ELEPHANT RAGE

U.S. Is Under Attack from Within and Getting Weaker by the Week

I recall watching astronauts walk on the moon when I was a child.  As a young adult, I was thrilled to intern in IBM's Space Shuttle Programs department and attend NASA during press briefings.  In recent years I read with pleasure about the preparations for returning to the moon.  And just weeks ago my daughter got a 100 on a paper she wrote about the hundreds of technological advances and devices we have in our country that evolved from NASA's research.

It's a common American dream for a kid to imagine becoming an astronaut, and I don't know of anyone personally who does not admire and take pride in our nation's space explorations.  It's about as patriotic as the national anthem or the flag.  Even Hollywood gets it right in numerous movies where they show how the world -- the whole, entire world -- looks up to the U.S.A. for its NASA programs.  Now Obama wants to take that away, rip it apart, pounce on it and stomp it into the ground.  Just like that. 

Something else, too.  Our backup Loran-C navigation system that has guided mariners and aviators since WWII is now a thing of the past as of this week, thanks to Obama, leaving us wide open to attack if and when our GPS navigation system is jammed.  It is well-known that enemy states and terrorists around the world are working day and night to develop ways to attack our electronic systems.  Before Obama came along, we at least had a backup to the vulnerable GPS.  Now we don't.  Hooray, Obama!  I see you're right on track for destroying the United States.  Take away our national pride.  Take away our protections.  Make us wide open to attack.

Need I mention the economy?  The construction industry nationally has unemployment of nearly 25 percent, yet Obama continues to ignore this sector of the economy.  Leaders in the industry make repeated, straightforward requests for the President to take certain actions that would help, but they are ignored.  Australia took such actions and pretty much avoided the recession.  The construction industry drives the national economy, and is usually the first in and the first out of any recession.  The country is going to continue having dismal news for as long as the construction industry is at a standstill.  Perhaps Obama knows this, and that's why he does nothing.  Yet another way to bring down the United States.

Go shake some more enemies' hands and bow to some more enemy leaders, Mr. President.  Do it right out in the open.  Just keep paving the way for them.  No one is paying attention anyway. 

I read a historical speech this week where a military leader in South America was about to be tried and punished for acts that were harmful to the country he was supposed to be serving.  The speaker attributed his betrayal to the fact that the military leader was not actually born in that country, and therefore had no loyalty and national pride.  It brings me right back to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, and made it mandatory for a President to be a citizen of the U.S. and to be born here.  With Obama, neither is a sure bet.  Should there be any doubts, ever, about something so important?  His actions prove his true loyalties.  Let's hope that one day he is also held accountable.

Why Not? Cruise Vacationers Party in Haiti Only Miles from Devastation

Royal Caribbean leases a prime piece of coastline in Haiti it calls Labadee, and every week -- including the week of the earthquake tragedy -- the cruise line's ships deliver thousands of tourists to frolic in this essentially privatized paradise.  The tourists sunbathe, swim, kayak, fly on zip lines, go down an inflatable slide, and drink "Labaduzees," Royal Caribbean's very own special cocktail. 

Only 15 miles away, in the "real" Haiti on the other side of a mountain, past the armed guards protecting the tourists, thousands of refugees from the quake are pouring in to Cap Haitian, clamoring for help and resources.  Less than 100 miles away lies Port-au-Prince, with its tens of thousands of bodies stacked up on street corners and being carted off in dump trucks to mass burial grounds, and the still living experiencing a true hell on earth. 

Why Not?  That's the title of the blog by the President and CEO of Royal Caribbean International.  Why not travel to Royal Caribbean's private paradise?  Labadee is so ruled by the cruise liner that the term is even a registered trademark!  It's a place where you are guaranteed to see no Haitians vacationing.  Or suffering.  Foreign tourists have come here for years in seeming oblivion to Haiti's usual trauma, so why stop now that their misery has increased a notch? 

Besides, these cruises are great for helping the earthquake victims, according to the CEO, who says that "being on the island and generating economic activity for...our 230 employees helps with relief while being somewhere else does not help with relief."  Let me translate that for you:  "Being in our private resort and generating economic activity for Royal Caribbean gives us great relief, and being somewhere else does not." 

In a separate blog post, the Associate Vice President noted that the company will "contribute all the net revenues earned on Labadee...on Monday and Tuesday."  That means it will pocket the revenues on all the other days the cruise ships stop in Haiti!  That's some relief!  I'm sure these revenues far outweigh the nominal donations of food and supplies the cruise ships are delivering when they stop in Labadee®.

