Bipartisanship trap?
On Monday, "Paperwight" questioned making common cause with conservative bloggers against the bankruptcy bill, and I responded in an update to my post about the subject. Paperwight continued of the discussion on Tuesday with an interesting, thoughtful post. One of his key arguments:

I think that having a theoretically bipartisan coalition hurts rather than helps, since it actually tars the Republican blogger effort with the support of liberals (you remember us, we're objectively pro-Islamofascist, America-hating anti-family-values traitors). Far better for the Republicans to try to work on their Reps to limit their pro-corporate agenda in this one minuscule way (which effort will fail, as I'll explain in a moment) and for the Democrats to separately try to implant spines in their Reps (which may work, but I have my doubts, given the Senate votes).

I'm not sure this is merely a Republican blogger effort, but a centrist/independent one as well, even if that often seems to amount to the same thing. At any rate, I'm still left thinking, "how do you not help out when you've finally got some allies?" and argued in a comment to Paperwight's post that "[i]f some of [the Republican citizen supporters] wind up thinking "that DemocratFox was more on my side than Tom DeScorpion was," I think it would be worth the effort; 2% is all we need."

But paperwight's arguments are definitely worth reading. I agree that the Republican party in the House is probably unreachable; the question is whether demonstrating that to their own disaffected supporters and (former?) fellow travellers is worth the costs, if any, of blurring distinctions between those people and the rest of us. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:25:00 PM -- |  

 
How to destroy the earth (sci-fi version)

... 7. Sucked into a giant black hole

• You will need: a black hole, extremely powerful rocket engines, and, optionally, a large rocky planetary body. The nearest black hole to our planet is 1600 light years from Earth in the direction of Sagittarius, orbiting V4641.


• Method: after locating your black hole, you need get it and the Earth together. This is likely to be the most time-consuming part of this plan. There are two methods, moving Earth or moving the black hole, though for best results you'd most likely move both at once. See the Guide to moving Earth for details on how to move the Earth. Several of the methods listed can be applied to the black hole too, though obviously not all of them, since it is impossible to physically touch the black hole, let along build rockets on it.

The author, Sam Hughes, is steadily working his way through a variety of doomsday scenarios. Sadly, he hasn't got to my personal favorite yet (gravity-fuse neutronium bomb, described by Greg Bear in "Forge of God"). Hughes cautions: "Usual 'don't try this at home' disclaimers apply. I accept no responsibility for the destruction of Earth or any other celestial body."

Via Bruce Schneier, who comments, "While the DHS might view this as a terrorist manual and get it removed from the Internet, the good news is that obliterating the planet isn't an easy task." Schneier is actually a well-respected security expert who I've cited here a couple of times; he has an excellent blog, "Schneier on Security," which I've added to my rotating "specialty" blogroll.

But while Schneier's right about how hard it is to obliterate the planet, it's clearly fairly easy to vandalize it...



How to destroy the earth (political version)

... 4. Wreck wildernesses

• You will need: 51 Senators and 1 country too stupid to care.
  
  
• Method: Pass a bill opening up one of the last American wildernesses, so we can pump oil for idiots driving Hummers.
  

Great thanks to John Kerry and others in Washington, to grassroots folks like eRobin, altHippo, and to thousands of others for vocally trying to stop this.

Full disclosure with a dash of mea culpa: I briefly supported opening up ANWR back in late 2001 -- as part of a imaginary energy policy deal in the safety of my warm, cozy little blog. (I was thinking one might negotiate higher CAFE standards or other consumption reduction measures that way.) These days, deals like that are a pipedream; they were then, too, for that matter, but I foolishly thought "9/11 changed everything."

Plus, the more I think about a place this beautiful, the less I want it on the table as a bargaining chip. I guess I got my wish. Now it isn't. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:40:00 PM -- |  

 
Bankruptcy bill hackery
One Gail Heriot recently made a startling claim at the National Review Online:

"Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills — US Study." At least so said the Reuters headline in last week's story. And similar stories in newspapers across the country agree. Soon it will be repeated as gospel on Capitol Hill and by the chattering classes everywhere. Understandably, middle-class Americans have started to feel a little queasy about their health and about the adequacy of their health insurance.

The fundamental problem is that it isn't true. Despite what the authors have encouraged us to believe, the Harvard study, entitled "Illness and Injuries As Contributors to Bankruptcy," isn't really about medical bills, crushing or otherwise.

