Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I know you are being slightly tongue-in-cheek on this, but how do you feel about what this says about our system?

Its the worst system save the rest. Seriously, the problem is the public just doesn't pay attention. That is why the special interests are so strong. I don't focus much on national politics becaue it is just too hard to influence stuff. There are too many players and to much money sloshing around. That is why I focus on state and local politics. I don't pay much attention to federal legislation because I can't do much of anything about it.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"You! Yeah, you! The guy who was just run over by three dirt bikes. Come take a picture with me. Smile, we're gonna put this picture in the stable next to my wife!"

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What happened last night was completely natural, but then again we don't need to go telling anyone anything about it. Just smile for the camera.

[Spanky]

Geopolitical Diary: Friday, March 11, 2005

Apart from a nearly predictable pattern of suicide bombings in Iraq, al Qaeda for the most part has fallen eerily silent. Nevertheless, it still managed to make the news on two fronts Thursday, at a time when there was no shortage of major stories around the world.

First, ABC News broadcast a confidential FBI report that questioned al Qaeda's ability to mount any further "spectacular attacks" against the United States, and acknowledged that Bureau officials know of no sleeper cells within the country. The 32-page report was considered exciting because it contradicted statements by Director Robert Mueller, who told Congress last year that officials believed sleeper cells were probably in place. Only a month ago, Mueller -- in concert with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and CIA Director Porter Goss -- again sounded an ominous note, telling the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that sleeper agents could attempt to use weapons of mass destruction in an attack.

From our standpoint, while the existence of the secret report itself may be news, the rest of the news is not. Though not prone to betting against al Qaeda, we have been known to question the sleeper cell theory, while acknowledging that some of our sources firmly believed at least a small number of sleeper agents to be present within the country. We also have discussed the logic for a spectacular strike and the group's apparent lack of ability to mount one, at least by American definitions. The FBI report also lines up with our thinking in discussing the need for al Qaeda to recruit new operatives who do not fit the jihadist profile of young, Middle Eastern or South Asian males.

Together with other recent events, the FBI document seems to point toward a serious weakening of al Qaeda.

If reports can be trusted that Osama bin Laden has asked Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to expand operations beyond Iraq and attempt to strike at the continental United States, then the group may really be in trouble. There are two reasons for this. First, the move would indicate a high degree of reliance on al-Zarqawi, whose organization is only newly allied with al Qaeda, for continuing street cred. And second, there were new reports Thursday that al-Zarqawi's operations network has been all but wiped out. The Iraqi government released a statement saying that although al-Zarqawi and Abu Talha, reportedly the network chief in Mosul, remain at large, 11 of al-Zarqawi's lieutenants have been captured and seven others killed. If the Iraq organization is now al Qaeda's main stem of operational support throughout the world, it would be a slender reed indeed.

But even more interesting, to our mind, is a lesser-noticed report from Europe, where the Islamic Commission of Spain denounced bin Laden as an apostate.

Now, what this actually means, in terms of religious process or consequences, is not entirely clear. The Islamic Commission of Spain is the main body representing the country's 1 million Muslims, and the group's secretary-general, Mansur Escudero, said its fatwa was privately supported by Muslim leaders in Morocco, Algeria and Libya as well. But whether the edict actually accomplishes what is intended -- to excommunicate bin Laden from the body of Islam -- remains a question.

Though moderate Muslims the world over have regularly condemned al Qaeda and terrorism in the name of Islam since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Spanish organization is the first to move beyond political condemnation of bin Laden to eternal condemnation. And that's probably because the issue of excommunication within Islam is extremely complex. Not only does it require findings of specific criteria (which are not easily established), but it is not clear who has the overall say in making the decision; there are too many rival authorities with competing claims of recognition.

Thus, while there is broad consensus among moderate Muslims that bin Laden is repulsive, whether he actually can be declared a kafir is going to excite some debate.