Perhaps the Haitians fleeing for their lives will push their way over the mountain, and past the private guards.  Maybe they will push their way onto their country's own lush beaches, take a ride on a zip line, and kick back and have a Labaduzee, prior to disembarking on a Royal Caribbean cruise to yet another paradise.  Vacations for Haitians.  What a concept.  Or maybe the foreign tourists -- Royal Caribbean's loyal customers who are mostly American -- will eventually demand to dock at Port-au-Prince, so they can disembark and gawk, taking photos of the devastation, like people slow and stare when they pass a horrific car wreck.  Why Not?

Time to Redefine Islam and Stop All the PC BS

With only a few hours left of 2009, I'm stuck with the image of singed underwear in my mind, and thinking of that fake shlong that could have blown an airliner out of the sky.  Of course I'm talking about the six-inch bomb that a dark-skinned guy with a Muslim name had stuffed in his trousers on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.  Luckily he only succeeded in burning his briefs when he tried to set it off.  But someone like him may succeed in mass murder one day if we don't stop pandering to his kind.

Let's face it.  The biggest protection of terrorists is the same sort of shield that's been protecting Barack Hussein Obama from greater scrutiny -- political correctness.   We're too afraid to "discriminate" on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation, etc., to where we act like we can't even recognize a terrorist when we're staring one in the face.  Or at least, we prevent our laws from recognizing a terrorist. 

I was horrified a while back when a Muslim member of our own military started shooting at other members of our military on a base in our own United States of America.  News stories then revealed that we have a large percentage of Muslims within our military, but we are not allowed to screen them out for any purpose because that would be religious discrimination.  Screening Arabs and the like would be ethnic discrimination. 

At a time when people are at least calling for full body scans of passengers entering airplanes -- and on a day when the Netherlands has said it will require such scans for people boarding flights to the U.S. -- we must take into account that people with sex changes are actively protesting the use of full body scans.  They are afraid we might see their fake shlongs.  People like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are all for gay rights, and black rights and religious rights, so long as these rights help them avoid getting caught as they attempt to blow up whites, Christians, blacks, gays, children and everyone else.

We need to start looking at Muslims the way they looked at Communists just a few short decades ago.  Communists were perceived as the enemy.  They were tracked down and discriminated against.  You'd better believe it.  And the strategy succeeded.  Terrorists are being brainwashed and trained in the halls of mosques, and it's high time we redefined Islam as being more than just a religion -- it's a form of subversion, with "death to America" its favorite chant.  The goal is a theocracy that allows virtually no freedoms, is opposed to all rights and education, and tolerates the cultivation of poppy for opium, honor killings, and stoning to death. 

We should be screening Muslims and profiling for our own safety and for the future of our country.  Being friendly toward Muslims, as Obama hoped to do, doesn't help one bit.  To the contrary.   The countries with the most friendliness toward Muslims are the ones with the most terrorism.  Take a look at Pakistan, just for starters.  People are bombed to death there regularly, and it's a Muslim nation.  So much for friendliness achieving peace. 

We should change our laws to allow greater scrutiny of Muslims.  Certainly there are many peaceful, sincere Muslims who do see their religion as just a religion, and who are pro-American.  But we need to be able to penetrate the shield of these people -- that is to say, the shield of religious protection -- to get to the Muslim terrorists who are making life difficult for not only non-Muslims, but for the peaceful Muslims themselves.  More than that, these terrorists are threatening to snuff out life itself. 

Let's end the political correctness and take decisive action.  If we don't bend on this "freedom of religion" thing just a bit for this valid and urgent purpose, then we may find ourselves with no freedoms down the road, as Muslims use our own nuclear weapons against us, take over, and take us to hell on earth, turning our food crops into poppy crops to make opium, covering our beautiful women with black hoods, and destroying our schools.  Saving our country is worth some good Muslims agreeing to be profiled, searched and so on for the sake of weeding out the bad.  That's the change I believe in.

Journalists Report on Bloodbath of Their Peers in the Philippines

The main heading on Reporters Without Borders this Thanksgiving simply says, "Bloodbath."  A click through to the story shows that the death toll of journalists killed in the Philippines in a recent massacre has now reached 29.  That's 29 of 57 people killed.  Presumably the journalists were killed to keep them from reporting on the massacre of a convoy of political rivals on their way to register for an election. 

The leading suspect in the massacre is the local governor's son, per the story.  In other words, this looks like an attempt by a ruling family to stay in power by squelching both freedom in elections and freedom of the press, all in one horrific massacre that wasn't just about quick shots to the head, but rather involved rapes, extensive torture, and beheadings.

To get an idea of what things are like over there, check out the U.S. State Department's Travel Alert issued November 24th stating the following: "Travelers should exercise extreme caution if traveling" to affected areas of the Philippines.  "The state of emergency includes road checkpoints conducted by the Philippine military and law enforcement.  If U.S. citizens travel...despite this Travel Alert, they should understand there are heightened tensions and there will be a significant military presence.  They should carefully research restrictions imposed upon travel and follow the instructions of officials with regards to limitations on movement.  Travelers to this area should remain vigilant and avoid congregating in public areas.  Some foreigners...hire their own security.  The Department of State remains concerned about the continuing threat of terrorist actions and violence against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world." 

