Here are some things I just don't get.

Reparations For Slavery

Slavery was a sad, awful, moral calamity in American history. No question. But this whole notion of making companies of today pay for the sins of long-dead predecessors seems counterproductive to me.

Proponents of the lawsuit against railroad giant CSX, Aetna Insurance and FleetBoston financial services group say those companies have been profiting from slavery for more than two centuries.

The suit was filed on behalf of 35 million American descendants of African slaves.

The suit claims there may be as many as 1,000 unidentified companies that benefited from slavery between 1619 and 1865. A request for class action status means the plaintiffs want to add more companies to the list of defendants.

Those companies should have to compensate the descendants of those slaves, is the basic premise of the suit.

Any payments would go into a fund to improve health, education and housing opportunities for blacks. There would be no checks to individuals.

The plaintiffs say the recent $8 billion Holocaust lawsuits set the precedent for their action.

They also cite payments made to Japanese who were placed in internment camps during World War II.

I see a big difference, however. In those cases, reparations were made to direct descendants and living victims. The injustices occurred a generation and-a-half ago - not two centuries ago.

The other thing that bothers me is that slavery, as tragic and inhumane as it was, was the law of the land.

Companies operating during those times were following the laws of their times.

And can a court allow a lawsuit to be filed over events that occurred hundreds of years ago? The suit has nothing to do with the business practices of those companies today, or for the last 130 years, for that matter.

I understand why the suit was filed. I understand the plaintiffs' desire for some sort of remuneration for their ancestors' hardships.

But I think the plaintiffs need to ask themselves some tough questions.

Even if they prevail, what will the likely effect on society be?

Will a big monetary settlement make black people somehow feel better about that dark time in American history?

Will penalizing up to a thousand U.S. companies foster more racial harmony in America, or more racial division?

Will a settlement create a sense of closure, or a sense of resentment?

Yasser Gets A Pass

After 9/11 the United States acted swiftly and decisively.

I fully supported W and his policy toward terrorism. I still do.

Remember what he said?

Paraphrased, it was something like, if you harbor a terrorist or feed a terrorist or support a terrorist in any way, you are on our list of terrorist enemies.

Or something like that.

Basically, W was trying to say that any regime or government that even remotely tolerates terrorism needs to get in line and "rout out" the terrorists.

That sounds great, but I guess I want to know why Yasser Arafat keeps getting a pass.

Certainly the Palestinian Liberation Organization must be at the very least seen as tolerating terrorists. I mean, after all, those Hamas guys keep blowing themselves up in the presence of innocent Israelis, don't they?

I guess it's just the politics of the situation. I suppose it's our policy in the Middle East - specifically with regard to Israel - that makes Arabs hate us in the first place, so maybe that's why we can't really lean on Arafat too much.

Energy Policy

The national media, evenhanded as they always are, have uncovered yet another vast right wing conspiracy.

This time, it's energy policy. The Energy Department earlier this week released some 11,000 pages of documents.

Associated Press reported Thursday that Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham rebuffed environmentalists who requested a meeting to discuss energy policy.

But at the same time, Abraham talked to people from the nuclear industry, the oil industry and the public utility industry.

"Big energy all but held the pencil for the energy task force," the story quoted an environmentalist as saying.

Can you imagine?

The secretary of energy consulting with energy industry experts while forming energy policy. This must be a conspiracy.

According to the Media Research Center, listen to what a CBS reporter had to say:

"Forced by a court order, the Energy Department released 11,000 pages of documents on the making of the national energy policy, and one statistic stood out like a lopsided sports score. At least 36 times, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met representatives of the energy industry to discuss the policy, compared to zero meetings with environmental groups."

Here's what CNN's Connie Chung had to say:

"The White House and its connection to the energy business was a hot issue before any of us knew much about that Houston company called Enron. ... Well, thousands of documents released last evening are only making a hot issue hotter."

Then a CNN reporter did pretty much the same story as CBS, referring to what "environmentalists say" or mentioning "environmental groups." But she hangs the label on the "conservative group Judicial Watch."

I know, I know, maybe I'm too sensitive.

But do you think, if the tables were turned, you would see a story saying, "Liberal environmentalists all but held the pencil for the energy task force" or "At least 36 times, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met with liberal environmentalists to discuss the policy, compared to zero meetings with energy industry leaders."

Of course you wouldn't, because that wouldn't be news. That would be good government. In the world of national media, it's OK if liberals pedal influence or help craft policy.

The story didn't get a great deal of play the rest of the week because the documents, frankly, didn't reveal anything out of the ordinary.

Of course that didn't stop our friends at CBS and CNN from taking a few shots at the administration.

CNN devoted seven minutes of "Newsnight" to the conspiracy. CBS did a couple minutes.

Refreshingly, ABC and NBC saw the story for what it was. Boring. They didn't even mention it. [[In-content Ad]]