Playing into my '08 predictions: Edwards a threat

Hillary's camp came out today: They admitted their fear of John Edwards.

Washington Post reports that Edward's and Clinton having been mincing words in Iowa as the caucus nears, but Clinton is not making the best case for herself. In a discussion about Edwards signature issue of poverty, Clinton began citing the success of her husband's administration in the are of economics to bolster her rep.

"People talk about poverty in this campaign," Clinton said during a crowded event [in Independence, Iowa], noting her husband's ... was an era of great progress on the issue. "Well, we lifted more people out of poverty during the 1990s than at any time in our history. We had policies that actually helped to create 22.7 million new jobs..."

Let's pick this apart for a second.

Edwards claims that no one is talking poverty, so instead of citing her own record, Hillary jumps on the I-Used-To-Run-The-White-House train. Then, she claims that more people were "lifted out of poverty" than "any other time in our history." Huh?

 

Can you say Reconstruction Era? Can you say New Deal? 

Emerging from the Great Depression the US did a 180 degree economic turn-around, and I'm sorry Hil, but you can't match the level of disparity that was reached in those days. Roosevelt raised GDP 128 percent in 1944 when the US joined World War II. In the '30s, unemployment fell 20 percent due to New Deal policies. Large families who were in poverty in 1930 rose to the top of the middle-class bracket because they had four or five workers in the labor force, all of whom were working overtime by the beginning of World War II. So, Hil, take a look at your history... you may have outnumbered the New Deal, but you - oh, I mean, your husband certainly didn't out percentage the era.

And what's with taking credit for Bill's record anyway? This is exactly what is going to kill Hillary come DNC time. She has no record of her own to call upon. Yes, she has international notoriety. Yes, she can pull on her husband for pointers. Yes, she has had White House experience. But she was the First Lady, not a politician or a bureaucrat.  

In the end, when all polls have been taken and all the primaries are down, when the chips are laid down and nomination time rolls around, the Democrats will not nominate Hillary for one simple reason: she's not electable. No more than Barack Obama or me.

The DNC will see the nomination of John Edwards for Democratic Presidential Candidate. He is the only candidate with enough national name recognition, charm, whiteness, Protestant-ness, maleness and money to get the job done in November. 

Following his nomination (and this is just a hunch) Hillary's feelings will be really hurt and 

Barack's war chest will seem a waste, so they will run independent - separately of course - massacring the Democratic vote by splintering it into three, and another Republican will become president. God willing it will not be another neo-con, but maybe someone with a little more heart and a little less passion for oil money. 

But don't practice santeria; I ain't got no crystal ball; and if I had a million dollars, well, I wouldn't bet on this outcome. It's just a hunch. 

Nominee for King of England: JoePa

Happy 81st to the King of Happy Valley, Joe Paterno, and to  the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II.

Today, both monarchs reached a landmark - Queen Elizabeth is officially the oldest ruler in the history of England, and JoePa became the first Pennsylvania native to ever be linked directly with her for any significant historical reason. So, to commemorate this day, we are launching a new Campaign in 2008: JoePa for King of England.

It may not be an elected position, but Joe would certainly make it an interesting one.

(oh, and as a side note, while we are on birthday's, Samuel L. Jackson turned 52 today, but I don't think he's the Queen's type is you know what I mean.) 

2007 Congressional session a bust

Washington Post ran the following as "Hill Highlights" for 2007:

Raising the minimum wage to $5.85 an hour.

Increasing fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles.

Overhauling ethics and lobbying rules.

Instituting most homeland security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Tightening mental-health background checks for gun buyers.

I can't believe they call this progress.

• Unless you are 16 years old, work 65 hours per week or you live in shack in Centreville, Ky. $5.85 is nowhere near a living wage. 
  

• The fuel efficiency laws will not be entirely in effect for another 15 years. 
  

• There are no ethics in American politics, just look at the scandal record of the past - think Alan Mollohan, former House ethics committee chairman, who stepped down under the heat of an investigation into realty investments. He was later subject to an investigation into earmarks appropriated to a nonprofit run by one of his former aides, and cited for using public money to pay $220,000 to a Washington law firm to clear the whole thing up. Just a small example of business as usual in Washington - Ethics - Gawfah!
  

• Most Homeland Security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission... and we are giving these guys accolades? For what? They're speedy reaction to a nation crisis that occurred six years ago? Or, wait, no... It must be their ability to steal our civil liberties without anyone taking notice. Yea Free Press!!

• Tightening mental health checks for gun buyers. Now that is an important one. Just ask Michele Cossey, 46, of Plymouth Township, Pa. She bought a weapons stash for her 16 year-old son who then proceeded to plan a Columbine-style attack on a local high school. Fortunately he was found out and convicted prior to launching his plan, but I bet he sure is proud that his mom was able to pass the mental health checks. And, can you say "Black market?"
  

Let's get honest. Congress sucks, and they were especially bad in 2007.

Calif. emissions law slapped down

The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency denied the state of California's petition to enact stricter emissions regulations within its boarders today. The reason: The EPA wants to see a unilateral federal program rather than a "piecemeal" state-by-state regulation scale.

