Tag Archives: satire

Rumsfeld Redefines “Success”

Posted on by
Reply

Click on my latest political cartoon, the top one on the left side of this page, called “Success Redefined.” Always, the first victim of war is truth…. At various times, Secretary Rumsfeld has worked hard to redefine the terms, “torture,” “insurgency,” “victory,” “winning,” “enemy,” “mission accomplished,” “terrorism” and other words of war to make them fit his needs. 

Unfortunately, he's also having a hard time figuring out who and what we're fighting, and fighting for. Whose freedom? Whose liberty? Whose democracy? Whose rights? As defined by whom? Mr. Rumsfeld could use some thoughtful coursework in linguistics and ethics. 

The sad thing is that all violence is about fear, terror, hatred–call it whatever you will. As the Buddha once said, “the end of hatred is not hatred, but love.” The 60's hippies used to say “fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity.” It just can't be done. There is no way to peace: peace is the way. 

A just cause cannot justify an unjust (violent) means. We will all suffer some grave injustice in this imperfect new century, but we needn't add to its sum. It's a different way of seeing, yes. But John Lennon took that leap way back in the 60's. Isn't it about time to try to imagine all the world living life in peace? They may say you're a dreamer, but you won't be the only one….

Please write responses to epharmon@adelphia.net . Thank you for your caring and loyalty to the quality of human life everywhere.

 

 

 

 

The Ballad of Harrie and Bushie

Posted on by
Reply

The Ballad of Harrie and Bushie

(Various verses, based on Frankie and Johnny, gleaned from the ‘net…. ) 

 

 

Bushie and Harrie were pardners

Oh lordy, how they cleared brush

They swore to be true to each other

Then Bushie gave her the brush

He was her man

But he done her wrong

 

Harrie’s a nice southern lady

Bright as a shiny new dime

Always did good in her law school

Harrie she worked overtime

She's a big-hearted gal

She couldn’t do no wrong

 

Bushie said Harrie’s my pit bull

Good dog in big size six shoes

Harrie did all Bushie asked her

Now she’s left singin’ the blues

Bushie was her man

But he done her wrong

 

Bushie told Harrie he picked her

Now Harrie, she wanted it bad

All of her life she’d been lonely

All of her nights had been sad

Harrie knew her man

He wouldn’t do her no wrong

 

Well Harrie, she knew her business

Worked all her life to make good

But Limbaugh and Kristol they nixed it

They wanted their boys from the hood

They didn’t want Bushie’s gal

They said he got it all wrong

 

Now Bushie he looked at Roe v. Wade

Then o’er on his back Bushie rolled

He put his right hand on the Bible

Swore now he would do what he’s told

Oh, he’s a new man

And he's doing her wrong

 

Bushie told Harrie, I’m leavin’

I’ve stood by your side for too long

Don’t you wait up for me, honey

‘Cuz early next mornin’ I’m gone

I know I was your man

But now I’m doin’ you wrong

 

Poor Harrie she took care of Bushie

Worked nights ‘til quarter to three

Now Harrie's alone in her office

Playin’ Nearer My God to Thee.

He was her man

But he done her wrong

 

I couldn’t tell you no story

I wouldn’t tell you no lie

Ol’ Georgy Porgy ain’t studyin’ no justice

He just wants his puddin’ and pie

He's done kissed that girl

And now he’s makin her cry

 

Now women, this is my story

This is the point of my song

That mean sorry Bushie’s a cold-hearted man

To do his poor pardner so wrong

Yeah, he done that gal wrong

Will he do us all wrong?

 

 

(I agree with President Bush that Harriet Miers has had a distinguished legal career against high odds, and is an admirable, caring woman whose experience and character would have uniquely and valuably contributed to the court and the nation. She should have had a chance to present her case to the nation during the hearings. If President Bush believed that the nomination was his prerogative, and if he felt Miers was right for the court, he owed it to all of us and to her to stand by his convictions, and to stand by his friend….

 

Let me know if you hear of any other good stanzas? epharmon@adelphia.net

 

 

 

 

Do You Know This Man?

Posted on by
Reply

Click on my latest posting, a quiz/drawing/political cartoon called “Soldier,” on the left side of this blog…. So what do you think?

epharmon@adelphia.net

Thanks, eppy

 

 

 

Lead Me On, Oh Great Commander in Chief. But Whither?