For bin Laden and Muslims in general, this is no trivial matter. The Spanish fatwa will put pressure on other Muslim authorities to respond -- especially those in Western countries and in the United States particularly -- declaring whether they agree or disagree. And from a theological standpoint, the excommunication of the leader of a group that asserts itself as the vanguard of the Muslim world will be a thorny matter -- to say the least.

It is useful here to note a discussion on terminology that only recently has begun to gain traction in Washington. Several leading U.S. Muslim scholars long have referred to the activities of al Qaeda and other militant groups as "hirabah" (terrorism) -- rejecting use of the word "jihad," which has authentic purposes within Islam and thus, it is argued, confers a degree of legitimacy to illegitimate acts.

This discourse is likely to play into the coming intra-Muslim debate, at least to some degree. At any rate, religious entities that are reluctant to declare bin Laden as a kafir due to the technical difficulties of the process will risk being seen as tacit sympathizers. And those that align with the Spanish commission will be viewed by many Muslims as tampering with their theology, even if they do not support al Qaeda's cause.

We suspect bin Laden will be counting on this debate to help shore up what appears to be his increasingly fragile position.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
"You! Yeah, you! The guy who was just run over by three dirt bikes. Come take a picture with me. Smile, we're gonna put this picture in the stable next to my wife!"

True. Although this makes absolutely no sense. However, you're on CST, so I suppose you could be drunk by now.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
True. Although this makes absolutely no sense. However, you're on CST, so I suppose you could be drunk by now.

I hear Friday calling me.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I hear Friday calling me.

Enjoy your Jesus juice!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Acknowledging that the tradition of pageantry for royal weddings must sometimes bow to reality, the Queen has directed the Protocol Office to approve the small, simple civil ceremony that Prince Charles and his bride desire.

[Spanky]

Bankruptcy laws

Now pay it back

Mar 10th 2005 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition


At last, Congress gets tough on debtors

LAST year, nearly 1.6m Americans filed for relief from their creditors. That number has almost doubled in the past decade. Under current law, people get their debts wiped away by the mere act of filing under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. But a new law, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, makes that much harder. It imposes a means test that would force people who earn more than their state's median income into Chapter 13 of the code, which requires debtors to submit to a repayment plan. It would also make poorer debtors jump through many more hoops to get relief.

The American Bankruptcy Institute has statistics about bankruptcy in America and news of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.

As The Economist went to press, the bill looked likely to pass the Senate. The Republicans had fended off nearly every Democratic bid to soften it. They also voted down an attempt by Chuck Schumer, the senior senator from New York, to tack on a provision blocking violent protesters, including those protesting outside abortion clinics, from filing for bankruptcy in order to avoid fines. (This amendment had sunk the bill in previous years, when pro-life House Republicans revolted.) Now the bill is in a shape both the House leadership and George Bush say they will accept. But is it a sensible reform?

America's 30-year-old bankruptcy law—as Democrats and consumers' groups point out—is rooted in the idea of a “fresh start” for honest debtors who have had a spot of bad luck—illness, divorce, a lost job. But credit-card issuers and banks have long been pushing for a change. The stigma of bankruptcy, they argue, has eroded, and Chapter 7 is too often used as a financial planning tool. Meanwhile, honest borrowers are forced to pay a “bankruptcy tax” in the form of higher interest rates and credit-card penalties.

Is the system really abused? In fact, evidence suggests that the boom in personal bankruptcies has more to do with the piling on of consumer debt than with debtors playing the system. In the 1990s, revolving debt (mostly credit-card debt), grew by as much as 12% a year; from 1980 to 2004, it increased nearly 15 times. And the non-partisan American Bankruptcy Institute puts the number of bankruptcy filers who could afford to pay a good chunk of their debts at 3.6%: still a big number, but not nearly as much as the 10% or more claimed by creditor groups.






