Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Difficult Kids

Here's a piece by a guy named Neal Pollack regarding his son. (It's on Salon, which makes you watch an ad before you can read their stuff, so the link might not work. Excuse me if this is a pain - I'm not quite up on this technology as yet.)

Mr. Pollack's kid, who is two or three years old, got thrown out of several preschools because he's taken to biting the other kids at irregular intervals. He's drawn blood on several occasions.

Mr. Pollack is a writer and works at home, and his wife is a painter and does the same. Now they have nowhere to send their son until summer is over, which means three months of dealing with, at best, an energetic toddler with violent tendencies. Like most parents, the Pollacks love their son and see his good qualities towering over his bad ones, but they don't blame the schools for sending him home. Nevertheless, they worry about getting their work done with the kid underfoot all day. Not to mention their worry about the boy and what can possibly be bothering him to such an extent.

I'm not a parent, and I can well understand their concerns, but I still think Mr. Pollack's attitude is a selfish one. So I wrote Salon a letter explaining why:

For all Mr. Pollack's attempts to be evenhanded, his awkward acknowledgement that teachers are overworked and other parents are worried sick about young Elijah's attacks, there is something distasteful about his complaints. I'm sympathetic toward his inability to place his kid and his description of what a sweetie Elijah is despite his tendency to bite, but most of my sympathy is reserved for those who have to deal with the little monster while Mr. Pollack writes, his wife paints, and they both worry about watching their kid this summer.

Fundamentally, this is the story of a couple with a seriously disturbed child who can't bring themselves to face facts because he's so cute most of the time. What's more, although I can understand Mr. Pollack's wish for a peaceful summer in which he can get some work done, and his vague sense of guilt that the possible loss of free time upsets him as much as or more than his child's problems, my sympathy takes a real nose dive at the mere fact that he wrote about it. Evidently he expects us readers to forgive him this unworthy but very human thought because he's being public about it. Sorry. I'm a reader, not a therapist.

I find myself wondering if there are any working-class families out there who can't work when they please, haven't a prayer of getting a troubled kid into any preschool at all, let alone a premiere one, and have to deal with the little brat anyway. Against that image, Mr. Pollack and his family are sitting pretty.

I'm a political liberal and deeply resentful of the right's constant assumption that because of my beliefs I belong to some snotty elite, but such an elite does exist. I have no idea whether Mr. Pollack is a liberal or a conservative; a whiner, however, he is.


Benshlomo says, Sometimes you just gotta deal.

Monday, May 30, 2005

The Senile Old Men

I see that Vice President Cheney is "offended" by Amnesty International's suggestion that the United States is engaged in human rights violations toward prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Offended. He's offended because an international organization has called the United States on its misbehavior. He is not offended at the misbehavior itself, you notice, nor at the exposure to international censure that the misbehavior has caused. He's offended because someone caught us at it and filed a report.

And why does he find this offensive? Partly because he says the allegations are untrue, coming from well-treated prisoners who were released and are now spreading lies about Guantanamo. And obviously, an organization of long experience like Amnesty International would of course rely on two or three anecdotes from tainted sources in filing their reports. Sure.

But mostly, Vice President Cheney seems to find the suggestion of prisoner abuse offensive because the United States has freed so many millions from abuse over the course of the 20th Century, including those it has freed in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, he's equating the rapid rebuilding of Europe after World War II with the ongoing horrors in the nations that the Bush Administration invaded on faulty intelligence. He's equating the release of many millions from prison camps after World War II with the "freedom" enjoyed by those millions of Afghans and Iraqis who don't know from one day to the next whether some insurgent is going to blow them to bits.

But let's ignore that insane claim for a moment. Even if it's true that the United States has freed millions from abuse from the beginning of the 20th Century to today, JUST WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ABUSES AT GUANTANAMO, DICK??!

