterday that I have no choice today.

Item 1:

Herb Kohl, senior Senator from Wisconsin, while commenting on the Prescription Benefit program complained that the program was just political payback for pharmaceutical industry.

WELL SENATOR KOHL, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT WAS?

The Prescription Benefit program at least has the APPEARANCE of being pro-consumer. The Bankruptcy Reform Act (BARF to those of us that deal with consumers) has neither the appearance nor the intent to assist consumers at all. The Bankruptcy Reform Act was political payback for the over $100 MILLION paid by lobbyists to Congressmen on behalf of the credit/bank industry over the last 8 years.


Item 2:

Our daughter brought home her school newsletter Wednesday and I finally read it yesterday. A nice letter from Superintendent Art Rainwater on No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Let me excerpt a couple of pieces:

The recognition of the importance in understanding our children's learning needs through good academic assessment has been a major positive change.

Good, he recognizes the value of actually assessing student performance! But like any good reactionary, no positive can be left without a negative..

Unfortunately, NCLB uses this very positive educational advance to create a punitive climate for change. Schools will not succeed because of the NCLB strategy of apply sanctions; schools will succeed when:
* the need for change is understood based on clear and convincing data;

Stop there! "when the need for change is understood"? We have a 50% drop out rate from high school and a large percentage of students can not read by 6th grade and there is some question about the need for change????? Continuing:

* well planned staff development provides teachers with "best practice" skills

Wait..."best practice"? Where and when might these best practices be determined? In universities where they teach our teachers to teach? There are no incentives for good teachers to teach well under the current (non-NCLB) system. I will admit that a big part of the problem is the parents that want their little tyke to have positive self-esteem, ability to read be damned. Continuing:

* progress is monitored for improvement

Is not that one of the major points that Rainwater acknowledges earlier? Assessment is a good thing?

Despite the political rhetoric to this point, Rainwater then states something that is SO stupid that it should be clear to anyone that our schools are in trouble not only because of the problems in the classroom and at home, but in their administration and management from the top:

NCLB takes a punitive approach by identifying schools that are not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) and applying increasing levels of sanctions. There has now been substantial discussion that illustrates the almost mathematical certainty that under the current system of identifying AYP schools, all of our nation's schools will eventually be on the AYP list.

That's right. Discussion illustrates a mathematical certainty that ALL schools will fail to make adequate yearly progress. Mathematical certainty used here is exactly the same tone as "I read somewhere", "they say".

The positive approach of using student date to inform instruction is negated by the certainty of ultimately being unsuccessful. If there is no hope for final success, it is difficult to undertake the journey.

Mr. Rainwater, our daughter is 11. Your JOB is to teach her, now. No one expects a perfect system and we fully expect things to continuously change and IMPROVE as time goes on, but she will not wait for you to get your system right, you have to make it work now. The "system" before NCLB was not working, and years of increasing spending was making it worse, not better. Left to your own (you, your staff and the entire educational system) devices, things were getting much, much worse. If you don't like the idea of sanctions, maybe you should consider a job in the real world, a place our daughter is going to face in about a dozen years. You know, a place where if you fail to meet expectations, you get fired.

Included in the newsletter was a page titled: What is the importance of standards-based curricula in mathematics? Subtitled: Research and Best Practice

An interesting paragraph illustrates my point and Rainwaters lack:

Extensive logitudinal studies show that the mathematics standards in many school districts in this country [note real studies, not discussions] are not as rigorous as those in other countries. In international studies, American students are not achieving world-class mathematics standards. U.S. students rated average by their teachers[note rated, not tested] may actually be performing at the basic level by international standards. Many high school graduates need remedial courses before attempting college-level mathematics; too many do not pass their beginning university courses.

These are students not covered by NCLB. They were failed by the system that supported self esteem over concrete results.

Initial reports - Bankruptcy Reform

The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys has issued a study looking at the first batch of consumers to run the gauntlet of bankruptcy reform.

A review of the agencies reporting results in the study:

*************************************************************
There are only 122 CCOs (credit counseling organizations) on the current list maintained by the US Trustee. Of these 122, 69 are approved in more than one district, fifteen of them in 10 or more districts.