In any case, the bill's means test (an average of the debtor's past six months of income) should catch those who can clearly pay up. But opponents fear that the test, which they think too harsh and arbitrary, will drag those who rightly belong in Chapter 7 unfairly into court.

More troubling is the part of the legislation that makes it harder for poorer debtors, not likely to be the abusers of the system, to file for bankruptcy. Some 84% of all filers are too poor to qualify for the new law's means test. But they will still be put through a great deal of rigmarole to get relief. For example, all debtors will have to get credit counselling before they file—a costly process, and one which does little to steer people out of bankruptcy. The bill also requires people to produce all sorts of paperwork, from payroll stubs to tax returns. Those who have not kept strict records will have to give up or pay for a lawyer to plead their case in court.

Other quirks of the legislation make one wonder why credit-industry groups are so keen on it. One loophole allows rich debtors to go on shielding assets in special trust accounts that are legal in a few states. And debtors' fancy homes in Texas and Florida will still be off-limits to creditors. The bill's backers say that fear of trampling on states' rights stopped them closing such loopholes. But it smells rather pervasively like special treatment for the rich.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You'll have to stop by later, old chap. Mr. Jackson has spoken very highly of you.

[ETA Spanky got it first]

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is why the special interests are so strong. I don't focus much on national politics becaue it is just too hard to influence stuff. There are too many players and to much money sloshing around. That is why I focus on state and local politics. I don't pay much attention to federal legislation because I can't do much of anything about it.

Please define which interests are "special."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Please define which interests are "special."

Any group that is organized around a self serving issue or set of issues. A good indicator is if they have hired a lobbyist. Examples. They place the interest of the group above the welfare of the country as a whole.

The united ice cream makers association: wants higher tariffs on imported ice cream and lower tariffs on mild, cream and whatever else the use to make their product.

Classic special interest groups:
1) Telecom industry
2) Corporate agricultural interests
3) Unions: want to keep their members jobs even it sacrifices other jobs from being created or reducing prices for the american consumer
4) Trial lawyers


I don't consider anyone group that thinks it is benefitting the country as a hole a special interest. Even if I disagree with them

Pro-choice groups
Pro-life groups
environmental groups
pro-gun and anti gun groups - except for gun manufactureres association - they are a special interest just because they care about themselves.

not a perfect definition but the one I use.

[taxwonk]

Before anyone other than Club gets a hernia worrying themselves over the poor credit card issuers who are losing money on bankrupt borrowers, let's inderstand one simple fact. Most of these issuers have already earned a huge profit on these borrowers; profit that dwarves the relatively small amount of the average writeoff.

Your average subprime credit card offer looks a lot like this:

The borower gets a "chance to rebuild their credit."

The credit limit on the account is around $250-500.

The card issuer charges an annual fee of about $40-50.

There is a $25-30 charge on each of the following: overlimits; late payments; bounced checks.

The issuer applies payments to these fees and interest before the first dollar of principal is paid.

There is a reason that the subprime segment of the market is the fastest growing and most lucrative segment, even after bankruptcies are factored in.

These assholes are even worse than insurance companies.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
These assholes are even worse than insurance companies.

An old, but very good, article supporting everything but your last intemperate statement:

http://editorial-ene.com/Credit-Card...es-article.htm

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
.... your last intemperate statement:

I apologize if I offended you, old man. However, I have a bit of a bone to bite with an industry that collects whatever it chooses in premiums, then, when you make a claim on the policy they've been reaping in premiums for years from, they get to decide whether or not they will honor their commitment to pay the claim, and to what degree.

Case in point. The hospital charges me $X for a visit. The insurance company decides that only $X-Y is "reasonable" for the hospital stay. I don't get to do that; why should they? For that matter, why shouldn't I be able to say "I'm sorry, but a "reasonable" premium would be about 15% lower, so that's what I'm paying you for coverage.

And don't even get me started on how the insurance industry, with its "delay, delay, delay, and only then pay" strategy has created the "tort crisis" out of whole cloth.