Volume 2 Issue 85

June 3, 2003

Not a Good Thing

Martha prepares for her day in court, the NY Times has problems with geography, and Osama and Saddam....still haven't be caught

Yay! Martha Stewart is going to jail! Had to get that out of the way.

Anyway, I see that Hillary Clinton's book will be coming out soon, and many are saying that it will set the stage for her to run for President in 2008 or 2012, depending on the Democratic performance next year. Think of it...we could have Bush I, followed by Clinton, then Bush II, then Clinton II. And, if Hillary can't pull it off in 2008? Then brother Jeb Bush may be the victor. So Bush III. And Bill even wants to change the Constitution so that when his wife is done he can be President again! This is disturbing. I mean, are the only people really qualified to be President either named Bush or Clinton? In a nation of 275 million, this is the best we can do? I mean, I don't know if you've ever really looked at the various "Presidential caliber" members of these families, but they're not exactly the George Washington's of our time.

Political dynasties have always been part of American history, and I suppose that most political characters look better in retrospect. Take one of the earliest, the Adams'. John was the 2nd President, and son John Quincy was the 6th. Both were one-termers (a bad foreshadowing of 2004 for W?), and both weren't very popular at the time. But both have become legendary historical figures, revered in books and movies. The opposite is also true, with seemingly perfect dynasties like the Kennedy's having had their dirty laundry aired out in public so many times now it isn't even news (I mean, was anyone really surprised at the whole JFK intern thing?).

So perhaps its the new level of partisanship in the country, or the fact that we look fondly on those in the past. But still, are the Clinton's and Bush's really worthy of being our dynastic leaders? I mean, what happened to the Udall's? Or the Cabot-Lodge's? I mean, there were some decent, well respected political families. I know, I know, there are plenty other of folks out there that could dislodge our Clinton/Bush mentality, and if one of the other Dems pulls it off next year, Clinton II may not happen. But to be on the safe side, I'll start getting together my "Decision 2032" workup on the debates between Chelsea Clinton and Barbara Bush...

Onto the insanity!

Homeland Insecurity: So, um, George...where's Osama? A new CIA report (and given the lovely record on the whole Iraqi WMD things, take it for what its worth) says that Al Qaeda is preparing to use chemical or nuclear weapons in the United States -
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030603-122052-2698r.htm

Speaking of Saddam and Osama, the importance of finding out what happened to them is clearly illustrated in the saga of what happened to Adolf Hitler -
http://slate.msn.com/id/2083776/

Aftermath in Iraq: Former Secretary of the Army Thomas White, in his first interview since being forced out of his job, said that the Pentagon and Administration can't "come to grips with reality" over how complex their role in Iraq is now -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-02-white-usat_x.htm

Newsweek discusses the intelligence failures in the search for WMD, with the truth being Iraq may not have had any at the time of the war, and that Administration officials may have manipulated the WMD "evidence" to their liking -
http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp

Building on the Newsweek piece, Paul Krugman notes that the problem was the intelligence agencies, it was the politicians only listening to what they wanted to hear, and that lying and misleading the public is just part of the way the Bush administration works. Ouch. -
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/opinion/03KRUG.html

Great, now we're provoking Iran: Iran released 4 US soldiers they had held since Sunday, when their private contractor's boat accidentally entered Iranian waters -
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/02/iran.us.soldiers/i ndex.html

The Non-Tax Cut: Tim Noah does a good look at the criticism over the poor getting left out of the Bush tax cut, pointing out two important details. First, its not just people who don't pay taxes that are getting the shaft, many who do pay taxes are not getting cuts or actually paying more. Second, the Bush administration appears to have adopted an almost hatred for the poor in their public statements about the tax cut controversy. True feelings coming out?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2083852/

Charlie Rangel notes that the discussion of how the Bush tax cuts will result in massive program cuts or tax increases in the future is inaccurate. If you look at what states and local governments have had to do, taxes on most folks are actually going up, and services are decreasing. This is an important point for the Democrats to make in the next year, as most American's are now simply paying more in local and state taxes instead of in federal taxes. Which also means that the "stimulus" effect for the economy Bush desires won't happen, because the money will just go to pay higher taxes at the state and local level -
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/opinion/L03KRUG.html

Senators are rushing to add in child tax credits for the poor, perhaps making a few of the other cuts permanent while they're at it -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5119-2003Jun2.html

But Tom DeLay has said the House won't do that, according to CQ -
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said today that GOP leaders have little interest in moving legislation to ensure that millions of low-income families benefit from an increase in the child tax credit enacted as part of the reconciliation tax cut law (HR 2 -- PL 108-27). His hard-line stance provoked House Democrats, who announced they would seek to halt "business as usual" in the chamber by withholding their support for legislation scheduled for action under suspension of the rules."