Posted on by
Reply

My favorite new show, Commander in Chief, shows promise for extending West Wing’s visionary qualities, and then some. Too bad Commander also bodes equivalent stumbles along the same dark lines of its predecessor—too much emphasis upon the quick use of military force to resolve diplomatic crises.

 

Military force doesn’t solve problems, it creates them. Will Geena Davis, aka President Mackenzie, learn this while in office? Will Commander showcase the long list of options any nation has to throw at problems, other than the show and/or use of force? Will Commander de-emphasize testosterone-filled approaches, and demonstrate instead the range of strengths any leader, male or female, can find in more “feminine” approaches? The show's producers will be glad to know that I'm awaiting their answers in great suspense….

 

And what if Geena does experience a direct provocation by another government? Why not try really clever media coverage…. What if the American public insists on revenge and retaliation? Try education, forbearance, charity…. What if Americans die? Try rituals of national mourning for fallen martyrs, or any one of the other thousand approaches to diplomacy…. What if there’s a terrorist attack by a known force? Try investigations, and high-level meetings….

 

And keep on trying. Peace and democracy aren’t missions that can be accomplished. They’re missions that never end. You can’t end a war against an abstract noun. Besides, there will always be one more bomb-throwing terrorist to provide an excuse for one more retaliation. I hope Geena teaches us that sometimes you just have to endure a certain amount of injustice—but you almost never have to add to it.

 

What if a woman who is convicted of adultery is about to be buried to her neck in the sand and then stoned to death? Geena could have focused overwhelming international attention on that country’s leaders, and then shipped in thousands of well-paid, white-clad, unarmed international forces of young innocent collegiate pacifists, silent disapproving witnesses to evil deeds, all willing to die for their ideals—just as our current youthful military volunteers are willing to die for theirs.

 

What a moral message this would send! What culture could continue to kill unarmed, disapproving children while an international press looked on? Maybe the poor adulterer would die, but maybe no other adulterers would, the next time. Geena's point would be made, her lesson taught, her stance clarified, her insistence noted. Conversations would be started. Maybe minds would even be changed.

 

We don’t have to do away with our military forces. We can still use them to defend our country from those who would invade our shores or climb with their guns through our windows (I haven’t seen much of this lately, but it could happen…) We can still call up our national guard for times of natural catastrophes.

 

A new, improved Commander in Chief would have a few long-simmering unsolvable conflicts aggravatingly popping up throughout the show’s lifespan. We could watch these conflicts wend their ponderous and circuitous diplomatic ways through the series, in alarming fits and infuriating starts, week after week, year upon year—and each time, see Geena turn down the easy options of violence. We could grow to love the wisdom and expertise of her trusted diplomats, who have already spent half their lives preparing to tackle just such thorny problems, and who will spend the rest of their lives patiently addressing them, instead of mucking them up with ever more violence, leading, of course, to ever more hatred… and violence…and more hatred…and more violence.

 

I don’t want to see any more episodes in which Geena impresses me with fast, decisive, tough and completely hokey short-sighted violent “solutions” which only postpone and ultimately exacerbate the original problems (remember Iraq?) I want to see her impress me with her wisdom, vision, and forbearance. I want to see deliberate, consensus-building, thoughtful international answers bearing the weight of the whole world behind them.

 

I’d like to see well-written episodes dealing with moments of national hysteria over provocations, complete with their inexorable drumbeats in favor of retaliation, revenge and war, and then I want to see Geena demonstrate some of the myriad, no, infinite alternatives to loutish thuggery. Isn’t that what leadership is? Or is it really all about one's readiness to whip out one's six-guns and shoot ‘em up? I don’t think so. C’mon, TV producers, make my day….

 

I’d like to see Geena diplomatically rebuild a couple of really shaky international relationships, offer aid to one of our so-called enemies in their moment of need, implement fair trade rules for globalization…. I want to see her lead, and become even more visionary than she already is.

 

Some day, when Congress gets around to legislating a cabinet-level Department of Peace (H.R 3760 and S. 1756), I look forward to seeing the show belatedly renamed “Commander in Peace.”

 

Some day perhaps we’ll see Geena back again, a full-lipped, swivel-hipped Indian-style crone, still leading her tribe patiently and diplomatically past each new day's conflict toward the greater safety, prosperity and contentment that await us all on the other side.

 

 

 

What Went Down In the Miers Nomination, and What's Up Next in the Hearings?