Heriot sniffs that it's not about medical bills, it's "about bankruptcies that can — at least if you're willing to stretch things a bit — be classified as medically related." But it turns out it's not much of a stretch. Here's the table directly from the study -- quite accurately titled "Illness And Injury As Contributors To Bankruptcy" -- by David U. Himmelstein, Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Thorne, and Steffie Woolhandler:

So the "[a]bout half cited medical causes" claim -- that is, what the authors point out, not what Reuters headlined -- rests on several other causes, and not just medical bills. I suppose you can argue a bit about gambling, some about drugs, a bit less about births and deaths. But you really can't argue that a bankruptcy is some kind of evidence of fiscal fecklessness if the person involved can't pay their bills because they're out of work for medical reasons. That's "medical" leading to "bankruptcy," however the lawyerly Ms. Heriot may wish to split hairs for readers of National Review or her blog. And you'll search in vain for that 21.3% figure anywhere in Ms. Heriot's article.

Unfortunately, bloggers like the popular and sometimes incisive Tom Maguire have relayed Heriot's spectacularly stupid analysis to an even wider readership. I imagine they were simply taking a hack at her word without having a look for themselves. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:05:00 PM -- |  

 
Do you know these bankruptcy bill co-sponsors?

Do you know this man?


His name is Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD-6). If you suspect that he may be your congressman, contact his office today.

Do you know this man?


His name is Zach Wamp (R-TN-3). If you suspect that he may be your congressman, contact his office today.*

Both men are co-sponsors of the House version of the Bankruptcy Bill, HR 685. Tell them you think they should withdraw their co-sponsorship of this bill, and vote against it when it comes to a vote.

Bartlett is the only co-sponsor so far from Maryland (my home state); other co-sponsors from Tennessee (my original home state) include Rep. Marsha Blackburn and Rep. William Jenkins. According to "Thomas," the Congressional electronic information service, the bill is currently "referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned."Curious whether your representative is a co-sponsor? Click the "HR 685" link above, and then the "cosponsor" button at the excellent "govtrack.us" web page monitoring this bill. Not sure what else to say? Go to Talking Points Memo - Special Bankruptcy Bill Edition for background on the awful Senate bill. I've not seen specific analysis of Sensenbrenner's HR 685 yet, but S.256 is always listed as a "related bill." That bill, to refresh memories, makes it harder and more expensive to file for legitimate bankruptcies, and leaves bankrupt families still owing crushing debt after bankruptcy is filed, without exceptions for age, medical causes, or service to the country.


=====
* Apologies to Simianbrain for stealing his idea.
UPDATE, 3/16: Julie Saltman co-blogger "MOK" has data showing Tennessee had the 2d highest bankruptcy rate in the nation (25.8 filings per 1000 households!) between April 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004; Maryland was 18th at 15.2 per 1000 households. Data were compiled by the American Bankruptcy Institute ("The Essential Resource for Today's Busy Insolvency Professional"). posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:44:00 PM -- |  

 
Some perhaps related and others probably not

News from Martha: "The experience of the last five months in Alderson, West Virginia, has been life altering and life affirming." You're a felon? Make felonade! It's the American way. Assuming, of course, you have the dough to do it -- that's the American way, too.

Todd Purdum: New York Times reporter, wordsmith:

But a wave of developments since the better-than-expected Iraqi elections in January - some perhaps related and others probably not - have brought Mr. Bush a measure of vindication, which may or may not be sustained by events and his own actions in the months to come.

--spotted by Robert Farley ("Lawyers, Guns, and Money"), where further comments -- some perhaps related and others probably not -- may or may not bring a measure of amusement (via Avedon Carol.)

But, alas, alas, Tom DeLay is not a dog. He is the Republican Majority Leader in the House of Representatives, very nearly a human being. And, like the last roach after the apocalypse, he will cling to his political life, assisted by those who cower in his shadow, until he has polluted the entire house with his stench.

-- from "If Tom DeLay were your dog," by The Rude Pundit (via Majikthise).

posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:30:00 PM -- |  

 
Department of followups

A day (or so) in the life of HIV --- In an article last week I didn't notice until AEGiS pointed it out, Slate's Amanda Schaffer notes that the Senate is being asked to consider supporting microbicide research:

Sens. Jon Corzine, Barack Obama, and Olympia Snowe are introducing a bill that would increase funding for microbicide research and coordinate the efforts of the government agencies that do it. [...]

One mathematical model, which focused on Johannesburg, South Africa, predicted that if 75 percent of area residents were to use a 40-percent-effective microbicide in half of the sexual encounters in which they didn't use condoms, the local incidence of HIV infection would drop by 9 percent.