The six CCOs listed in the report represent 5 of the CCOs with the largest footprints:
MMI 85 districts covered
Greenpath 77 districts covered
Springboard 84 districts covered
Hummingbird 86 districts covered
Institute for Fin Lit 86 districts covered
ByDesign 4 districts covered

First blush: The report covers 10/17/05 - 2/1/05. 61k consumers served. If all became bankruptcy clients/filers, then we get 250k annual rate of filing from that number...a 85% drop from the 1.6m filings the previous year.

The report says it approached ten CCOs, the 10 that cover the largest footprints are:

Consumer Credit Counseling Services of San Francisco 74
Credit Counseling Centers of America 75
GreenPath, Inc. 77
Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta Inc. 80
Credit Advisors Foundation 84
Springboard Nonprofit Consumer Credit Management Inc. 84
Garden State Consumer Credit Counseling, Inc. 85
Money Management International Inc. 85
Hummingbird Credit Counseling and Education, Inc. 86
Institute for Financial Literacy, Inc. 86

ByDesign only handles 4 districts...who else did they approach?

***********************************************************

Let us start off with some info regarding credit counseling from a story from Bankrate.com on March 3. Approximately 38,000 debtors filed bankruptcy from Oct 17 to the end of the year. Based on the number of people covered by the NACBA study, most (maybe 90% or more) of debtors that filed bankruptcy until Jan 31/Feb 15 were counseled by the CCOs in the study. It appears the study does accurately reflect the majority of consumers filing bankruptcy post 10/17.

So far this year we are seeing between a 70 and 80% decrease in filings over last year same time (reported by attorneys in our discussion group). Our district is 80% down from last year, 81.5% down from the 2003/2004 average. The Bankrate release claims a 75% decrease nationwide.

The study reported that 97% of the debtors could not make any payments on debt, indicating that the average consumer looking to file bankruptcy post 10/17 has less than $125 per month excess income. The report does not note if the credit counselors are using the IRS allowed expenses or not. The report also does not indicate how many of the consumers were below or above the median incomes for their areas.

The percentage of consumers facing financial difficulties as a result of events beyond their control, 79% in the study, is lower than our experience, but still higher than many would believe.

As for the increase in filings pre-reform having a significant impact on the credit card industry...well...a minor bump in the road:

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 7, 2006--The most recent Fitch Credit Card Index results indicate charge offs improving dramatically by declining 359 bps to 3.29%. Correspondingly, one-month excess spread improved in the latest period by 306 bps to a robust 8.38%, bringing the three-month average excess spread up 112 bps to 6%. Last fall's spike in personal bankruptcy filings has finally worked its way through U.S. credit card master trusts' performance measures.

'The pig in the python has been fully digested,' said Darryl Osojnak, Senior Director, Fitch Ratings. 'The outlook for charge offs is positive over the near term and master trusts should benefit from increased levels of excess spread going forward.

Isn't that nice! Do you think anyone is going to see a reduction in their interest rates?

The major banks have all reported profit decreases in the 4th quarter but this caught my eye:

<>The News Journal
<>01/24/2006

A new bankruptcy law that's been criticized as bad for consumers also turned out to be bad for Bank of America in the final months of 2005.

Bank of America, now Delaware's largest private employer following its buyout of Wilmington-based MBNA Corp., said Monday that fourth-quarter profit fell 2 percent largely because of increased loan write-offs related to the new federal bankruptcy law.

Bank of America said it earned $3.77 billion, or 93 cents a share, compared with $3.85 billion, or 94 cents a share, in the 2004 fourth quarter. Excluding $59 million in costs related to the 2004 acquisition of FleetBoston Financial, the bank would have earned 94 cents a share.

About $20m reduction in profit, not a loss, just a minor glitch in the profit.

As for other banks:

Last week, JPMorgan Chase said earnings at its Wilmington-based credit card unit plunged 41 percent because of higher bankruptcy filings.