Posted on by
Reply

Bush’s advisors must have momentarily forgotten that their boy-king doesn’t read the newspapers; probably Bush overlooked how desperate right-wingers were to nominate their very own reactionary Supreme being. His advisors also apparently lost track of who it was that first inserted into Bush’s stump speeches all that stuff about nominating a Scalia/Thomas-lookalike. Bush aspired to highest office with hardly a clue about how to thoughtfully select a Supreme Court nominee. With little previous interest in the fine details of constitutional law, he lacked the legal sophistication to distinguish a Scalia from a William O. Douglas.

 

Upon gaining the presidency, however, Bush quickly turned to his small inner circle for the necessary crash courses on foreign policy (Rice) and law (Miers), just as he once turned to his boyhood hero, Cheney, for instruction on how to select a running mate. It’s very likely that, just as Bush learned everything he needed to know (we hope) about geo-strategy from Rice, he has Harriet Miers to thank for his insights into the workings of the Supreme Court.

 

So, based on recent evidence, what did Miers teach George W. Bush?

 

That selection of a Supreme Court justice is a uniquely personal presidential prerogative, as well as a weighty responsibility…

 

…And that someone with the very specific qualities of say, a John Roberts—someone not a partisan ideologue, who loves the law, who is well-trained, accomplished and respected, moderate in temperament and above reproach in his personal life—would be an admirable choice.

 

Miers would also have taught Bush that conservative presidents can reasonably appoint conservative justices, that litmus tests aren’t appropriate, that candidates don’t have to answer questions about their personal and political opinions, and that good justices set aside their own biases, and seek, with each new case, to determine the current law of the land.

 

Bush might also have learned from Miers that, for every thorny case before the Supreme Court, a reasonable legal argument could be made on either side, and that a wise justice resists radically changing accepted law, but rather leaves major legal shifts in direction up to elected lawmakers. If Bush took in the highlights of the Roberts’ proceedings, he no doubt enjoyed hearing distinguished colleagues from both parties echo and affirm his own newly-acquired legal convictions.

 

No minority candidate with anything like Roberts’ sterling qualities appeared on the shortlists, so Bush must have gratefully embraced the idea that Miers would be a good compromise—for the same reasons he believed Roberts to be a sound nominee. Bush probably thought he was cleverly cutting a Gordian knot in  nominating Miers—a woman who (he imagined) would distress no one. Bush’s advisors erroneously had assumed Bush had shortlisted Miers as a professional courtesy, and would not forget where his bread was buttered.

 

Yet Bush has always elevated his most-trusted teachers—Rice, Cheney, and now Miers—because each has taken advantage of their considerable opportunities not only to shape their belatedly conscientious pupil’s thinking, but to successfully persuade his eager blank-slate brain of the soundness of their ideas. Considering our president’s infamous youthful lack of intellectual curiosity and indifference to exploring alternative viewpoints, it’s doubtful he realizes even now that his newly-received pearls of wisdom may in fact be debatable matters of opinion, rather than revealed truth.

 

It’s curious that presidents can be elected with no rigorous public hearings at all (one cannot count elaborately orchestrated debates), yet these same presidents are the very ones given the heavy responsibility of wisely nominating lifetime Supreme Court justices who must jump through elaborate hoops to get themselves confirmed.

 

During the upcoming hearings, Democrats will pacify their constituencies by expressing grave concern over Miers’conservatism, when in truth they’ll be kissing the very ground beneath her feet in gratitude that they weren’t handed a Scalia/Thomas clone. Democrats may even, with some reason, harbor just the teensy-weensiest outside hope that Miers will turn out to be a malleable stealth centrist.

 

It’s both admirable and tragicomic that President Bush so often accidentally buys into the public storylines his cronies elaborately create as cover stories to paper over their less admirable ulterior motives. With respect to Iraq, for instance, Bush actually convinced himself for awhile that his war really was all about democracy, rather than oil, giving his polpals fits as he briefly tried to run the occupation with that primary goal in mind. Now he's gone and gummed up his Supreme Court nominations by equally stupidly buying into the foolish pretense that he was actually supposed to nominate a fair judge.

 

Bush used to submit more humbly to his advisors’ supposed expertise. These days, Bush is apparently contemplating the possibility that he may after all have some small capabilities and experience, and is, indeed, in fact, the president, entrustable tentatively with a few independent decisions. I hope Bush shrugs off all his discredited advisors soon; just as he once picked up several useful approaches from West Wing reruns, I hope during his lame-duck years, Geena Davis will rub some of her moxie off on him, and make him surprise us and himself by going with his gut, jumping right on in—sans old advisors—to do a few things for his fellow citizens, just because they’re the right thing to do.