Although all of the journalists murdered in the massacre were apparently from the Philippines and covering news for local and national media outlets, Americans remain at risk of being targets in their own right.  A September Travel Warning for the Philippines issued prior to the massacre stated the following about "terrorist and insurgent activities" there:  "Regional terrorist groups have carried out bombings resulting in injuries and deaths.  Since August 2008, there have been sporadic clashes between lawless groups and the Philippine Armed Forces...Kidnap-for-ransom gangs are active and have targeted foreigners.  U.S. Government employees must seek special permission for travel" to affected areas.

Travel Alerts are issued to inform on short-term conditions "that pose imminent risk to the security of U.S. citizens," while Travel Warnings are issued "to describe long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable."  The Department of State currently has Travel Alerts for 11 countries including Mexico, Honduras and Germany, and Travel Warnings for 29 countries including Israel and Columbia.  Why Germany?  Because of Al Queda threats.  The Department has also issued a general Worldwide Caution, which is worth reading if you plan to travel abroad anytime soon.

Reporters Without Borders offers the following statistics for 2009 so far worldwide:  35 journalists killed (29 in the Philippines alone); 176 journalists imprisoned; 10 media assistants imprisoned; and 93 cyberdissidents imprisoned.  The organization even labels specific countries as "Internet Enemies," which of course include China, which for the past several months has not even allowed its citizens access to Facebook.

I'm gripped by a mixture of concerns and emotions:  the gratitude I feel for the brave reporters and bloggers who risk so much to tell it like it is; the need to support efforts to improve political and press freedoms around the world; and the increasing threat of travel abroad for Americans, just because they are Americans.  While our passports allow us travel to more countries than any other people on the planet, it seems that the passport should come with a disclaimer:  Travel at Your Own Risk.  A complete report on all the attacks against Americans in recent years would be nice as well. 

I'm also gripped by the lack of coverage in the mass media of what is going on in the Philippines and in other countries where freedom of the press is at risk.  Clearly, the reporters who are still alive there and writing about the deaths of their peers are doing so with some measure of fear for their own welfare.  Yet they continue to report.  Cyberdissidents around the world continue to blog.  I urge everyone to seek out the writings of those who write under adverse conditions.  Even if CNN doesn't care to pick up on the news because they'd rather cover Black Friday shoppers and such, it will be worthwhile to find out what message these people have who are risking their lives to deliver it.

Men Visit Gynecologists to Treat Their 'Womenopause'

I was taken by surprise the other day when a man walked into the lobby at my gynecologist's office and signed in as a patient.  I found myself looking him up and down, and wondering what he had in his pants.  He looked masculine enough, but still...maybe he'd been changed.

Once I was called in for my appointment, I noticed two flyers on the wall.  One said:  "Hormone imbalance is not just a woman's problem...[We are] now assisting both men and women with their hormone issues."  The other one was titled:  ANDROPAUSE.  It explained this strange word as being the male equivalent of menopause.  Somehow I think this is all twisted.  Men should have womenopause if women have menopause.  Or women should have womenopause and men can have that dreaded menopause. 

So here's the deal, men, per the other flyers that I pocketed: 

Why Should Men Take Supplemental Hormones?  The Benefits of Androgen Therapy

It is no surprise that our bodies change as we age.  The hormones that stimulate the development and maintenance of "maleness" are called androgens.  Androgen levels peak when men are in their late teens and twenties.  After that, levels gradually decline...men who have the highest levels of testosterone and other androgens, frequently look, feel and perform at the top of their class.  There are other men with androgen levels at the bottom of the pack.  They may be fatigued, perform poorly sexually and may even be depressed...low androgens can be at the heart of many common male medical problems...

What problems are we talking about?  There can be muscle loss and weakness, reduced sexual desire and erectile dysfunction.  Weight gain, especially around the middle, is a common problem.  Increased abdominal fat...Prostate enlargement...Prostate cancer...thinking problems and difficult with learning new things...thinning bones.  Depression... 

Do I have to be "old" to need androgen supplements?  No!  ...Will just taking Androgens solve all my problems?  No!!  ...Proper diet is needed...Exercise is needed...Vitamins and other dietary supplements are needed, along with adequate sleep and moderation of alcohol consumption...

What are the benefits?  Improvement of mood, well-being, thinking and learning.  Enhanced libido and sexual performance.  Maintain Prostate Gland health and healthy urinary functions.  Increasing muscle mass and tone while reducing abdominal body fat.  Reducing cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar to help protect the heart.  Protection of bone strength and density...

