Front page on the New York Times is the heartwrenching story of Ken Lay, ex-CEO of the fabulously corrupt energy broker Enron. It seems that from once being "worth" over $400 million he now has less than $1 million that he can call his own.
On the campaign page inside is a story about Howard Dean saying that Ralph Nader is the biggest threat to John Kerry. Maybe the biggest threat, Howard, is the perception that the Democratic party is a bunch of spineless Republican wannabes. Maybe the threat is seeing your impassioned anti-war campaign in the primary, Howard, readily locked back into the closet to instead pretend Kerry is the best we can hope. Maybe if Kerry tried stealing some of Nader's issues instead of just Bush's, you wouldn't have to worry so much. In 2000, the general trend was that where Nader did well so did Gore. Which side are you on?
Meanwhile, the Canadian Conservative party is rising with a brilliant political philosophy: more military spending and lower taxes. And they might win! The only way such a ridiculous platform -- one that both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. endorse -- makes sense is that as the government's social services have to be cut off from a lack of funds, the larger and better-equipped military will be needed to keep the increasingly disenfranchised population subdued. I don't think that's how they explain it, though.
Finally, in a story about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, a viewer is described providing one-word characterizations of the players on screen: Rumsfeld: dangerous. Ridge: idiot. Wolfowitz: traitor. Bush: clueless.