 

Will Miers be able to handle the tricks and traps that crafty old senators will throw at her with the intention of engineering a nomination do-over? If she’s Supreme Court material, she'll prove herself no slouch by winning over the American public, despite Republican machinations. In fact, the only scenario I can see for the GOP pulling out this big bad ol' disaster to their diehard constituents' complete satisfaction, would be for them to take a contract out on a couple of the current court liberals. Their fates rest….

 

During the upcoming hearings, the GOP will be constrained from coming right out and saying what they really wanted to do, which was to put in place an ideologue whom they could trust to consistently seek out whatever constitutional pretexts were necessary to legally lead the country back to the stone age. They’ll be forced instead to mumble lip-service courtesies to Bush’s candidate, even while scheming to blow her out of the water and replace her with some right wing nut. Democratic senators will also be squirming as they assume the distasteful duty of backhandedly persuading everyone to confirm an avowedly conservative nominee.

 

I hope Miers gets a fighting chance during the hearings to have the American public eating out of her hand before Christmastime. I also hope she gets a new haircut. (I’m not being sexist. John Warner needs one too.)

Hurricane Katrina – A Convenient Scapegoat Arrives Just in Time to Rescue President Bush

Posted on by
Reply

I’m frustrated. And not just by the tragedy that past political indifference has exacerbated in New Orleans, or by the obvious fact that the U.S. is as ill-prepared for serious trouble at home as it is anywhere else in the world, or even by the fact that–well before Katrina–the U.S. economy was, if not on the verge of disaster from gross mismanagement, then at best, going to hell in a hand basket.

 

I’m frustrated because I thought all of President Bush’s chickens were finally coming home to roost.

 

All that money his Republican cronies made off of 9/11 fears, all the profligate sums paid into their friendly war machine’s gaping, indiscriminate maw—on technology and bodyguards and spying and weapons and occupations and war and all the other security approaches that shore up every engine of war profitability and make us all less secure, all that expensive marching off to all corners of the earth to push people around and tell them what to do—I thought all that bad business had finally caught up with them.

 

They’ve soaked the poor and given gobs to the rich. They’ve neglected the environment. They’ve failed to create good jobs. They’ve exacerbated the energy crisis. They’ve propped up favored industries and neglected others. They’ve endangered our economy by irritating people all over the world, who finally wearily resist buying American whenever they can, and take their vacations elsewhere.

 

For once, I thought, all their stupid policies were going to land squarely on their own doorstep.

 

Then along came Hurricane Katrina.

 

And now all of sudden, none of it is anybody’s fault. Our administration’s hands are tied—by Katrina.

 

Without a doubt, Katrina has added immeasurably to the many enormous problems that the U.S. already had before the storm turned her wrathful face upon our citizens.

 

But along with her destruction, Katrina has provided President Bush and his Republican pals the perfect blanket excuse for every failure that was about to be firmly laid to their door.

 

The budget deficit? Unimaginable government overspending? Blame it on Katrina.

 

Our ill-conceived war going badly? Sorry—must divert our efforts to Katrina

 

Dysfunctional international relationships? Too distracted by Katrina.

 

Health care collapsing? Gotta spend the money on Katrina.

 

Lack of energy reform and high heating oil and rising gas prices everywhere? Katrina.

 

Global environmental catastrophes and dangers at every hand? Katrina.

 

Crumbling national infrastructure? Katrina.

 

Underfunded education? Katrina.

 

Terrorism? WMDs and weapons proliferation? Katrina. (Say what?!)

 

Stock market tumbling, real estate buckling, economy faltering? Katrina.

 

For years, the Republican administration has neglected domestic problems and aggravated international ones. Now it’s too late to do anything about any of them.

 

Because, you know. Nature’s power and unpredictability and all that. Shrug shrug. Wink wink. Because…. You know.  

 

Katrina.

Complexity, Democracy and War: Are We Learning Yet?

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve always admired President Bush’s best qualities. He courageously takes on huge responsibilities, works hard and does his best. Beneath his learned-from-Reagan pseudo-cockiness lies a real humility about his own abilities. George Bush cares deeply and perseveres courageously, despite setbacks.