Clamping down on Free Speech: So what really pissed me off yesterday is that the media companies were pissed off at yesterday's FCC decision, because it didn't go far enough towards removing ALL limits on ownership. Some are even planning to sue to get the rules thrown out entirely! Clear Channel Communications, who owns almost 50% of radio stations in the US thanks to the lifting of the radio cap, was especially pissed that the FCC tightened one rule on radio ownership, redrawing some markets to make them more realistic, and limiting Clear Channel's ability to gobble up more stations, even though they don't even have to divest the stations they have now that are in violation of the new law. -
http://www.clearchannel.com/documents/press_releases/2003060 2_Corp_FCCStatement.pdf

TV Writers say that further consolidation will make it hard to get quality programming on TV, and that many of the best shows on TV now and in the past would never have made it on in this new world -
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/business/media/03CREA.html

The Old Grey Lady in Decline: Perhaps the New York Times newsroom is depending on stringers a bit too much. They certainly need to get out of NY more often...today they published this correction -
"A map on Sunday with an article about the changing West 200 years after Lewis and Clark carried an erroneous label in some copies for a state bordering Missouri on the north. It is Iowa, not Ohio."
Sigh...

Off to Decorate the Big House: Martha Stewart will be indicted today on multiple charges, including insider trading, and perhaps obstruction of justice charges. Stewart apparently appealed to friends in Washington to stop the investigation to no avail -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7089-2003Jun3.html?nav=hptop_tb

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/Sto ryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1054416352117&p=1012571727088

Look Who's Running for President: Joe Lieberman has a good crowd pleasing line he's using..."I know I can beat George W. Bush...Why? Because Al Gore and I already have. And with your help we'll do it again." But that's about it as far as his mention of the 2000 campaign -
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LIEBERMAN_2000?SI TE=IADES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Look Who's Running for President 2: John Edwards talked education yesterday, toting his "College for All" plan, which just requires poor students to work in indentured servitude for a year to get a year of college for free -
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5998869 .htm

Here comes Hillary: Hillary Clinton's book bonanza tour begins this week with her interview with Barbara Walters -
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2003-06-02-hillary-usat_x.htm

Florida-like Election Alert: San Francisco's election this fall for Mayor is shaping up to be "interesting"...even by San Francisco standards. What is interesting though is that they're using what is called the "instant runoff" system, which if explained right to voters could actually be a good system -
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/02/BA274904.DTL

Bad John Edwards Photo of the Day:

No, that's not true. Twice I've worn a tie other than this ugly thing. That's two times!

Don't come back if you're not thin! Britain's ruling Labour party is considering not allowing fat people or smokers to see doctors -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-701379,00.html

Man's Best Friend: More evidence that dogs basically domesticated themselves, and have succeeded because they have a predisposition to work well with humans. A study recently found that dogs can follow human directions, understanding pointing, even only generally, while wolves and other like animals cannot -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2956766.stm

Maybe it was just a warning: A New Jersey public official was rescued yesterday after falling into the Hudson River, and hanging on to a sewage pipe for 4 hours until he was found -
http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-0/105463503330140.xml

Oh, that's what the problem is! The King of Swaziland has discovered the cause of the world's problems...Women are wearing pants. That and the whole human rights thing. And to think it was right in front of us all the time -
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/06/02/offbeat.pants.reu t/index.html

Is this a good idea? I know that George Bush wants to drive the Middle East peace process...but does he really have to drive the leaders around?
" At the outset of a Middle East peace conference today, President Bush was in the driver's seat. Taking the wheel of the large golf cart, Bush ferried the five Arab leaders to a photo opportunity in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, where they were meeting to discuss the administration's peace proposal. The chance to pilot any vehicle was no doubt a thrill for Bush, who doesn't get to drive often. "

Have a great day!