Which hormones are we talking about?  The most important androgen is testosterone...

So, looking back on that man in the lobby, I have to think that maybe he was functioning "at the bottom of the pack" and needed help.  Which of the above problems he needed the most help with, I don't dare to speculate. 

But if you, reader, are losing your "maleness" and need some assistance, but are afraid to walk into just any gynecologist's office (after all, they can't all be in the business of helping both men and women), then you should check out Georgia Hormones, formerly known as Alpharetta Women's Healthcare at my previous visit. 

Somehow, I liked the sound of "women's healthcare" better, but I'm sure the owners like the sound of "cha-ching," and that's probably what they hear when they think of opening up their practice to millions of men.  I can tell you, there are plenty around here who are going through Andropause and need more of that androgen thing that makes them men:  testosterone. 

Cuban Blogger Gets Pummeled by Government Thugs after Winning Prize

One of my idols, the author of Generation Y that gets a million hits a month, recently received a prestigious international award for her poignant blog that features abuses and hardships in Cuba.  Rather than be proud of the success of one of their own, the Cuban government forbade Yoani Sanchez from traveling outside Cuba to accept the award, and only days later, government thugs accosted her on a sidewalk and beat her to the point that she must walk with crutches while she heals. 

Certainly, this episode has given her some AWESOME fuel for her blog -- probably the opposite effect of what the Communist military regime had hoped to achieve.  In fact, while beating her, the men made it clear that she was going too far in her blog, and saying too much, and she basically needed to keep quiet.  Guess what?  Now a million readers around the world have learned about the true nature of censorship in Cuba, as she has blogged on every minute detail of the ordeal, right down to mentioning how she grabbed one of the men's testes during the altercation.

I can only hope that President Obama and other liberals who want to increase ties with Cuba and disregard sanctions have read Generation Y.  There is nothing pretty about censorship and an oppressive government. 

Meanwhile, I hope everyone out there who is as sensitive to insults as the Cuban government also takes note.  Whenever someone makes an uproar over the spoken or written word of someone else because they find it offensive, they are in some way diminishing freedom of speech. 

Think of the politician who was recently blasted for complimenting Jews for being frugal.  Turns out the Jews didn't consider that so much of a compliment as a stereotype, and Jim Ulmer was forced to make a huge apology.  To read the vicious comments online in response to his well-intended remark, you could almost picture such angry and insulted people wanting to pummel him the way the Cuban government put the blogger in her place.  

Consider the ridiculous Halloween scandal over the costume of an illegal alien, with the Latino community protesting.  Their feelings were hurt.  Seems whenever there is the most truth about a statement, there is the most backlash, with protests that presumably could turn violent under the right circumstances.  

Why such sensitivity?  Why don't people value freedom of speech and expression over protecting their own image?  After all, interest groups in the United States seem as eager as the Cuban government to censor not just the media and bloggers, but everyone who speaks.  Reminds me of the old childhood rhyme, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  Of course, that was always said at the very moment when someone's words DID hurt, and badly. 

No matter the pain of hearing the truth, or a partial truth, or an unpopular stereotype or caricature, that is far preferable to not hearing it!  Much better that we allow freedom of expression, and deal with our own feelings, than that we suppress all types of communication to try not to offend. 

One of my favorite sections of the bookstore is always where the political humor is located.  How great that we can allow such ridicule and mockery of our own presidents!  And live another day without fear of reprisal.  If the president must put up with it, then so must we all, and be grateful that we live in a place where we can openly state what is on our minds.

We must use our freedom of expression to speak out on behalf of people who are not so lucky, and call for our government to keep pressure on countries like Cuba until they change their barbaric ways. 

IN THE NEWS: Marge Simpson Bares All for Playboy

 November 2009 Cover of Playboy

In an effort to attract a younger audience, Playboy magazine has for the first time put on its cover a cartoon character:  Marge Simpson.  "We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd," per a spokeswoman of Playboy.  "She is a stunning example of the cartoon form," added the editorial director.

When my 12-year-old daughter, a long-time Simpson's fan, saw the new Playboy cover, her first response was, "That is so out of character for Marge.  That doesn't fit her character at all."  It doesn't seem to fit her figure, either, since there are many younger and more voluptuous cartoon characters out there who would've been more appropriate candidates for appearing in Playboy.  Nevertheless, not only does Marge appear on the cover, but also inside the publication in a display considered "very, very racy" by the editorial director.

After much research, apparently in the wrong places, I was unable to come up with data supporting Playboy's assertion that Marge will appeal primarily to the 20-something crowd.  That is simply unjustified.  The Simpsons appeals to ALL demographics, including little children.  I can personally testify to that, because my own child starting watching the series at about age six.  Which is unfortunate if the real attempt of Playboy is to hook a much younger audience.