 

Mr. Bush ran for office, not because he had a high impression of himself, but because he is a man of strong convictions and ideals (with gaping gaps, but that’s a different, also human, story.) One of his convictions is that God wants him to lead this country.

 

Another Bush conviction is that democracy is a good thing. Which is a hard one for him, since he’s not sure what democracy means, and his most trusted advisors, allies and supporters care far less about democracy than about power, money, and control.

 

President Bush also works really hard to learn. But it’s hard to learn when you’re convinced  you’re a dummy, and that it's in your country’s best interest for you to close your eyes and hold your ears (and nose) and trust “wiser” advisors—while those same advisors are doing their best to make sure you don’t ever figure out what’s going on.

 

Someone once said, “War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.” The war in Iraq has also been God’s way of teaching George W. Bush complexity. He came into office a black-and-white kinda guy, and now finally “gets” that things aren’t always as simple and straightforward as he thought they were. He’s not unintelligent, but he does have a lot to unlearn.

 

He’s finally seeing the costly failures and mistakes of his administration’s policies, despite the heavy screen provided by Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice—the protective coterie whom Cheney long ago hand-picked to guard his prized boy-king.

 

Bush is finally noticing, if only in peripheral vision, the whole big tragic stinking wasteful mess that his cronies have created in the Middle East. And he’s finally asking hard questions of his inner circle, and even better, stepping outside of that circle for advice. He’s actually talking directly with—and even asking questions of—a wide range of players from all sides of the political spectrum who have lived in and/or studied the Middle East all their lives.

 

No doubt he’s amazed by what he’s learning. He probably thinks all the fascinating detail he’s finding out about is all new to everyone else, too. I mean, like, revelatory, man. I mean, like, who knew? If all this stuff was common knowledge, surely a president would have heard about it? He probably hasn’t the slightest clue that most of the nation’s intellectuals and scholars have been screaming all this “new” stuff at him for decades, but could never get through his filters.

 

None of that matters anymore. What matters now is that a very powerful president is finally “getting” some things he didn’t know before. It matters that he wants to understand, and that he wants to help. It matters, in short, that he’s grown up.

 

He’s reaching out now, finally, not in panic, not in guilt, but as calmly and courageously as he has taken all his other actions, no matter how misguided. I admire his caring and courage tremendously, because he has a lot to answer for. For now though, he has a hard job, and he’s trying to do it well. But to do it, he’ll have to overcome a lot of opposition from within his own ranks.

 

President Bush does have one small advantage over his nervous homeboys and girls. Surprise–he almost forgot–he's the president. He can do and say whatever he wants. (That is, unless some threatened, demoted or demented ex-lackey takes a notion to silence or blackmail him. We hope not.)

 

To Mr. Bush’s credit, Hussein is safely behind bars (though god knows what to do with him next.) And Mr. Bush finally seems to get that the U.S. will have to stand in line to buy oil like everyone else. And that throwing money and might at Iraqi ghosts won’t stop WMDs or decrease terrorism….

 

So now—how to pull his soldiers out of Iraq? (Yes, George Bush does cry at night for the soldiers and their families, and maybe even for Iraqis too.)

 

And before he can do that, how to fix Iraq? (Yes, Colin Powell did make it clear before he left who was about to break it.)

 

And then there’s that democracy thing. George W. Bush really really likes democracy.

 

So President Bush is very busy these days trying to figure out what real democracy might look like in Iraq, while his cronies are busy committing hari-kari over their formerly-malleable President’s newly uncontrollable idealism and apparent abandonment of their precious dreams of gold and empire.

 

Maybe someday President Bush will even notice that his own beloved U.S. isn’t a democracy anymore (although it’s a more reasonable facsimile thereof than some countries.) Maybe someday George Bush will even try to do something about fixing that problem.

 

But until then, first things first. It’s enough that our struggling president, looking squarely at Iraq’s anguish, is trying to figure out what democracy means, at all.

 

It’s a start.

 

 

 

Bush Wake Up Call – A Short Suess-like Rhyme by Eppy

Posted on by
Reply

Bush Wake Up Call

 

 

You’ll have to shout louder;

            I don’t want to know.

Experts and eggheady wonks,

            Will you go?

 

I really can’t hear you.

            I’m waiting to sup.

I don’t care to listen.

            My mind is made up.

 

I long ago tuned out

            All facts that don’t fit.

Your smartypants theories

            Don’t matter a whit.

