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.

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.    

'Right Time' for Rock Concert in Cuba's Revolution Plaza

With another Democrat leading the United States, it is once again time for a seemingly pro-Communist rock concert in Cuba.  "This is the right time to start something...With the last administration, for sure we weren't talking about this.  But with this administration, with Obama as president, I believe it's different," said top award-winning Latin musician Juanes, who lives in Miami. 

"Juanes' first move in planning the event was to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the administration and Congress in May, to see if they would support his efforts...," per the Miami Herald.  Apparently, they did, because his concert is scheduled to take place Sept. 20, 2009 in Havana's Plaza de la Revolution, and a State Department official told El Nuevo Herald in August that it favors such cultural exchanges. 

The Revolution Plaza features a looming image of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, who along with Fidel and Raul Castro planned and executed the Communist takeover of Cuba more than half a century ago.  Che is so important to the promotion of Communism that Cuban school children must recite, "Seremos como el Che," meaning "We will be like Che."  The Castros' offices overlook the plaza, and the most important speeches by Fidel and Raul have taken place there.  Juanes is apparently very excited to perform in this exact location, despite receiving death threats for his decision.  "How great it'll be to be there and see this plaza," he said. 

Although Juanes claims the concert has nothing to do with politics, many of the million-strong Cuban Americans consider the performance will be a nod toward Communism and are highly opposed to it.  After all, many of them risked their lives escaping the oppressive country, coming to the United States as refugees on rickety boats, and Juanes plans to perform there without making any planned statements against the Communist regime and its horrendous record on human rights and freedom of speech.  By doing so, many believe he will be demonstrating acceptance and approval of the regime.

It is very rare for musicians from outside of Cuba to travel there for performances, although similar concerts took place under the Democratic Clinton and Carter administrations, which both promoted cultural exchanges with Cuba.  "I think enhancing cultural and artistic and educational ties is a prelude to diplomatic and commercial ties," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat who ran for president in 2008.  "It always happens that way." Richardson recently returned from a trip to Cuba where he met with high-level leaders.  Obama himself declared in last year's campaign that he would be open to meeting Cuban President Raul Castro without pre-conditions, an about-face from the usual protocol of American presidents in dealing with leaders of countries deemed enemies and facing U.S. sanctions.

The upcoming concert is expected to be viewed live in person by hundreds of thousands of Cubans, and broadcast live on Univision to millions of Latin Americans.  Univision is the number one Spanish-language network in the United States, and competes head to head with major networks, garnering more adult viewers ages 18-34 in primetime in 2008 than ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX on 89% of the nights.  The fast-growing Hispanic vote made up 9% of the entire vote in the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, and 67% of Hispanics voted for Obama. 

Juanes, a Columbian who moved to the United States before making it big in the music world, has won 17 Latin Grammys, more than any other artist.  He contends that the goal of the Cuban concert is "peace," and of course, change.  "If after the concert nothing positive happens, that's a risk I'm taking," he said, without elaborating on what might constitute positive change.  The date of the concert was selected to coincide with the United Nations' International Day of Peace.

He originally had plans for many famous artists to perform at the concert, but he has had difficulty getting big acts to join him.  Instead, pro-Castro Cuban musicians Silvio Rodriguez and Los Van Van will be there, along with Miguel Bose of Spain and Olga Tanon from Puerto Rico.  Noticeably absent from the line-up are the many anti-Castro Cuban musicians who have been repeatedly censored and imprisoned.  Meanwhile, no sponsors whatsoever have stepped in to foot the bill for the show, leaving Juanes to pay his own way.

"He says his performing in Cuba is not a political act," said Juan Carlos Espinoza, an associate dean at Florida International University.  "Choosing to perform in Cuba, where everything is politicized and a [Communist] military regime has ruled for 50 years, is in and of itself a political act."

Five Hours of Government Health Care

On Monday morning we walked into a local health clinic to get the immunizations and medical forms my exchange student needs for school enrollment.  Five hours later, they called our number 77, reviewed her health records, and said:  "She needs a chicken pox vaccination, but we are out of that today.  You'll have to come back another day."  

There you have it.  A look at what Obama has in store for us if we allow him to supplant private health care with government-run health care. 

