Anti-Pap, Anti-Iraq
USA
Today leads with mounting criticism of Kenneth Starr, mincing no words
in referring to "his probe into President Clinton's sex life." The Washington Post leads with the rise in doctors' disability
insurance claims. The Los Angeles Times goes with the Clinton administration's
desire to drop the annual process of certifying that Mexico and other nations
are cooperating in the drug war in favor of setting up an international
anti-drug alliance that such countries would join. The New York Times
lead states that the "consumer" health-care laws (the scare-quotes are supplied
by the Times ) being discussed in state capitals tend to focus more on
protecting "the incomes, jobs and turf of the health-care system's biggest and
richest vested interests," namely, specialist physicians and managed-care
plans.
Doctors used to be among the most dependable workers in America, but
according to the WP , they've been leaving their jobs to collect disability benefits in such high numbers that
insurers now view them as in the same claim risk echelon as grocery cashiers
and bank tellers, and even riskier than shipping clerks and traveling salesmen.
Not to mention far below lawyers, accountants and engineers. The most likely
explanation: stress and unhappiness brought on by the widespread advent of
managed care. As a result, disability premiums for docs are up big-time: one
big insurer is charging nearly 25 percent more than just last summer.
USAT 's off-lead states that "the Clinton administration began making
the case for military action against Iraq to a U.S. audience Sunday.." That
"began" is a little unfair, isn't it? The paper goes on to point out that
Congress, which began a week's recess Friday, left without passing a resolution
authorizing force. Isn't this a rather telling demonstration of Congress'
priorities? Hmmm...what should I do: Decide on whether or not to go to war
or...take a vacation?
The NYT front discusses some of the events that could affect the
timing of any military action against Iraq. Chief among them: moon
phases (stealth aircraft are easier to eyeball under a full moon), Parents'
Weekend at Stanford (President Clinton and Hillary are scheduled to go, and
that's not the best place to conduct a war from), and the Olympics (there's an
international convention that nations refrain from war during the Games).
USAT reports that, as part of his pitch on a Sunday "This Week" shot,
Secretary of Defense Cohen showed a photo of a Kurdish woman and child killed
by Iraqi chemical weapons. Yet a front-page piece by LAT Middle East
expert Robin Wright states that in the eyes of some U.S. intelligence experts,
the U.S. knew the intelligence it supplied to Iraq in the 80s (during its war
with Iran) would be used to develop chemical weapons plans.
The LAT front also brings word of anti-paparazzi legislation about to be introduced by Sen. Dianne
Feinstein. The "Personal Privacy Protection Act" (it sounded better than the
"Alec Baldwin Should Be Able To Punch Out Photographers" Act) would, says the
paper, preserve the right to photograph celebrities in public, but would crack
down on actions that could jeopardize safety. This is a fine example of what
Slate deputy editor Jack Shafer has called a therapeutic law: it
accomplishes nothing, except perhaps to make us feel good via the illusion of
accomplishing something. Really, how many examples are there of paparazzi
endangering (as opposed to merely inconveniencing) celebrities? Princess
Di's death turned out not to be one--it was drunk driving. The LAT lead
mentions a mob of photographers outside Monica's house waiting for a glimpse,
but again, where's the safety issue there? The paper also mentions Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver being cut off in traffic by videographers, but
that just gets at the redundancy of the law: reckless driving is already
against the law, as is trespassing on somebody's doorstep. "Today's Papers"
suspects that Sen. Feinstein gets all this, but can also do the math: a bill
protecting the rights of Arnold and Alec means serious donations.
Saddam's complaint that has led to the current impasse is that the U.N.
weapons inspectors are U.S. spies. And yet on the WP 's front, R. Jeffrey
Smith makes the point that if U.S. military planners do attack Iraq, they will
be drawing in part on data about Iraqi capabilities and targets collected by the U.N. teams.
On Sunday, the NYT used the Bill-Gates-pie-in-the-face incident as a
springboard for a "Week in Review" thumbsucker about the history of food as a
weapon. It wasn't enough to have the de rigeur mention of James Cagney
grapefruiting Mae Clark. There were also references to the Peloponnesian war,
the Irish Rebellion, Bismarck, and the siege of Leningrad. But most special,
however, was this passage: "A pie in the face, it's Soupy Sales stuff," said
Andrew Smith, who teaches culinary history at the New School for Social
Research."