 

You’ll have to yell louder.

            Sorry, I’m noddin’.

I’m just not impressed.

Enter, bin Laden.

 

 

I wrote this a year ago and forgot about it…. Too bad it's still just as relevant today…..

 

 

 

 

What Would Jesus (or Pat Robertson) Do?

Posted on by
Reply

Now help me get this straight: It’s not legal to commit terrorist acts or to assassinate important people, but it's OK for someone important to say we should. It’s not legal to “murder” a single human being, but it's OK to launch a multi-billion dollar pre-emptive war that randomly kills and maims and ruins the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings. It’s not legal to torture an enemy combatant, but it's OK to sniper-kill, firebomb, napalm, use land mines, and drop atomic weapons on patriots and innocent civilians….

 

Why are we confused about all of this?

 

Solving problems through violence will always feel morally abhorrent. America (the most powerful nation the world has ever known) must take the first creative steps toward changing international law, to make political violence (terrorism, assassinations, and yes, war), like social violence, illegal everywhere and always. The highest morality is respect and support for human life everywhere.

Alternately Stuffing and Starving Our Kids: A Very American Dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

I often see articles about new ways to stuff our kids with the many required daily servings of nutritionally different foods. Just as often, I read articles about our increasingly obese, bulimic, and anorexic children. We’re raising fat children obsessed with thinness. This is a very American problem.

 

Pressured by the food industry, we promulgate impossible-to-use nutritional guidelines advising ridiculous daily diets, as if we can’t be trusted to eat a little bit of  banana one day and some apple slices the next? A little meat or cheese or soy once or twice a week and a changing daily vegetable? A handful of nuts and grains here and there? Tell us that we need a healthful variety of foods weekly or monthly and we’ll offer our families inexpensive, logistically possible, non-fattening meals.

 

Our poor confused young mothers think if they don’t offer their kids snacks on demand, they’re child abusers. Why do we let opportunistic advertisers badger us into confusing a reasonable demand for a little food-discipline and postponement of gratification, with starvation and cruelty?

 

In my childhood home, we were offered as much as we cared to eat, three times a day, of a healthful, balanced meal, along with as many snacks as we might want in between meals—so long as those snacks were apples or whole-wheat bread (both so available as to be boringly unappealing; we ate them only when we were really hungry. Well. Duh?) Did we get enough to eat? Hmmmm. I do recall a time or two arriving at the next meal absolutely voracious, polishing off whatever was on my plate, and asking for more. This was a problem? My parents raised four slim, healthy, active daughters.

 

My father’s rather original hypothesis was that our long evolution as hunter-gatherers generated babies and children who were hard-wired to distinguish early and instantly which foods were unsafe–by attentively watching others eat. Armed with this theory, my parents made a good show of enthusiastically exclaiming, smiling, and smacking their lips delightedly over healthful food. They also led the family in joyful, admiring cheers whenever one of us bravely ate her required three teensy bites of unfamiliar food.  Nowadays parents only give their children attention for not eating. This makes sense?

 

My parents offered no sweets or desserts except on birthdays and holidays, so their hungry girls learned to enjoy all kinds of veggies, fruits, meats, nuts, and grains, along with a diversity of ethnic foods. Although I  learned (after I left home) to put my foot down over eating obvious body parts like eyeballs and tentacles, I still gobble up with gusto anything disguised and unnamed.

 

Raising my own young family, I breast-fed on demand and offered watered-down juice and ground-up baby food from my plate. I worked hard to keep my daughters cheerfully occupied while gradually stretching out times between meals. I didn’t offer quick carbs or sweets, so sugar crashes weren’t a problem–and even then, there was always that ubiquitous apple….  We limited ourselves to a few hours of public television a day, so food advertising was not a problem. I am proud to have raised two slim daughters.

 

We’re a nation of fat people for good reason: we don’t trust our own common sense, but instead let ourselves be over-influenced by those who stand to gain from our choosing unwise and unhealthful approaches. Our children are doubly victimized: by our bad examples, and by media temptations and modern fears which preclude their free play outdoors. Sensible media regulation, along with a solid public media campaign re-introducing such old-fashioned concepts as gluttony and common sense might make a dent in our national waistline. Until then, we are certainly the laughing stock of the rest of the world, which sees Americans as pigs greedily ruining our own health while ignoring the malnutrition and starvation of others. Or at least, they would be laughing, if the whole thing weren’t just so damned tragic.