To all those religious people who consider The Simpsons evil, I want to say my daughter has obtained the best ever education from that show, learning all about past presidents, events, social issues and more, not to mention developing a fine sense of humor.  I've never seen anything negative about the show whatsoever...until now. 

Things change a bit when one of the characters -- a church-going mother, no less -- strips for a sex magazine the BBC calls "soft porn."  This seems indeed out of character and unwarranted.  Makes me wonder if Huge Hefner did this on his own, without approval from The Simpsons powers that be, or if this was a joint effort at publicity, especially as the show celebrates 20 years in the making.  It could just be a careless attempt by The Simpsons to remain relevant and controversial, and in the news.

An excerpt from the BBC article follows:

Simpsons matriarch Marge Simpson is gracing the cover of Playboy magazine, becoming the first cartoon character in the publication's history...

It marks the 20th anniversary of The Simpsons, viewed as America's most dysfunctional family. 

The move to put Marge on the cover is an attempt to draw in a younger audience for the soft porn magazine.

"We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd," said Playboy spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey. 

It is not yet known how much of Marge will be on show inside the issue, but "it's very, very racy," said editorial director James Jellinek. 

He added:  "She's a stunning example of the cartoon form."

The edition goes on sale in the US on 16 October...

Playboy owner Hugh Hefner is said to be a huge Simpsons fan and appeared in an episode in the early 1990's.

Reading Between the Lines of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

In an effort to better understand the mind-boggling announcement that Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, it is helpful to read the announcement line by line, and try to place the carefully drafted speech in context with background information. 

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

The committee consists of five white Norwegians, hailing from a country that is homogeneous, rich, and socialist -- i.e., with a narrow vision.  Even from that perspective, however, it's difficult to fathom what "extraordinary efforts" they think Obama has made to warrant the Nobel prize.  Perhaps the efforts to strengthen international diplomacy had to do with his speeches outside the U.S. during his election campaign, the most remarkable of which was his address in Berlin in July 2008 to a crowd of more than 200,000 -- far exceeding the crowds he drew within the United States.  Obama spoke about "hope" and "peace" and said:  "Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century...This is the moment to stand as one."   Apparently this speech struck a chord in people who were sick and tired of Bush's unilateralism, and feeling helpless to impact the policies of the most powerful nation in the world.

Photo from Obama's 2008 speech in Berlin from SpiegelOnline along with a story on "The Triumph of the Anti-Bush."

"The committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."

Maybe one day Norway will regret firsthand that Obama did away with the planned missile shield of Europe, but to get in the head of the committee members, let's just note that Norway of course has no nuclear weapons, and has long been a vocal opponent of nuclear weapons on the international stage.  If nuclear weapons were banned, however, and a rogue military dictator developed them anyway with the intent of destroying other countries, who would be able to stop them?  Norway??  Norway's population is less than that of greater Atlanta, and its total population available to fight a war barely exceeds two million.  Could the United States stop a nuclear-armed dictator without having its own nuclear weapons?  Could a European country stop the aggressor without its NATO-supplied U.S. nuclear weapons? 

To suggest that governments like the United States do away with nuclear weapons would be like saying police should face criminals entirely unarmed and defenseless.  It wouldn't be long before criminals ruled society, just like it wouldn't be long before military dictators ruled the world if democratic governments all gave up their arsenals.  Good guys need 'em, to ensure bad guys don't get 'em.  If Obama is sincere in wanting a world without nuclear weapons, as the Nobel committee seems to think, and is not just being a politician making good speeches, then he is up to no good, and is after the destruction of the free world, because certainly aggressive military dictators around the world will not lay down their arms willingly and hug their neighbors while espousing peace and love.  Instead they will move into the void created by Western military weakness -- a West without nuclear weapons -- and take over with their own nuclear arsenals developed or stolen on the sly.

"Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. (That was the announcement as written.  The way it was actually spoken is:  Obama has as President created a new international climate.)" 

Yes, he has, which is why Muslims throughout Africa, Indonesia and the Middle East celebrated his election, and why some Africans have called his Nobel Peace Prize award "a victory for Africa."  This "new climate," however, is at the heart of why Obama won the award.  It's difficult for Americans to understand the hatred of George "W" around the world, and how relieved everyone is to have a different U.S. President to deal with.  The disgust didn't begin and end with the demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people around the world against Bush and his foreign policies.  It lived on in graffiti plastering all the major and many minor cities of the world.  Check out Street Art and the War on Terror to get an idea of the contempt the world has for Bush.  In fact, during his presidency, European media entertained stories speculating whether the leader was schizophrenic.  The relief felt by the collective masses over the election of Obama, the Anti-Bush, is clearly behind the award. 