MBNA also saw its earnings slump in the fourth quarter, the credit card giant's last as an independent company. MBNA's net income slid 49 percent to $389 million, or 30 cents a share, as revenue dropped 11 percent to $2.5 billion.

But wait a sec, from WebBolt:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. reported 2005 fourth-quarter net income of $2.7 billion, or $0.76 per share, compared with net income of $1.7 billion, or $0.46 per share, for the fourth quarter of 2004.

And from a PPT from Bank of America with regard to MBNA:

Net income of $1,771 million in 2005 and $389 million in 4Q05

How terrible was the impact? Really?

Do the numbers reflect a significant decrease in consumers in financial trouble? From the same Fitch report:

The Fitch Credit Card index is published during the first week of each month and includes month end data from two months prior, resulting in about a 35 day lag. Fitch's Credit Card Index for charge offs was 7.52% for Nov. 2005, a 144 bps increase over the same period in 2004. February's prime charge offs of 3.29% represent an improvement of 423bps from the peak observed in the November reporting period. Fitch expects charge offs to remain below 6% for the remainder of the first half of 2006 for the majority of the prime issuers.

The acceleration of charge-offs also purged a significant percentage of receivables from the 60+ day delinquency status for many portfolios. The current Fitch Credit Card Index 60+ day delinquency rate was 2.19%, an increase of 10bps from last month, yet down 77bps from the same time last year.

The charge off rate for Nov 2005 was 7.52%, 1.44 above the previous year....meaning about 6.08% If the Feb numbers were only 3.29, then we have a better than 50% reduction in the charge off rate post-BARF. Great. Except they are not expecting it to continue. How much an impact the increased minimum payment requirement is going to have on these numbers was mentioned somewhere in a report lamenting the reduction in profitability of credit card issuers from lost interest revenue.

If the people filing now are the real hard core, those that have no choice about bankruptcy, then the idea that the new law would only impact 5% or so of filers is wrong. 15-25% of filers in the past had no choice but to file and the law has of course made it harder and more expensive. Can they still file? Yes. But at what cost?

The study, along with reporting of the impact on credit card issuers, indicates that 1) the impact of bankruptcy on the bottom line of the credit industry was negligible, 2) consumers are staying away from bankruptcy in droves, 3) consumers most likely to file bankruptcy, are the ones closest to financial bottom, 4) opponents to the bankruptcy law were basing their positions on conditions closer to the truth than were the proponents.

Here is an interesting statistic from our district:

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Chapter 13 604 826 968 1125 1107 1123
Totals 5734 7432 8386 9371 9122 12687

Chapter 13 filings did not change AT ALL! The increase in filings was all Chapter 7.

An another:
From 1/1/05-3/1/05, our county had 68 foreclosures filed.
From 1/1/06-3/1/06, our county had 116 foreclosures filed.

Remember, foreclosures are usually filed only after consumers are more than 90 days behind in payments, meaning most of these consumers were in trouble PRIOR to the bankruptcy law changing.

The new law did nothing to stop the erosion of the financial condition of many consumers. For those with no where else to turn, the cost and difficulty of filing bankruptcy has added stress and expense when consumers can least afford them. The significant jump in bankruptcy filings did no more than cause an itch in bank profitability. With the change in credit card minimum payments and higher gas prices (fortunately a mild winter or heating bills would have been much higher), we are seeing more people in trouble and the law change is going to make it much harder for them to recover.

Jar Jar Binks Award goes to...

Ms Peggy Noonan!

I start with a dictionary definition, from American Heritage, not that anyone needs it because everyone knows what a lady is. It's a kind of natural knowledge. According to American Heritage, a lady is a well-mannered and considerate woman with high standards of proper behavior. You know one, the dictionary suggests, by how she's treated: "a woman, especially when spoken of or to in a polite way." Under usage, American Heritage says, "lady is normally used as a parallel to gentleman to emphasize norms expected in polite society or situations."

I would add that a lady need not be stuffy, scolding, stiff. A lady brings regard for others into the room with her; that regard is part of the dignity she carries and seeks to spread. A lady is a woman who projects the stature of life.