Mr. Cheney might as well say to some Iraqi mother, "Yeah, we humiliated your son, but you should forget about that because we're such nice guys most of the time." Even if the son in question is a vicious terrorist, is it therefore excusable to violate international law in incarcerating him? The Bush administration thinks so - our Attorney General wrote a memo, remember, calling the Geneva Accord "quaint". I beg to differ.

The CNN story goes on to detail Mr. Cheney's prediction that the Iraqi insurgency is on its last legs and will be over before George W. Bush leaves office. I have suggested in previous open letters to the White House that Mr. Bush is out of touch with reality to a dangerous degree; with this pronouncement from his number two man, I now publicly accuse the entire administration of being certifiably deranged.

Benshlomo says, There comes a time to suppress one's empathy with a crazy man and lock him up for your own safety.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

An Answer for a Senator

According to this story from CNN, Senator Barbara Boxer from California (my state!) is asking for a delay on John Bolton's confirmation vote for the ambassadorship to the UN. She wants to wait on the vote until the White House turns over some pertinent information on Bolton's career.

Bolton, if he's not simply a walking disaster, is at any rate the opposite of a diplomat, who has gone so far as to say that the United Nations doesn't exist. He made additional statements which carry the clear implication that the UN is there to do what the United States tells it to do.

Senator Boxer's request for more time drew this question from Richard Lugar, the Republican from Indiana who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee:

Where does legitimate due diligence turn into partisanship?...Where does the desire for the truth turn into a competition over who wins and who loses?


Here's an answer for Senator Lugar: Legitimate due diligence turns into partisanship no earlier than the moment that all legitimate questions have been satisfactorily answered. The desire for the truth turns into a competition over who wins and who loses no earlier than the moment that all the pertinent facts are in. In the case of John Bolton, legitimate questions remain unanswered and certain pertinent facts rest somewhere in the White House instead of in the Senate chamber where they belong. Therefore, the inquiry into Mr. Bolton's qualifications for the ambassadorship remains legitimate due diligence and a desire for the truth. Clear?

Benshlomo says, Sometimes you need to smack these morons in the face.

Tiptoe Through the Land Mines

I'm a little dubious about President Bush's promise of $50 million in aid to the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas, but my skepticism is at least in part my habitual distrust of Arab promises regarding Israel. I'm genetically inclined to assume that both parties in any conflict bear some responsibility, and Israel has certainly made its share of mistakes and then some, but it's very plain that if the Arab nations had simply accepted Israel's legal presence in the region back in 1948, there would have been no wars. Instead, they tried to destroy the Jewish nation from the very first minute it emerged, they got their heads handed to them, and now they want to cry victim. Forget it.

Nevertheless, I'm cautiously optimistic about Abbas' future and that of his people. Yasir Arafat was a corrupt sleazebag, as anyone knows who is aware that his widow still receives $1 million a month in support while the Palestinian people live in desperate poverty - how do you suppose she got used to that standard of living, huh? Abbas, on the other hand, resigned as Prime Minister under Arafat because he couldn't get his job done with the old man at the wheel. I could be happier with Abbas' performance as President so far - it seems he's borrowed Arafat's old trick of arresting terrorists with loud public pronouncements and then quietly letting them escape - but the man is locked in a bloody political battle with Hamas, so I'm willing to give him a bit of a pass.

Let's see if President Bush's $50 million really does go to build houses in Gaza once Israel leaves, or if that cash somehow goes astray in the general direction of some official Palestinian fat cat.

Benshlomo says, Follow the money.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Lessons from God

My girlfriend plans to convert to Judaism, and I can't tell you how thrilled I am.

The conversion program she's doing, which I'm doing with her, includes a few support group meetings to deal with issues like helping family cope with conversion, what to do about holidays, and stuff like that. This past weekend we went to our second such meeting, having missed our originally scheduled session. There was a lesbian couple there, too.

One of the women was Jewish and the other was not, and the non-Jewish partner is preparing to convert. Looking at them, I caught myself thinking "Why is she doing that? They're not going to get married or have children anyway."