Cover of Street Art and the War On Terror.

"Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."

The U.N. is made up of and controlled by more and more countries opposed to the core values of the United States.  It is therefore not unusual for the U.S. to simply boycott certain meetings of the U.N. that discuss nothing other than advancing agendas that Americans are completely opposed to.  Do these Nobel committee members want the U.S. to abandon its own agenda in pursuit of what the majority of world leaders want, within the context of the U.N. and other international institutions?  That would be a dangerous plan of action for Americans and the world, but the Norwegians have placed their bet on this and made their investment.  In fact, the $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize, along with all the prestige that goes with it, can be seen as a bit of a bribe to get Obama in the pockets of non-Americans. 

The point here is that powerless Norway would like to have more say in international affairs, and thinks that getting the U.S. to bow to the wishes of international institutions will help achieve that goal.  The aim is more control and influence over the United States and its leader.  This is a sickening abuse of the Nobel Peace Prize, but then, how relevant is the award really when it was not given to people like Gandhi and Mother Teresa, the true heroes in seeking peace, or any of the other 204 nominees that did more to deserve the prize this year.

"Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts." 

Clearly, these words come from five Norwegians inexperienced and rather ignorant of how international conflicts are actually resolved, today and throughout history.  Dialogue and negotiation did nothing to stop Hitler, who was happy to sign peace treaty after peace treaty with his neighbors prior to rolling in the tanks and taking over.  Brute force alone, or the threat of it, is what truly resolves "the most difficult international conflicts." 

"The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations." 

Yeah, right, and they all lived happily ever after.  The world will never be free of nuclear arms any more than it will be free of electricity or computers or any other technological development.  We cannot go back in time, or let's hope not.  Certainly some terrorist groups hailing from the Middle East would like to take us back four thousand years, and institute worldwide such great laws as stoning people to death, but let's hope they don't succeed.

"Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting." 

Note the word "constructive."  The implication is that prior to Obama, our role in the world was destructive for the climate.  That's odd, considering this same committee recently awarded Al Gore, another American, a Nobel prize for efforts to fight "climatic challenges."  Obviously, the USA has already been playing a constructive role in this area, so why imply otherwise?  Enough said.

"Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."

It's all too obvious that the Iraq War, which brought on all the world's derision of Bush and celebration of Obama, strengthened "democracy and human rights."  Without question.  It has yet to be seen whether anything Obama does strengthens democracy and human rights around the world.  So far, however, rights within the United States have been threatened and diminished since he took office.  For example, the Obama-backed Hate Crimes Bill currently attached as a line item in a defense spending bill will greatly decrease our most basic and cherished rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  How can a President squelch rights in the country he rules and at the same time increase rights abroad? 

Bowing and cowing to enemy leaders of countries where democracy does not exist and human rights are routinely abused certainly won't do anything to help.  No peace-loving country in Europe was able to strengthen democracy and human rights in the face of Hitler's blitzkrieg.  Military might and actions have a place in achieving good goals.  They are not inherently evil, but are only used for evil in the wrong hands.  As gun rights proponents say, it isn't the gun that kills, but the person holding it.  Norway should look more at results rather than means, and not judge a book by its cover if they truly believe in strengthening democracy and human rights. 

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." 

Obama is certainly an icon around the world, but so is Sarah Palin.  Having enough charisma and PR smarts to capture attention hardly warrants an award for peace.  Creating "a better future" does not hinge on the popularity of a leader, but rather on having the means and determination to actually take actions to improve the world, even if those actions are unpopular.  In fact, popularity of a leader can be a huge detriment.  You cannot be all things to all people and please everyone.  A ruler must instead be willing to be unpopular with rulers of other countries with different values and goals.  Is Obama?  There are many indications that what he cares most about is not serving the United States and protecting its interests and values, but rather serving himself, and protecting his own interests and values, including his status as a much-beloved world icon.  Only time will tell in the end whether he helps create a better future or does nothing more than offer hope for one -- the time that the Nobel committee should've waited before making any award to Obama.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Truly scary.  The President of the United States should lead the country on the basis of values and attitudes shared by the majority of American citizens, regardless of what the citizens of Norway, Kenya, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba or any other country think.  Who cares about the "values and attitudes" of "the majority of the world's population?"  But read the full statement above again.  It is at the very heart of Obama's selection for the Nobel Peace Prize.  He is referred to as not a country leader, but as one who is "to lead the world."  Therefore, according to this theory, he should listen to and heed the world's opinions.  The U.S. President is so powerful in the world, that whoever serves in this role is seen as the ruler of the world.  People outside the U.S., like Norwegians, feel helpless in this context, because they are unable to vote for this ruler. 

