THE ECONOMIC SUMMIT: YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR 

     So listen, it has gotten to the point where it is impossible to make fun of what's going on.  It's too ridiculous to make fun of.  Really.

     Take, for example, the President's "Economic Summit."  If you don't watch C-SPAN, it's hard to even know it took place (although you'll see clips of "real" people supporting whatever Karl Rove decides Bush ultimately wants in plenty of ads over the coming year).      

     First, we MUST "rein in" lawsuits -- those out-of-control, class action, liberal judge-shopping predatory lawyers snookering average people just to stick it to the corporations attacks on the free market.  Trial lawyers: clearly Communists.  Specifically, we must stop those pesky asbestos, class action (Vioxx anyone?), and medical malpractice lawsuits that are bankrupting the companies that contribute so generously to the Republican party...oh, sorry, I meant those companies that do so much to create American jobs (one of these days, anyway).

     Watching our President attempt to look like he was intently interested in what was being said at the well-scripted event was enough to make me weep...or laugh. 

     The Presidentially-picked members of the Social Security Commission included the head of Time-Warner ("We don't want people to just put [the money] in their pocket -- they might go to the track.  We don't want that yet.").  They already have their minds made up about what needs to be done -- and it includes siphoning off part of the Social Security taxes into the market (the head of J.P. Morgan-Chase was coincidentally also at the table as a member of the Commission). 

     Bush said we don't intend to allow people to just go to Vegas and bet the money, but what's the difference?  I really don't see any.  If the "safe" intestments the government will "allow" for the private accounts are so safe, why aren't they suggesting putting current Social Security funds into those accounts and saving the system by increasing the returns NOW. 

     Our President, who has pushed us into the greatest debt and deficit in our nation's history, said: "Now is the time to solve these problems and not pass them on."  There is almost no way to respond to that; its absurdity is beyond exaggeration.  We are already going to pass on this deficit and debt to my grandchildren, and now Bush wants to add $1-2 Trilion (yes, with a T) for the "up-front transition costs" that he plans to borrow (who's left to borrow from?).

     Ron Insana of MSNBC, in his commentary on Bush's plans, said, "The financial community may stand to benefit from some privatization of the Social Security system."  MAY?  Give me a break.  They're the ONLY ones who will benefit.  The system itself will be wrecked, the costs will go beyond anything currently predicted (if only because the government will not only have to pay off the costs, but also secure retirement for those left without adequate resources),and we will hasten the headlong rush toward a two-class society where the free market is considered the be-all and end-all of societal organization. 

     Hey, maybe things were better before unionization, and the New Deal, and the government turning all of us into greedy consumers of government largesse funded by those who were fortunate enough to do well (or inherit well). 

     I don't know about you, but I just think the only way to survive this insanity is to keep some perspective via a sense of humor.  This reality show is definitely beyond satire.  Where are the Marx Brothers when you really need them?   

EVERYTHING'S A PRODUCT WHEN YOU RUN A COMPANY...ER, COUNTRY

     Sheesh -- they paid someone to look like a reporter to "sell" their bogus prescription drug product...er, policy, and then they paid a syndicated broadcaster to "sell" No Child Left Behind (the irony of that program name can't be overstated), and the White House, from whence all Executive Branch policies spring, is not responsible.

     Don't these guys EVER take responsibility for anything?  Oh, yeah, I forgot, they take credit for anything that does better than their worst predictions, like job creation or the war in Iraq (well, it could have been worse).

     A group that claims to stand for individual accountability is sure setting a bad example.  They're not responsible for 9/11, or bad intelligence, or misunderstandings (I love that word) about justifications for war, or the budget deficit after inheriting history-making surpluses, or the abuse of prisoners (those pesky partyers - tsk, tsk), or a sluggish economic recovery, or record debt, or debilitating the recruitment of National Guard personnel (and just who IS assigned to make sure we have coverage for state needs?), or alienating most of our allies and much of the rest of the world, or lying during the campaign for the Presidency, or trashing a genuine war hero's record, or deliberately pushing a litmus-test judiciary, or -- okay, you get the point.