You will immediately realize, as I did, that this is a foolish thought. They won't be getting married in a legal sense (not yet, at least), but that's likely to change someday, and probably soon. As for children, gay and lesbian couples adopt or use surrogates and artificial insemination all the time. But the point, obviously, has nothing to do with marriage and children; this woman, I hope, is planning to convert because she wants to be Jewish.

She may want to be Jewish because of her love and commitment for her partner, or because she loves Judaism and wants to make herself part of it, or any one of a number of other things, but whatever the reason, I hope that she and any other convert goes through conversion because they want to be Jewish.

Now, the issue of gay marriage troubles me. I'm not one of those who thinks that gay marriage injures heterosexual marriage (a very strange idea indeed), nor do I believe that gay couples should have no rights as couples (any long-term committed relationship is worthy of some acknowledgement, I should think), but I still don't think legalizing gay "marriage" is a good idea. (Dennis Prager covered the issue pretty well a few years ago.) And I think of myself as a fairly enlightened man (yeah, I'm a liberal - could you tell?). Nevertheless, looking at that couple in the support group, I found I still had some mental adjusting to do.

Once I did that, I could see that those two were kind of sweet together. So at least now I know why God allowed my girlfriend and me to miss our original session; apparently I needed to see this.

Benshlomo says, God moves in mysterious ways, and he also has a heck of a sense of humor.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Close to the Edge

So the Senate managed to avoid a showdown over the "nuclear option," at least for now.

Personally, I would rather have seen some deal reached where these radical reactionary judges were kept off the federal bench, since now we'll probably have to deal with them for years, but you can't have everything. Leaving aside the specific issue involved, I'm somewhat relieved to see that there are still those in the national leadership who prefer conversing to blabbermouthing. I don't trust Bill Frist to maintain this environment of workability for long, since he's already yammering about what will happen if the Democrats act "irresponsibly" (by which he means "in a manner contrary to what I want"), but for now, and miraculously in this power-hungry administration, democratic principles are still at work.

Beside, I take it that extremists on both sides are furious with this Senate compromise, and as usual when I hear that all the morons hate something I figure it's worth having around.

Benshlomo says, Talk is cheap - I'll take a couple of tons.

Today is my birthday

Yes, fellow friends and folks, I was born several years ago on this very day, at about 3:00 in the morning. Oh, my poor mother.

This puts me in some very good company, to wit:

This guy, with whom I share a love for playing guitar and for all kinds of pop music;

This celebrity, with whom I share a history of breaking up with a Capricorn after a long relationship; and

This individual, with whom I have nothing in common whatsoever.

Benshlomo says, Happy Birthday to the lot of us, and to everyone else on their birthdays, too.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Open letter to the White House - the "Culture of Life"

Dear Mr. President,

Maybe I've got my facts mixed up somehow, but didn't you call for a "culture of life" in the United States a few weeks ago? Terri Schiavo lay dying, the Republican-controlled Congress overthrew its long-claimed emphasis on states' rights and called upon federal courts to intervene in her case, and in signing the bill allowing for that unprecedented move you stated that in cases where life hung in the balance we ought to err on the side of life, isn't that what happened?

Now, I need a few more details. Some days ago you threatened to veto any relaxation of the rules governing stem-cell research. How does this promote a "culture of life"? In other words, what sort of "life" would you like us to culture?

I can hardly believe that the implications of your responses to Ms. Schiavo and to stem-cell research can really be described as a "culture of life," sir. Let's go over this carefully:

Ms. Schiavo, having lain in bed in a persistent vegetative state for well over a decade, could not feed herself or respond to the world in any meaningful way. Several qualified physicians examined her carefully over a period of months and concluded that her condition was not going to improve. All she could do for herself was breathe. She was, however, unquestionably "alive."

Stem-cell research, we are told, holds the real possibility of cures for degenerative and/or deadly diseases, from arthritis to diabetes and who knows what else. It's probably the most exciting development in biology since the advent of antibiotics. If that research delivers on even a portion of its promise, a great many human beings now in a twilight existence could conceivably enter into the fullness of life again. Now, however, even with the suffering their conditions bring, those people are, like Ms. Shiavo, unquestionably "alive".