I have many friends from socialist Europe, and what they always tell me is how many months they have to wait just to get needed diagnostic tests to find out if they have cancer and such.  They could be half dead by the time their problems are even diagnosed.  You see, a local clinic might make you wait a few hours or days, but a national clinic might make you wait weeks or months to get what you need. 

Want another glimpse of government health care?  Take a look at the veterans hospitals and treatment centers.  Thank God we have them -- there is a place for both state health clinics and veterans care -- but they are not the models we want for the rest of the health industry.  Just ask a veteran.  Google it.  Dogpile it.  There is always at least one news story out there about how the veterans are being failed and mistreated by their government-run health programs.

Obama is aggressively (and arguably illegally) promoting his plans, asking that people report to the White House anyone who speaks out against socialized medicine.  Yes, the whole country is supposed to report to the White House anyone using their Constitutional freedom of speech to criticize Obama's ideas.  So go ahead.  Turn me in.  I can hardly wait for Obama's goons to show up at my door and take me away to some secret labor camp to re-educate me.

In the meantime, I'm going to research what possible causes of action there are against the powers that be for using these Communist and dictator tactics.  Surely there is a way to stop a president from basically spying on the entire population.  Oh yeah, we didn't even stop him from running for office without proof of birth here, so he feels quite empowered at this moment.  Like the laws and Constitution just don't apply to him. 

Is anyone adding all this together?  Let's see...government motors, government banks, government pay plans for executives, government health care, limitations on freedom of speech, limitations on the right to bear arms, manipulation of the census and votes, weakening of the military, trillions of dollars of debt...and we're only a few months into the first year of his reign.  At this rate, won't be much left of our Constitutional rights -- or country -- by the end of four years.  God help us. 

The Illogic of Airline and National Security

"Do pilots have to go through security?" I asked my pilot friend, wondering if they, too, had to go through all those lines and hassles. 

"Yes, but it doesn't matter what I've got in my suitcase," he said. 

"What do you mean?" I asked. 

"They should be more worried about who is flying the plane.  They should've learned that from 9/11,"  he replied.  "They don't check the pilot's ID."

"Yeah, but don't they look at your badge and your driver's license or something?"  I queried. 

"I only flash my badge at them at a distance, and that's it," he said.  "It could be fake."

"Well, don't they know you?  Don't you know the people you are flying with, like the co-pilots and flight attendants?" I insisted. 

"No, there are thousands of pilots and flight attendants, and I travel with new ones every week," he explained.

"So anyone could walk up in a uniform and flash a badge, and then be flying an airplane?" I asked, incredulous. 

"Yes," he said.  "They should have fingerprint identification or eye scans, but they don't." He seemed very agitated over this, as if he had given it a lot of thought and was very concerned.  Maybe he wonders about the new co-pilot next to him every week when he flies.  Could that person possibly be a terrorist?  What good is the bullet-proof door to the cockpit if the terrorist is already inside?

So I later ponder this conversation, and wonder why indeed they don't have more ID checks for pilots.  After all, passports are getting very sophisticated, and in the near future they will all have microchips inside with biometric information.  Why haven't they thought of pilot badges or ID cards that also contain such information?  Instead, the airline industry and the national government are focused on trivia and distractions. 

Take this week's news.  A man found "relief," the headlines claimed, from criminal prosecution for insisting on using the lavatory in the First Class section on a flight.  His meal had disagreed with him, and the aisle to his own section's lavatory was blocked by the food cart.  After repeatedly asking a flight attendant if he could go in First Class, he finally placed his hand on her.  Even though a pilot intervened and allowed him to use the First Class toilet, the FBI greeted him upon landing and off he went to jail for a couple of days, and later had to appear before a judge on felony assault charges.  Keep in mind -- the guy wasn't even Arab and wearing a beard and turban! 

And yet another story.  President Barack Hussein Obama is seeking immunity for Saudi Arabia and four of its princes who are alleged to have been involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center.  He wants these possible terrorists to be immune from lawsuits by families of the victims.  Gee, I figure these Saudi Arabians have plenty of money to share with the poor families, but let's protect them anyway, same as President George W. Bush insisted on doing when he let a bunch of them flee the United States during a time in which all flights were supposedly grounded, according to Fahrenheit 9/11.