The committee members for the Nobel Peace Prize are trying to send a message to this world leader to heed the world.  Let's see, that encompasses more than a billion Chinese communists; about two billion Muslims; and billions of others who would espouse ideas that are totally contrary to everything the United States stands for.  Perhaps they are counting on Obama's statement to the Berlin crowd that he sees himself as a "citizen of the world," and counting on the possibility of his divided loyalties among countries as diverse as the United States, Kenya and Indonesia.  Maybe this U.S. President can be manipulated, they must be thinking, and bought for a mere $1.4 million.  However, one good thing to say about Obama in this regard is that he immediately announced he would donate that money to charity.  Not what the Norwegians were counting on perhaps, but a clear indication from Obama that he does not want to be seen as financially benefiting from the award, nor have any obligations as a result of it.

"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman." 

Note the re-statement of the U.S. President being depicted as "the world's leading spokesman." 

"The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"

Actually, with the United States remaining the world's only superpower, and with Norway being inconsequential by comparison, it really doesn't matter if Norway takes on a share of the responsibility.  Maybe these five Nobel committee members feel important by stating that they will join Obama in his "global response to global challenges."  Let's hope Obama does not feel obligated to return any favors, or earn after-the-fact the award they have bestowed on him.  To the contrary, you would think that getting this prize before doing anything -- as the SNL parody so aptly pointed out only a week before the Nobel Prize was awarded -- would actually free Obama up to stop trying to impress so many other country leaders around the world, and start trying to impress U.S. citizens, who will be the ones to actually vote for him or against him down the road, and vote for or against the people in Congress who can back his plans.  In the meantime his fairytale continues, where he becomes President of the world's greatest country without anything to merit it, including allegedly citizenship, and where he becomes a Nobel Peace Prize recipient without anything to merit it.

My lingering and parting thought is just how wrong it is to hand out peace awards prematurely.  Winston Churchill was the main person stating how Hitler was a danger long before that was evident to the masses, and at a time when most people saw Hitler as a beacon of hope for peace and positive change, resulting in his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.  In the United States, a huge chunk of the population -- termed "extremists" by the administration, but in actuality concerned citizens of every walk -- see Obama as a danger to every Western ideal and American value, and are highly concerned and sounding the alarm bells.  Let's hope for the good of the country and the world that the five Norwegians have it right, and not the millions of Americans who know and understand the President better, and can see firsthand what he's up to, which arguably is nothing related to strengthening "democracy and human rights," or generating peace and unity at home and abroad.    

IN THE NEWS: Dutch Schools to Teach Pet Care and Issue Pet Diplomas

If only my daughter were an 8-year-old in the Netherlands, she would be ecstatic right now at the upcoming lessons:  Dutch schools are going to teach kids how to take care of household pets including dogs, and then give out "pet diplomas" to students who complete the coursework.

It is common for Dutch schools to teach everyday skills that kids in the U.S. must learn outside of school, such as how to swim and how to cross streets at cross-walks.  So for them it is a natural progression to teach another common skill like caring for pets.  This will go beyond the typical classroom hamster or fish, as the students will be learning what to do with larger animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits and birds. 

The lessons and diplomas are being promoted by a Dutch organization devoted to people and animals that was founded in 1998.  I wonder if the Humane Society or a similar organization might be interested in starting this sort of thing in the United States.  An excerpt translated from De Telegraaf follows:

Students in elementary school in our country will get lessons on caring for household pets, after which they can get a "pet diploma."

After intensive theoretical and practical studies, the coursework will end with a thorough exam.  The organization "Stichting Met Dieren Meer Mens" made this announcement as they handed out the first free lesson packets on people and their animals.  The intention is that the pet exams will be given to students from the age of 8.

Schools appear to be standing in line for the pet lessons:  one in five elementary schools is planning to start them right away.  The expectation is that the lesson packets will be distributed to more than half of the approximately 7,500 elementary schools for starters.  "In this manner the children will do some serious learning, but also something fun.  They will learn to interact with household pets in a responsible manner.  Above all, it appears from research that pets have a positive effect on the health of people and therefore also on children.  Schools that offer the learning materials will be certified to offer the pet diplomas," said Pascale Fuchs of the sponsoring organization.

Via a theory card, the children will learn something new every day about pets.  "That an adult dog must be let outside at least four times a day, for example, or cats must be protected from certain illnesses."

Reader Comments:

Very good!  This should also be required of adults who decide to buy a pet.  Perhaps that is a way to make sure the animals are properly cared for.

I hope they do that in Spain, too! (from a reader in Madrid)

Wonderful.  I hope it is a huge success, because it is really needed.

This is FANTASTIC.  They need to also give such lessons to adults who want to get a pet.