Your concept of the "culture of life" apparently favors leaving both Ms. Schiavo and the prospective beneficiaries of stem cell research in the conditions they presented with at first, whether those conditions involve persistent vegetative state, chronic pain, dependence on expensive drugs or imminent death. Those who favor releasing people like Ms. Schiavo from their suffering, or researching ways and means of releasing other patients from their suffering through stem cell research, you and yours refer to as belonging to the "culture of death."

In short, the "culture of life" you refer to apparently favors the most limited kind of biological existence over any hope of improvement. Those who suffer may not be allowed to die, but neither may they be treated by the newest technolgies - they must simply go on living, because the "culture of life" will allow them nothing more. Evidently, a woman lying in bed unable to do anything but breathe is worthy of all our best efforts to save her and keep her in that state of merely technical "life", but millions of people in lesser pain are totally on their own. Now, come on, Mr. President, do you really favor pain and suffering over hope and knowledge? (Then again, why do I bother to ask the question? Based on your policies regarding the war on terror, the environment, education, national security and practically everything else, your answer is a resounding "yes".)

I notice that you have not even gone so far as to read the bill in question before donating your views on it. You noted that you oppose destroying life in order to save it, that you have mentioned this to Congress before, and that "If that is what the bill says, I will veto it." In other words, you have no idea what the bill says, but you want to make sure everyone knows how committed to "life" you are, just in case. This sounds uncommonly like what someone would do who was trying to play the issue in the press rather than in the legislature where such things should be decided; it's a clever political trick, and therefore entirely too nuanced for the kind of simple, 100% trustworthy image you have striven so hard to project for more than four years.

As your party in the Senate prepares its attempt to destroy, in the fillibuster, one of the last bastions of minority protection the United States affords, I have come to realize that if they succeed, you at least will retain the right to shoot your mouth off completely without limitation. I'm sure you'll find the privilege very enjoyable, but do remember - for your own sake if not the country's - that a man who opens his mouth too wide eventually sticks his foot in it. At the rate you're going, you'll choke on that foot long before you retire.

Friday, May 13, 2005

Open Letter to the White House - Base Closings (or, How Not to Win the War on Terrorism)

Dear Mr. President,

For all my deep, profound and irreconcilable disagreements with you, I always assumed you really wanted to win the war on terror. Although I believe you're fighting the war in a very stupid manner - in fact not fighting it at all, and heading for certain defeat - I took it for granted that you at least thought your actions would lead to victory. You were, I figured, dead wrong, and more interested in oil than in security, but still sincerely pursuing the win. I was mistaken. I don't know anymore what you're really after in this war, but it obviously isn't the end of terrorism.

The Pentagon proposes to close 180 military installations, including 33 major bases, for a total loss of 29,000 jobs. The reason given is financial, an opportunity to save some money. In truth, I have no idea if those physical plants are at all useful for fighting terrorism, but even if they have no immediate usefulness, it's inconceivable that those facilities and personnel should be tossed aside in the middle of a war. Surely the bases could be refitted, and the people retrained, for life in 2005. But clearly someone in the military governing body has decided that, despite recent testimony regarding the overextension of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, we don't really need all this stuff, and it's more important to save money.

Now, I suppose it's possible that the Pentagon made these plans without your instructions - it's even possible that Mr. Rumsfeld participated in the process without your instructions - but I do not believe for one minute that the story is clear of your fingerprints. Nor do I suppose for one moment that you will raise any questions when these plans are submitted for your approval (let alone fail to sign off on them), nor permit Congress to do so. Given your ongoing emphasis on loyalty and secrecy, I hold you personally responsible for this lunacy.