Sometimes I just don't get it.  We let the bad guys go, and then make a big deal going after inconsequential things.  We even let Osama Bin Laden go when we had him cornered in Afghanistan, so we could instead spend all these years, billions of dollars, and thousands of lives going after Iraqis, knowing full well they had nothing to do with 9/11.

Whose side are our leaders on, anyway?  Is anyone really concerned about security?  Why aren't the most obvious things ever done, like going after the real bad guys, and verifying ID's of pilots?  Instead there is always the handy diversion from the real issues.  We have countries like Iraq to divert us from bigger threats from Saudi Arabians and Al Queda.  And we have people who need to use the toilet to distract us from the bigger issue of who might be flying the plane.

I'm hoping that in the future, some basic common sense and rationality might be injected into the national debate on how to look out for the security of our airlines and country.  Common Sense.  The Crisis.  Rights of Man.  The Age of Reason.  Yes, that's what we need.  "Security being the true design and end of government," wrote Tom Paine, "it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others." 

It's clear from our country's history that we do have the right form of government, but somehow it has lost its focus on "security" as "being the true design and end of government."  Instead, security seems to have taken a back seat to whatever personally gratifies our presidents, or whatever appeases our interest groups -- including foreign ones like the Saudis.  We need to steer our government back to its primary role in security, and fast, because the world is a lot more threatening now than it was at our country's founding more than 200 years ago.

Congress Considers Bills that Attack Freedom of Speech, Protect Sexual Perverts, and Put Police at Risk

Three bills pending before Congress threaten your First Amendment freedoms significantly, plus threaten the ability of police to maintain law and order.

In one bill, your electronic and phone communications may constitute a federal crime if they pressure or upset someone.  In two other bills, your speech and memberships may be used to convict you of a hate crime if you harm someone with a different religion or "sexual orientation" -- even if it is an orientation toward sex with children, animals or dead people -- plus the police can be charged with a hate crime if they injure or attempt to injure a minority or Muslim during arrest.

HR 1966, known as the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, says your communications via "e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages" may constitute a federal crime if the intent is to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress."  Gee, guess all those angry messages from your soon-to-be ex can qualify as a crime if this law gets passed.  Maybe even demands from a lawyer would be criminal if they "intimidate," and business negotiations if they "coerce."  In fact, just about any electronic communication under this scenario can be considered a crime, since there is no requirement that it be aimed a particular person or cause actual harm, and just about any statement, opinion or joke can be distressing to someone. 

Yes, it's sad about Megan Meier, the 13-year-old depressed girl who killed herself after some people sent her mean e-mails.  But let's face it -- the state had laws already in place for prosecution; the state can strengthen those laws if desired; the girl didn't have to read the e-mails; and we all don't go off and kill ourselves when we read something mean.  Thank God our celebrities have thicker skins, or every one of them would bump themselves off after reading the tabloids.  Oh yeah, paper communications aren't targeted here, just blogs, e-mails and website versions of publications -- which are all at risk if this bill becomes law! 

The real question isn't sympathy for Megan and her family.  The real question is do we want to make it a federal crime to use electronic means to communicate?  After all, this proposed law does not say it's a crime if you stick the same message in the mail or publish it in the local (dying) newspaper.  The target here is all of the newer technology.  Purveyors and users of this technology should take note, and fight this bill with everything they've got.  If it gets passed, people can walk up to someone and intimidate them to their face all they want, but if they put their words in electronic form, they're doomed.

SB 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is a total can of worms.  It allows your "speech, beliefs and expressive conduct" to be used to prove a hate crime against you if the victim claims to be protected by race, religion, disability, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation of any type, even if their orientation is toward pedophilia, bestiality or necrophilia.  If the person you punch in the face happens to be a child pornographer, he can claim that you committed a hate crime against him and get the feds involved.  Or if a girl fights off a would-be kidnapper with her marching band baton (as happened recently), she may be guilty of a hate crime, especially if she belongs to a group that opposes pedophilia.