As a huge animal lover, I find this wonderful!!  Finally, some fun lessons at school. ;););)

IN THE NEWS: Arab and Muslim Inbreeding Causes Extensive Genetic Defects

More than 900 genetic disorders have been found among Arabs and their descendants, with high rates also among non-Arab Muslims and some Hindus who commonly marry relatives, a practice known as consanguinity.  The genetic disorders from inbreeding create a host of physical ailments such as diabetes, thalassaemia (a blood disorder), muscular dystrophy, kidney disease, breast cancer and Down's syndrome, and may potentially increase psychological ailments such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or mental retardation.

Despite these possible side effects, marrying within the family clan -- most often to a first cousin -- is an acceptable and often preferred social structure in countries ranging from Africa to the Middle East and into West Asia.  Such marriages exceed 50 percent of all unions in Pakistan; 40 percent in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Mauritania; 30 percent in Iran, Oman, Qatar, Yemen and certain regions of India; 20 percent in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Palestine, Tunisia and Turkey; and 10 percent in Lebanon, Morocco and Bangladesh.  The practice of consanguinity has existed for thousands of years in that region of the world, and was even at the heart of the founding of the Hebrew people, with some of the twelve tribes of Israel originating from the offspring of Jacob and a cousin. 

Inbred family clans can become almost their own breed, with their own genetic features.  They can have intense loyalties exceeding their loyalties to a country or any other cause, making it difficult to superimpose a democracy and Western legal structures on a society with clans and tribes at its foundation.  Consanguinity keeps wealth in the family, and is especially preferred in countries where people have the least trust of non-relatives.  You can surmise then, e.g., that in Pakistan, with its inbreeding exceeding 50 percent, the people have highly connected extended families and distrust any outsiders.  Such distrust and family loyalty can foster behaviors that are frowned upon in the West, such as nepotism.

I know what you are thinking:  Time to strike up the dueling banjos.  Obviously, all this talk of marriage to a cousin makes a typical American say, "Ewwww."  (No offense to my cousins, mind you.)  It is so repulsive in the United States that about half of all states have laws prohibiting such marriages.  Less than 1 percent of American marriages are to a relative, while the rate in Europe is about 1 percent.  Historically, however, the practice of marrying a relative was common among royalty in Europe, and was quite the norm in rural areas in the U.S. 

Although the Hatfields and McCoys are now a thing of the past here, they remain a very real and entrenched part of society elsewhere.  And wherever these clans move, they take their practices with them.  European countries with large numbers of Muslim and Arab populations have tried to get these people to stop inbreeding, but to no avail.  In fact, the expatriate families have extra incentives to arrange a marriage to a cousin back home, because that can result in a visa to Europe for yet another relative, rather than for a stranger. 

So don't expect these family clans to disband just because of some genetic problems, or just because they have migrated to the West.  In some communities, the practice of marrying a relative is increasing, not decreasing.  Maintaining the social ties of a family clan is a much higher priority than avoiding genetic fallout.  The solution they envision instead is to eventually offer genetic testing and advice to potential marriage partners, to ensure that the cousin selected does not have any latent genes that would create a terrible mix in any offspring.  What will happen to the poor girl who is discovered with an unwanted recessive gene?

An excerpt from an article in The National of the United Arab Emirates follows:

Arabs suffer from one of the highest rates of genetic disease in the world, according to a research institute.

Some 906 genetic disorders have been identified in Arabs and their descendants, reports the Centre for Arab Genomic Studies (CAGS)...It warns that the problem will require research and collaboration among medical communities...These figures are thought likely to rise, too, as researchers discover new disorders in the Arab world and record them in a database being developed by the CAGS.

The centre, funded by the Sheikh Hamdan Award for Medical Sciences, has completed studies of Bahrain, Oman and the UAE.

It plans to compile extensive data on genetic disorders in every Arab country to help pave the way for treatment and prevention-based policies in the region...Several common diseases in the UAE, Oman and Bahrain have reached epidemic levels -- more than 100 cases per 100,000.  

They include thalassaemia (a blood disorder), diabetes, breast cancer and Down's syndrome.  Less common disorders in the Emirates include muscular dystrophy and kidney disease.

About 63 percent of the genetic conditions in Arab populations are due mostly to marriage between close relatives such as first cousins, clinically known as consanguinity.

Such marriages, deeply ingrained in Arab culture, are on the rise in the UAE, where the rate is the fifth-highest in the Arab world.

In Dubai, 40 percent of marriages are between relatives...

The good news is that more than half the genetic disorders in Arab populations are the result of a defect in only one gene, which means it would be relatively easy to screen for such a gene and to prevent or treat the disorder.

However...there [are] no national projects aimed at controlling genetic disorders in most Arab countries... preventive measures include screening potential spouses for defective recessive genes.