You've never claimed to be a scholar, sir - you don't even read books. This, however, is a matter of simple arithmetic. Maybe I'm naive, but I assume you know how to add, so let's go over this carefully:

According to news reports, the Pentagon projects a savings of some $50 billion over 20 years due to these closings. On the other hand, your Iraq war has so far cost some $170 billion over about four years. That's a savings of about $2.5 million a ear from the closings, as opposed to about $42.5 billion a year in spending to date, or about a 0.00005% savings; if anyone in your office has a calculator they could tell you that in five minutes or less. Financially speaking, then, these base closings are less than negligible.

Furthermore, you have not permitted any Congressional oversight of how these billions in Iraq are spent. Even during World War II, the Senate kept control of the purse strings - Harry Truman and his committee were by no means lacking in patriotism, but they saved the United States many millions of dollars in military spending and we won the war anyway. Today, you and yours suggest constantly that anyone asking for a modicum of fiscal watchfulness in Iraq is some kind of traitor, and Americans continue to die over there while billions of dollars disappear into corporate sinkholes.

In short, Mr. President, if you really want to save military money, mathematics suggests that these base closings don't do the job. If you permitted competitive bidding for Iraqi contracts, say, and allowed Congress to make sure that military money is spent for military uses rather than for corporate bonuses, you could save a whole lot more. With some simple budgetary techniques, like shopping for the best value, that the average American family uses every day (particularly in the wake of the tremendous job loss caused by your administration), you could probably save $50 billion in two or three years rather than twenty. It still wouldn't be enough, but it might be as noticeable as a needle in a haystack, at least.

All of this, of course, begs the question of whether we should be in Iraq at all, or whether you took us into this war for good or bad reasons, or whether this war really helps eliminate world terrorism, or whether American efforts are promoting democracy. I lost hope long ago of making you see reason on any of these subjects. With these base closings, I'm about to lose hope of making you see any reason at all. Are you sure you've stopped drinking?

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Oh, the Humanity

Reality TV intrigues me, although I'm not quite sure why. I almost never watch it. I liked the first season of "The Mole" and I watched the "Survivor" season where the first person voted off was the woman who had fallen in love with her late husband's son, and the winner was announced on live TV, and it was a blonde nurse in her late 30's who beat out some young kid from Texas. You know what I mean.

I've never watched "The Great Race," though, so I didn't find out about the winners, Uchenna and Joyce, until today. The news is pointing out that the two of them very nearly lost because they had no money to pay the cab driver who got them to the finish line, and they insisted on begging enough money to pay the man before running off.

That's a classy move, and by itself may serve to justify the whole reality TV binge of the last few years. We see plenty of humanity's worst qualities, to be sure, but occasionally we see some of humanity's best, as well. Which explains why it's called "reality TV" – the setups are pure fantasy, but we do get genuine human responses. Ninety-three percent banal, seven percent angelic.

Which brings me to my teacher, Tony Pierce. (Excuse me if that didn't work too well, I'm still new at this.) He's kvelling over Uchenna and Joyce's evident willingness to toss away a chance at a million bucks for the sake of doing the right thing, partially because he and they are all black. Funny thing – I found myself getting annoyed as he pointed out the virtues of his own ethnic group, but I had to stop myself. Wouldn't I react exactly the same way if Uchenna and Joyce were Jewish? Didn't I react exactly the same way when I found out what Hank Greenberg said to Jackie Robinson? Didn't I think to myself, "Hey, homeboy did us all proud"? You bet I did. So you just sit back and enjoy it, Tony, and I hope for many more such opportunities in your immediate future.

Besides, Tony worked in a nice compliment to Bob and Amber and their classy reaction to the difficulties brought on by their fame, so it's not like the man is totally ethnocentric.

Benshlomo says, Oy gevald, such a mensch.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Watch Your Mouth

Professor Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy references a piece by Michelle Malkin on Jewish World Review complaining about what she refers to as "South Park conservatives." Those are the types whose dedication to non-PC principles is so great that they welcome any comedy material calculated to offend, or investigate historical or political ideas long derided by liberals which may be true anyway. Ms. Malkin, for instance, is the author of In Defense of Interment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror. I have not read the book, nor do I have an opinion about whether Ms. Malkin's ideas on racial profiling are correct or not, but the title of her book speaks for itself.