Sure, this will make things easier to regulate from a national level. Sure, it will make it easier for automakers to comply. But in reality, it is only stalling the process.

Washington Post reports: The decision set in motion a legal battle that EPA's lawyers expect to lose and demonstrated the Bush administration's determination to oppose any mandatory measures specifically targeted at curbing global warming pollution. A total of 18 states, representing 45 percent of the nation's auto market, have either adopted or pledged to implement California's proposed tailpipe emissions rules, which seek to cut vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016.

In a telephone news conference last night, [EPA Administrator Stephen L.] Johnson said he thinks that the higher fuel-economy standards and increased renewable-fuel requirements in the energy bill President Bush signed into law yesterday will do more to address global warming than imposing tailpipe rules in individual states.

"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules, to reduce America's climate footprint from vehicles," Johnson said. "President Bush and Congress have set the bar high, and, when fully implemented, our federal fuel-economy standard will achieve significant benefits by applying to all 50 states."

Congress passed an emissions regulation Tuesday aimed at reducing gasoline consumption (read about it... it's a good article), but California's rules would target total greenhouse gas emissions, including auto air conditioning units and the so-called "carbon-footprint" of cars.

California standards are seeking a miles-per-gallon average of 33.8 by 2016 in every vehicle operating within the state. The federal energy law is slightly more lax, requiring an average fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2020.

You can anticipate a battle like many California laws that have come before (cough, cough: legal marijuana) over states rights.

Refugees in limbo

Syria doesn't want them. Iraq is not safe for them. The US will not provide for them. The global community is uneducated about their situation. So where do the millions of "middle class' and impoverished Iraqi refugees turn? Less than a month ago, the government announced a plan to run free buses from Damascus to Baghdad in hopes of luring citizens back home and establishing an image of stability, but the plan was halted after only two runs. Security issues were cited as cause.

As for those who have made the return, their outlook is bleak. They return with no money, no jobs, no homes and a lingering question: "What will I do now?"

New York Times ran a piece on Maha Hashim, the widow of an Iraqi police officer, which encapsulated the problem. Read it here.

It is still my hope to pursue more stories exactly like this one in Syria. For more information on my plan, email me.

Media in media spotlight

Congress seeks end to secrecy

WASHINGTON (AP) Tuesday — Congress struck back at the Bush administration's trend toward secrecy since the 2001 terrorist attacks, passing legislation to toughen the Freedom of Information Act and increasing penalties on agencies that don't comply. ... It would be the first makeover of the FOIA in a decade, among other things bringing nonproprietary information held by government contractors under the law. The legislation also is aimed at reversing an order by former Attorney General John Ashcroft in the wake of the attacks, in which he instructed agencies to lean against releasing information when there was uncertainty about how doing so would affect national security.  

Monopoly regulations eased
Rupert Murdoch led the charge to convince the Federal Communications Commission to ease restrictions on media owners which had previously prohibited industry-moguls from owning multiple media companies on multiple media platforms in one market.

In english: Corporations can now own print, television and radio broadcasting outlets in the same American cities.

Yahoo! reported Tuesday:
There was never any doubt that FCC chair Kevin Martin, a Bush-Cheney administration appointee and acolyte, would lead the two other Republican members of the commission to a 3-2 endorsement of a move to begin dismantling the historic "newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership" ban which has long served as the only barrier to the buying by one powerful individual or corporation of newspapers, television and radio stations and other media outlets in a community.

What does this mean for the future of the media? Look for a lot more advertising driven news. Period.

Crying 'Dyke'
CBS 3's soon-to-be-former newsanchor Alycia Lane was arrested in NYC last weekend and apparently got hostile with the officer attempting to take her into custody. She allegedly assaulted the officer, punching her and calling her a "fucking dyke." Great choice of words Alycia.

The gay community in Philly has had a notably silent reaction. Though a few civil rights groups spoke out against the use of the word, most people in "the life" shrugged and said, "We use that word all the time." My favorite lesbian comicstrip Dykes To Watch Out For is a prime example.

Today, PhillyBurbs blog started calling for Lane to do a spread in Playboy. But considering a significant portion of Playboy subscribers are lesbians, somehow I find the idea, well, unlikely at best.

Chicago Trib purchase

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire investor Sam Zell completed the $8.2 billion buyout of Tribune Co., ending the newspaper publisher's 24 years as a publicly traded company. ...

"The whole newspaper industry has realized that the world is changing around them,'' said James Goss, an analyst with Barrington Research in Chicago. `It's clear that the changes are more dramatic than anybody was really envisioning and the business model revamp is going to be much greater than people were thinking.''

Look for a heck of a lot more uniformity across the board, folks. We are consolidating the industry... rapidly.

And to think I would actually consider joining the military for 'structure'

Which Pixar Character Are You?
	You are Nemo. Your are the rebel in the group. You do things differently, not because you think they should be done that way, but because your Mommy told you not to do such "bad" things. This is cool if you ask us, and we are pretty sure your friends agree.
Find Your Character @ BrainFall.com