The proposed bill has other problems as well:  it allows the feds to use juvenile crime records, and it asserts as fact ridiculous things like there are still "badges, incidents and relics of slavery," and "state and local authorities...can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance" (these are opinions!).  Note that if you're a Christian or white, SB 909 does not aim to protect you, since its stated intent is only to protect religions and national origins "to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution."  Well, looking back in time over a 100 years ago, I don't believe that Christians or people of European heritage were considered a distinct "race."  You can bet that Muslims may qualify for protection, however. 

HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, is similar to SB 909 but without so many of the obvious problems mentioned above, and it is on the verge of being passed.  Like SB 909, it protects "sexual orientation" without limit, and it allows the feds to pursue criminal charges even if the state has already tried you and sentenced you!  That is, if "the verdict or sentence obtained...left demonstrably unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."  Let's not overlook the fact that both bills also require large sums of money to implement at the federal level, such as new hires for the Department of Justice, and they allow localities to ask for direct grants of up to $100,000.  Politicians may support these bills solely because they expect to get money for their jurisdiction, and not because of the intrinsic value.  

One more concern:  both proposed hate crime laws put police at risk, since a person is guilty "whether or not acting under color of law" if he "willfully causes bodily injury" to a protected person, or if he "attempts to cause bodily injury" with a "firearm," "dangerous weapon," or "incendiary device."  Police carry, aim and use guns, batons and Tasers, and they must often threaten and subdue people they are arresting.  The vast majority of people they arrest are people of color.  The suspects may also, whether known to the arresting officer or not, be cross-dressers or otherwise have "gender identity" issues, or be homosexuals or pedophiles or belong to a covered religion.  With the passage of either hate crime bill, your local law enforcement agencies may be overrun with federal crime charges against police officers who "bodily harm" or even "attempt" such harm against these protected suspects, including black gang members, illegal Mexican immigrants and Muslim terrorists.

The above bills are not only abhorrent in their details, but also in the bigger picture sense, because they aim to trample on the rights of the states.  Per the Constitution, criminal laws are supposed to be left up to the states to define, unless an act involves interstate commerce.  In all three bills mentioned above, you will therefore find token references to interstate commerce as a means of trumping state laws.  The hate crime bills even say that the remainder will stand if a portion is struck out as unconstitutional -- in other words, the drafters know these proposed laws are against the Constitution, and they anticipate challenges!

To protest any of these bills, go to www.Congress.org and enter your zip code to look up all your elected officials and their contact information.  Speak your mind.  Send them an e-mail to coerce and intimidate them into voting against these bills -- you know, threaten to vote against them in the next elections.  If you don't, you may find that you are charged with a crime the next time you write such an e-mail, or that your statements against these bills are used against you in a hate crime charge one day if you ever happen to injure someone in a protected category.

IN THE NEWS: Fifth State Adopts Plan to Abolish Electoral College, Elect President by Popular Vote in 2012

One of the most gripping scenes in Fahrenheit 9/11 is the depiction of how Al Gore won the popular vote, yet George W. Bush became President on the basis of the electoral college vote -- the process whereby states are assigned a number of votes that are cast for the candidate winning that state.  A movement called the National Popular Vote just gained its fifth state last week in support of a plan to abolish that method.  The goal is to get states representing a majority of the electoral votes on board in the next three years, so that in 2012, our next President will be elected by popular vote, i.e., by getting the most votes from the people and not the states. 

This whole plan seems to fly in the face of what President Obama himself is up to by maneuvering to control the next census, which impacts districts and electoral votes assigned to states.  People have argued that Obama's plans are to make sure lines are drawn and votes assigned so as to ensure a greater voice for minorities.  Oddly enough, you might also say that the plan to abolish the electoral votes would also have the same result, eventually.  While minorities only make up 34 percent of the population now, they are already a majority in nearly a third of the most populous counties in the United States, and are expected to outnumber whites by 2042, according to the Census Bureau. 

You can expect that no matter how the vote goes in the future -- whether popular or electoral -- it will go in favor of so-called "minorities," the people in whatever numbers who are not white.  I wonder if we will change what we call them once they are a majority.  To survive, the Republican Party will need to sell its platform to this market, or else change its agenda.  It will be interesting (frightening?) to see if the result is the end of the two-party system, or the end of the system altogether.  What might our government look like fifty years from now?