On the one hand, as Ms. Schaffer points out, this kind of prevention is geared toward faithful married women, and ought to be popular among the social 'conservatives' driving AIDS policy these days. On the other, as my wife points out, it challenges the "AB not C" (abstinence, be faithful, forget condoms) paradigm of the Bush administration, since even among married women, use of microbicides tacitly assumes the married husbands aren't A or B. The bill is S. 550; consider writing the sponsoring Senators to express your appreciation, and/or writing other Senators to get them to co-sponsor. I'll even make it easy for you.

Rove quashed Bulgegate? --- In recent comments to that post, "murky" weighs in that "there's a simple and innocent explanation among those that have been floated" about the bulge many believe was visible under the back of Bush's suit during the debates: a bulletproof vest. He provides a picture, and adds "if I were in Bob Keller's position as Times editor and could reasonably and quietly euthanize this bulge story, I believe I'd be sorely tempted to do so." He may be right, although I think the vest would be too bulky to not be obvious. I'm also still curious about how Rove influenced the decision to kill the story. But if this story interests you, do check out murky's correspondence with a New York Times insider, who seems to have convinced murky that the "spike" was nothing more than a sensible news decision. I report, you decide.

Volunteer Tailgate Party: Lawyers, Guns, and Funny --- The Annette Stevens case -- the Million Mom March supporter who faces gun charges in Illinois -- took an interesting turn after the initial report. Via a March 3 freeper posting, the Springfield State Journal-Register reports that "Sangamon County State's Attorney John Schmidt said Wednesday his office is awaiting a lab result before deciding whether to file formal charges against Stevens." I can think of two kinds of lab results that would be interesting: (1) they're checking to see whether the gun was involved in some of the drive-by nonfatal shootings that sparked the investigation in the first place, or (2) they're trying to figure out when the gun's serial numbers were filed off. Ms. Stevens claims the gun was her son's; he died in a shooting 3 years ago, spurring her support for gun legislation. There's been no word since then as far as I can tell. If they find nothing, I think they'll owe this lady a big apology. If they find something, she'll owe her friends one.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:20:00 PM -- |  

 
The whole world is watching... H.R. 685
Just because Senate Democrats wasted the best chance to stop the bankruptcy bill doesn't mean the fight is over. The House still has to pass something, too. In this case, that's apparently Jim Sensenbrenner's H.R. 685 (GovTrack.us link here).

And it looks like there's something afoot in the blogosphere. I noticed a centrist blog acquaintance of mine, Reid Stott, writing a vehement letter about the bankruptcy bill to his Senators. It turns out there are a lot of other center and rightish blogs and media voices against this monstrosity as well, including tacitus, Instapundit, and the influential Motley Fool investing advice site (or at least Selena Maranjian, one of their longtime writers).

Via dailyKos, I see that Politology has started an anti-bankruptcy bill blog coalition, complete with writing assignments and the works. Maybe their voices will carry more weight with Republican representatives. At any rate I'm glad to see the attempt, and plan to help out, although my representative is Chris Van Hollen, who I figure is sure to vote against it anyway.

The politics of this coalition are heartening and troubling at the same time. I'd much rather S. 256 had been faced down by a united Democratic caucus in the Senate. But it wasn't. Now I'm joining the otherwise unappealing likes of Reynolds and Powerline in a last-minute effort against similar harsh bankruptcy legislation in the House. In the (unlikely) event that we win, their stature is enhanced -- but deservedly so, and a bad bill is defeated.* And if we lose, at least (a) they'll have learned how unimportant they are, too, even with outside help, and (b) we left no stone unturned. Another small thing will be that false charges of "too partisan to fight the good fight" can't be levied against left and center-left bloggers who joined in.

Meanwhile, all the Senators who voted for the bill or to end debate -- Republican, Democrat, MBNA, or otherwise -- should get an earful from their constituents.


=====
* At least until the House-Senate conference comes along, and then there's an opportunity to object to the way those conferences are being abused.

UPDATE, 3/14: In a comment, paperwight warns against joining forces, recalling the parable of the scorpion and the fox. But the situation here is unlike the parable in that the fox (us) has no realistic way of crossing the river without the scorpion (them). It seems to me we can always part ways later on, if the bill is allowed to proceed under "open rules" allowing amendments to Sensenbrenner's bill. I'd probably favor Democratic amendments over Republican ones at that point. Open rules are admittedly a big "if." But if that doesn't happen, the bill is probably a lock to win anyway. posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:30:00 PM -- |