     So call me naive or a Pollyanna, but I still believe in owning up to my mistakes (after a reasonable argument that my choices were justified), admitting when I'm wrong (seldom, but nevertheless possible), and I believe in giving more information that is "required" so that others have the fullest possible context within which to judge me and the situation. 

     I trust the intelligence of others (maybe without justification, but I do) to sort through diverse information and then come to conclusions which are usually pretty grounded and fair-minded.  Isn't that why we trust our jury system (well, not the administration, but then that's my point, isn't it).

     The reality that the Department of Education, part of the Executive Branch, paid almost a quarter million dollars to Armstrong Williams, a conservative black broadcaster and talking head apologist (paid) for the White House policies, and then tries to justify that action as "legal," is almost beyond outrage -- it's just plain stupid.    

CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO - SHAME! SHAME!

     What is it with conservative talk show hosts?  Have they actually given up all decency and humanity strictly for ratings?  Is it really necessary to cater to the lowest, most base instincts of the audience?

     When supposedly educated and relatively reputable individuals like Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (okay, maybe the latter isn't even remotely reputable) go on the air and yell about how people deserved to be swept away by an act of God, or justify torture in the name of those killed on 9/11 -- how can that be consistent with the FCC's standards of decency in broadcasting.  Surely, a brief glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast is not even remotely as offensive.  Where is there ANY sense of responsibility on the part of the stations that carry such garbage?

     I'm willing to have Anne Coulter saying outrageous nonsense to sell her books and get her face on TV.  I'm willing to have Michael Medved spouting platitudes that have no basis in logic in the name of "preserving American culture."  And I will suffer the likes of Gordon Liddy or "Col." Ollie North, convicted criminals (in spite of any "technicalities"), supposedly interpreting current events from their particular skewed perspective. 

     But I cannot bear, in the face of such human suffering as that in Southeast Asia or in Abu Ghraib, the disgusting justifications given for condoning actions that are the antithesis of our national values.  It is NOT okay to suggest that a region has been targeted by God because it is the "center of child exploitation" (Savage).  Or to explain that in view of those who died on 9/11, it is okay to subject detainees to treatment that goes WAY beyond what we would consider humane if it had happened to one of our own.      

     Such knee-jerk and intellectually bereft support of policies that violate human norms is unsupportable under any circumstances.  Why should it matter whether someone is a terrorist or a soldier?  Each is an enemy, sworn to oppose us, and equally entitled to be treated by us in accordance with OUR values and those of the United Nations and the Geneva Convention (WE came up with all that, remember?). 

     I know there is a strong vindictive and vengeful streak still remaining in our genetic makeup -- we have not yet evolved that far from the slime.  But each of us can commit to adding some modicum of humanity, and our own concept of what God should ultimately be, to the ever-changing picture of who we are as a species.  One way is by refusing to let these hateful, petty, small-minded, media whores push forth such garbage on our public airwaves. 

     YOU can make a difference.  All it takes is a phone call, an email, a response on the air.  Don't let such indecency represent you.  It surely does not represent me.        

Rules of War: ShootThe Wounded?

     Call me naive, but I really thought there were rules for war. I thought we had all agreed, sometime after World War II, that the "civilized" nations of the world would abide by some minimum rules so everyone would understand that war is a kind of game -- a deadly game, to be sure, but a game nonetheless.
     Oh, sure, the President keeps saying this is a different kind of war, and there are no rules when you're fighting against terrorists. But come on, all war is about acts of terrorism -- killing innocents (collateral damage), holding people hostage (siege), torture to get information from the enemy (Abu Ghraib).
     Now, we have pictures of Americans shooting the wounded. Fox News has been showing the entire video (minus the "too graphic" part of the actual act of shooting a wounded man in the head) of an incident that took place in a mosque in Fallujah. But another incident was shown earlier in the week in an alleyway next to a building, when one GI said, "There's a wounded guy down here," and another GI went down the alley, shots heard, and came back saying, "Not any more."
     Commentators can say "the fog of war" all they want, but that doesn't change the fact that war makes just plain killers out of everyone on both sides. Just because our cause is "just" and our motives sound good to us, that doesn't change what is happening, or that the other side thinks the same of their justifications for horrific acts.
     I hope the VA is setting aside plenty of money to pay for all the shrinks that will be required to help those lucky enough to return. They're going to need it.