These definitions are incomplete but serviceable--I invite better ones--but keep them in mind as I try to draw a fuller picture of what it was like to be taken aside at an airport last week for what is currently known as further screening and was generally understood 50 years ago to be second-degree sexual assault.

Poor Ms Noonan. Her delicate sensibilities were offended...."No way to treat a lady" playing in the background as her Jar Jar Binks Award is placed on the mantel.

(HT to Soxblog )

Off topic and

a shameless plug.

I have a new blog up at No Time, No Money. Please check it out.

Dear Wisconsin

I hate liver, guacamole and eggplant. I hated Seinfeld, dislike wrestling, love golf, read science fiction and hate romance novels. I have freckles and fair skin. I work my ass off and snore. Is there any reason why I should be singled out for legislation opposing my choices for any of these items?

Exactly what threat do you think we represent to you? My partner and I have been together for more than 12 years, we are raising, what by all objection opinion is an intelligent, well adjusted happy 11 year old. We live in our community, participate in it's functions/events. We vote. We attend church weekly, are active in it's community. Our home is well maintained and appreciated by neighbors and visitors.

Apparently we are insufficient citizens. We do not rate similar legal protections as the majority of our neighbors. We are less of a family than other families in our state.

I am tired of hearing the excuses: we are not normal, we are shoving our lifestyle in your face, we corrupt the impressionable, it is against God. I will compare the hysteria concerning gay marriage to radical Islam's hatred of the United States.

Yes, it is the same. I am a NORMAL human being. I CHOOSE to be with another woman. Unlike many gays born to their preferences, I CHOOSE. And as an American, a veteran, I demand the right to the pursuit of happiness. Any attempt to abridge that right better have some serious support, and so far, DOMA and similar attempts are nothing but religious, arcane rants no different than those fanatics in the Middle East.

Grow up. The world changes, and right now, Wisconsin is about to join the likes of foot stomping fanatics screaming "it ain't right, it ain't right".

There has always been a small percentage of humans that have same-sex preferences. It occurs regardless of race, income, education, location. That in and of itself should be sufficient to support the concept that same-sex preferences are a normal variant of humanity.

Somehow my personal relationship is an affront to others. Apparently the United States is an affront to others. For hundreds of years, America has been a deviant. Democracy and capitalism a threat to the established order of the world. The only threat my relationship is to Wisconsin and the United States is that it might expose some for being less willing to accept freedom, liberty and democracy for others than for themselves.

Bias, bigotry and the Ports

It has been my goal to give people the benefit of the doubt until or unless they have given me reason to think otherwise. Some of the bloggers I respect and read regularly have come down on the side of opposition to the Ports Deal and I have stated pretty clearly that I think their position is a reaction to "Arabs" in general, Dubai in particular.

It has been hard to read their posts complaining that they are being labeled racist or bigoted because of their position when they clearly state very good reasons to be concerned by Dubai's dubious past.

But after feeling guilty for maybe labeling them inappropriately, I come back to, were they against it before they were against it with good reason? Is prejudice justifiable once cause is found?

A commentor noted that after the Mosque bombing last week, many outlets were saying "see, civil war, warned you it was inevitable" but after a few days, things have begun to settle down and civil war has been averted yet again by Iraqis that truly want peace. The commentor lamented the speed at which some want to paint the Iraqis as incapable of peace and any violence is used to support that PREJUDICE. Are there any companies doing business in the Middle East (of any corporate origin) that do not act in ways that would be unacceptable in the United States but simply must be done there to actually get anything done? How many countries and companies that we (the United States) do business with act in ways that are not in our best interest all or even most of the time, but are good business decisions? How many French or German or Japanese companies have pasts that we ignore, even justify on the basis that they are our ally and that the past is history?

Dubai is not a perfect ally. It has to operate in an area of immense danger to itself and it's citizens. It is NOT always going to act in ways we agree with.

I feel bad that bloggers I generally respect disagree with me about the ports, but how many of them supported their position with real concerns before opposing the deal? Honestly? I am afraid fewer than I hope.