In any case, on Jewish World Review, Ms. Malkin takes exception to being included in the roles of "South Park conservatives." She mentions Laura Bush's jokes at a recent dinner, compares them to Whoopi Goldberg's similarly off-color jokes at some Democratic event (was it the convention?), and finding them both equally offensive, points out that similar comments from any Democrat would set off a nuclear war in Congress.

Professor Volokh, on the other hand, insists that the First Lady's remarks are not at all comparable to Whoopi's or to the South Park humor that Ms. Malkin complains of, for three reasons: Mrs. Bush was speaking at a more private affair and not on national television; her remarks were not intended for children and there were no children present; and her audience was likely to be amused rather than offended.

I find it a little ironic that Professor Volokh analyzes this issue so carefully when it concerns a woman whose husband doesn't "do nuance," but leaving that aside for the moment I find his analysis pretty convincing. There does, indeed, need to be some attention paid to public discourse, but that doesn't mean everything goes all the time. However, I think he misses one point, touched on lightly by Ms. Malkin. I don't know exactly what it is that Mrs. Bush or Whoopi or anyone else in this matter said, but I'm convinced that if any Democrat or liberal says anything at all off color, especially in a political context, Washington Republicans and their media dogs would burst a blood vessel (or appear to) about that person's lack of "values". They've been doing it for years and show no signs of slowing down.

Seriously, if Hilary Clinton made some joke about horses masturbating, as Mrs. Bush apparently did, can't you just picture Bill Frist jumping for joy and rolling out the cannons? It would be "Any woman so unfeminine as to make a remark like that is obviously unfit for public office!" And so on.

Yeah, Mrs. Bush doesn't hold a public office and Mrs. Clinton does, but the point remains; she can get away with remarks that would get Howard Stern thrown off the air in minutes because conservatives like her. Not because of her values, mind you, which are probably clean as a whistle; because of the side she's on.

Benshlomo says, It's who you know.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

I'm Sorry, So Sorry, Please Accept My Apology

Speaking of Jennifer Wilbanks, Hispanics Across America has demanded that she apologize for initially saying that she was kidnapped by a Hispanic before she admitted she had simply run away from her impending marriage. The demand doesn't appear on the organization's website (yet), but it's in the news (see the last two paragraphs). Did you notice that Mr. Mateo, the president of Hispanics Across America, wants her to apologize to the Hispanic community first, and then to her fiance and her family?

The argument goes like this, apparently: By blaming a Hispanic, Jennifer Wilbanks has strengthened the stereotype of Hispanics as dangerous criminals. That was a bad thing to do, so she should apologize to those affected by her irresponsible lie.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with this. It depends on the emphasis, I suppose. Do we believe that stereotypes are dangerous in and of themselves, or dangerous because they lead to violent actions?

If we believe they're simply evil, then maybe anyone who uses one should indeed try to mitigate the damage they've caused by strengthening it. That would include Jennifer Wilbanks. And, if you believe there's such a thing as a human soul, it's a pretty compelling argument to say that exposure to this kind of ugliness is spiritually damaging.

If, on the other hand, we believe that stereotypes are dangerous because of what they might lead to, then here's my question: Does anyone seriously believe that Jennifer Wilbanks' use of a stereotype is going to make anyone think it's true? Is someone watching television going to say "Boy, I never thought Hispanics were dangerous criminals before, but if Jennifer Wilbanks said so, it must be true"?

Even if we're talking about the time before her kidnapping story was revealed as a lie, would any sane person accept the stereotype on her say-so? (We're not talking about those who might use this incident to support a prejudice against Hispanics that they already hold - those people are beneath contempt anyway.) No, a troubled young woman refers to the Hispanic stereotype under the pressure of a huge, probably neurotic error, and Hispanics Across America finds this dangerous to their pride or safety? No way.