An excerpt from an article in TheOlympian.com follows.

Under a bill signed into law...Washington will pledge its 11 Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote.  Washington joins a small but growing compact of states including Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey that [will] allocate their votes that way [but only if and when states accounting for a majority of electoral votes pass the same law, as the law is contingent on such broad acceptance].

The chairman of the nonprofit group National Popular Vote, John Koza, who wrote a book titled "Every Vote Equal," was at the Capitol to witness the signing..."It is a big deal.  It shows momentum.  It shows support.  It's a clean government state," Koza said of Washington, the first state in the West to join the compact.  "We hope to get this in time for the 2012 election.  We have bill sponsors now in all 50 states."

Many Republicans in the state Legislature opposed the bill...

Voter Richard E. Johnson, Jr., a self-styled independent voter from Lacey, testified in favor of the compact in the Legislature.  "Whoopee!" Johnson said in an e-mail to The Olympian.  "We in Washington state finally have the potential -- when other states join the pact and we gain 'critical mass' -- to have our individual votes count for the presidential candidate of our choice.  The concept of choosing delegates to the Electoral College by the 'winning' political party has been outmoded since the extensive use of the telegraph after the Civil War."

ELECTORAL FACTS

States in the National Popular Vote compact:  Washington (11 Electoral College votes), Hawaii (four), Illinois (21), Maryland (10) and New Jersey (15)

Electoral College votes pledged:  61

Electoral College votes needed to activate the compact:  270

IN THE NEWS: Are Americans Too Dumb for World News?

I once knew a reporter for CNN International who gave me a behind-the-scenes tour of the TV studio, and he explained the rationale of two CNN's this way:  Americans don't know world geography, and they therefore do not care about -- and would not understand -- world events.  That is why they get fed fluff news and gory crime news, and never hear about most of the world news that CNN International broadcasts around the globe.  In other words, the logic is that because Americans are ignorant, they want to and should remain ignorant, and in fact, are too dumb to learn.  Is that how you see yourself as an American?  I think the only ignoramuses here are those at CNN! 

If Americans actually had ready access to world news, then they would NOT be ignorant about world geography and events.  And about them not caring?  Like we all just want to hear about useless trivia or brutal crimes every time we flip on the news??  I'm sick of stupid stories, and of being exposed to every local murder in the U.S.A. -- dished up, dissected and rehashed repeatedly, over and over, like a broken record.  It's disgusting, and so not important to the future of this country and the planet.    

One day's worth of headlines says it all -- CNN U.S. versus CNN International. 

CNN U.S.:

• U.S.: N. Korea 'satellite' did not make orbit
• Obama condemns rocket launch
• Security Council to meet on launch
• Explainer: Rocket launch | Path
• Obama calls for reduction in nuclear weapons
• Ticker: Protesters disrupt first lady's trip
• Six gay men shot to death in Iraq 28 min
• CNNMoney: Signs of life in California real estate
• Police: N.Y. shooter's action 'no surprise'
• 5 children found slain in home, police say
• Pittsburgh police officers gunned down
• Follow the trail of a serial killer
• Police: Video shows girl on day she disappeared
• Octuplet mom 'spinning out of control'
• Aging 'Manson family' longs for freedom
• Court ruling on gay rights 'like Christmas'
• Guy coughs up rusty, 30-year-old nail
• Laid-off banker finds work imitating Obama
• The 'endlessly entertaining' music of M. Ward
• Demi Moore responds to Twitter suicide threat
• Heidi Newfield has hopes for country honors
• Teen knits duct-tape prom dress
• CNN Wire: Obama urges nations to get rid...