I'm a Jew, and as subject to this sort of hypersensitivity as any other minority, but this is getting stupid, people. And as for the insistence that Jennifer Wilbanks apologize to the Hispanic people before she apologizes to her family, her fiance and the people in her town, it's a demand that assumes that we have more of a duty to political correctness than to those we love. Horse manure. That might be true if Jennifer Wilbanks were a public figure already. If anyone owes the Hispanic people an apology (and I'm not at all sure anyone does), it's those dingbats who believed Jennifer Wilbanks' lie and spread it all over the tabloids. Jennifer Wilbanks herself is nothing more than a private citizen who tripped over her own personality problems and fell into a media cesspool. Thank God her fiance is generous or foolish enough to fish her out.

Benshlomo says, Get that camera out of my face.

It Happened One Night

Call me an idealist, but I hoped that after the Schiavo matter came to an end, we might get back to some real news. There's a lot to cover lately.

The U.S. military tells us that, what with our massive presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, this nation cannot mount an effective defense against terrorism. That's scary, but important to know.

Natan Scharansky, a former refusenik (a Jew living in the Soviet Union who was not permitted to move to Israel and got nailed several times for even asking) and member of Israel's government, has resigned from Ariel Sharon's cabinet because he doesn't think the plan to leave Gaza is a good one. Meantime, at least one Israeli and one Palestinian have died in a shootout on the West Bank. It looked for a while like Arafat's death could lead to peace in the Middle East - are those hopes dead?

The U.S. Congress is coming up on critical votes regarding ethics committee rules, filibustering, confirmation of an ambassador to the United Nations and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and God knows what else. All of these issues have solidified the division in this country that have plagued us since the election of 2000. It's a very close game, and every move counts.

Meanwhile, the red state of Utah has passed legislation that denies primary emphasis to President Bush's No Child Left Behind requirements, a move that could cost that state many millions in federal funds. If it takes, this move could have some serious repercussions all over the country.

There's news about Pat Tillman, the NFL player who gave up a lucrative career in professional sports to serve his country as an Army Ranger and died in Afghanistan. The man is a hero, no doubt about it, but now it turns out that as a result of gross negligence, his death came about because of friendly fire. Not only that, but the Army knew the facts for days before telling his family or anyone else that they had screwed up. What is this news going to mean for the Army? Will it impact recruitment or morale? What will the consequences be for the war on terrorism?

Speaking of military issues, there's the trial of Lynndie England, the Army private on trial for torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Either she's a total nutjob or she's getting her throat cut to spare the careers of those who ordered or permitted these viciously un-American activities. Her defense is that because she has dyslexia, she has a difficult time distinguishing right from wrong. Horseshit. In any event, we'd better get this sorted out before it happens again.

Heck, if you're looking for something lighter but still significant, "Kingdom of Heaven" is coming out in movie theaters soon. It's about the Crusades of the Middle Ages, when Europe went to war in Israel and actually took the Holy Land from the Muslims for a time. Has some definite implications for today's world, no?

So with all of that going on, with all these events that have an actual impact on our lives, what is everyone getting all in a state over? Jennifer Wilbanks, the runaway bride, that's what. She's no Claudette Colbert, but evidently she's the media's idea of a runaway bride.

Whatever her reasons for leaving home a few days before her wedding, her fiance's reasons for taking her back, people's feelings about her claim that some Hispanic kidnapped her, I've really only got one question: Why the hell do we need to know ANY of it?

I remember reading somewhere that corporate ownership of television networks has resulted in a demand that network news make money, and that as a result of this demand, many news organizations have closed their overseas offices and begun to concentrate on gossip like this.

Oh well, at least it's led to some pretty funny cartoons. Notice how half of them reframe the story with George W. Bush as the groom and the Republican party, or Social Security, or the American people, as the runaway bride? Now that's what I like to see.

Benshlomo says, Sometimes I feel like running away myself, but I don't get on TV.