CNN International:

• U.S.: N. Korea 'satellite' did not make orbit
• Amanpour: What did N. Korea launch?
• Has N. Korea defied U.N.? | Analysis
• See the path that N. Korean launch took
• U.S. condemns 'provocative act' | World reacts
• N. Korea defends right to 'explore space'
• In depth: North Korea: Nuclear tension
• Obama calls for reduction in nuclear weapons
• Afghanistan to review 'abhorrent' sharia law
• At least 20 dead in Pakistan mosque blast
• Obama praises NATO allies for Afghan pledges
• Local UNHCR chief freed in Pakistan
• Five children shot dead in Washington state
• U.S. police: Massacre gunman had troubled past
• Thousands at funeral of reality TV star Goody
• First Midwest state allows gay marriages
• Judge: 'Temptation' to let Madonna adopt
• Laid-off banker gets work as Obama imitator
• Button wins again in curtailed Malaysian GP
• Jupiter's stormy Great Red Spot is shrinking
• Injury-hit Serena beaten in Miami WTA final
• CNN Wire: Obama urges nations to get rid...

Strikes Shut Down French Universities, Serve to Warn Americans

  Photo:  Reuters

I recently asked a French friend studying at a university in Toulouse how her classes were going, and she replied that she was studying on her own because her university had been on strike for several weeks.  So French, right?  Yet the strikes going on now are on a much grander scale than ever, impacting 114 universities and institutes of technology across France so far.  Hundreds of thousands of professors, staff and students have been demonstrating in marches and protests.  The universities went on strike February 2nd, the institutes of technology followed March 10th, and then more sectors of the economy unrelated to education decided to strike March 19th. 

You can view a map of the locations of the striking bastions of higher education here, or you can view a detailed list of the universities and institutes and the exact dates and reasons they went on strike here.  The real reason, I can tell you, is called nationalization.  Every aspect of employment in France is dictated by the national government.  The government sets the wages, determines the length of employment, and spells out all other aspects of the employer-employee relationship.  This is not just within educational settings, but also in areas that Americans would consider private-sector. 

In other words, picture President Obama going into our universities and businesses and telling them whom to hire and fire, when and why, how much to pay, what to review, and so on.  Like, what if he told a bunch of financial institutions how much they could pay their employees.  Or if he went up to a corporation and started firing people and replacing them, dictating what products they would build, and using taxpayer money to finance the business.  Oh -- he's already doing those things.  Is that allowed?  Is that Constitutional?  Isn't that un-American?  Isn't that...French??  But I digress.

It's unfortunate that the American news media are not covering the strikes in France, because that would give Americans a good look at just how effective the type of government is that Obama apparently wants to go to.  Once the national government starts to dictate and control everything, then the only means people have left of protesting is on a national level.  Entire segments of society are routinely at a standstill in France.  People almost yawn when they hear of another French strike or march.  This is just what we want to avoid in the United States.

If Obama calls the French model the change he believes in and wants to impose on Americans -- as apparently he does -- then we need to speak up loud and clear to let him know that is unacceptable.  Maybe we need to be demonstrating by the hundreds of thousands to tell our President to stop meddling in private business and mind his own business -- that of running the country, not a corporation or bank (or university or anything else he plans to dabble in).  He seems confused about what, exactly, he's supposed to do as President.  We can certainly speak up louder to tell him what NOT to do.  Otherwise, we may one day find that entire segments of the American economy are shut down while people march in protests against the latest dicate from the top.

Obama's First 60 Days...

President Obama's first 60 days in office have weakened the United States and even the European Union significantly.  Meanwhile, Obama has been lining his own pockets.  Let's review some of the highlights:

Russia has announced it will place runways for bombers in Cuba and Venezuela -- just a short hop, skip and jump away from bombing the continental United States.  Doubtful this would have occurred with a Republican in office.  It certainly would not have occurred to the tune of silence, yet that is the only sound coming from Obama on this issue so far.

North Korea has attempted long-range missile tests -- missiles that could reach Alaska.  Also without a murmur from the White House.

Obama has indicated he will not put in a defensive missile shield in Europe.  Poor Europe.  Must be feeling as exposed and vulnerable as Florida and Alaska now feel. 

Iran has continued to pressure Obama to put into action his promises of being best buds with the Muslims -- promises made by the President of the United States directly in an interview with none other than Al Jazeera, world's leading Arabic language Islamic television station.  On the side, Iran continues its moves toward nuclear power, continues saying it wants to wipe Israel off the map, continues its other business as usual, e.g., a lead investigator into Iran's involvement with the deadly bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina was recently tortured and branded, perhaps also with Iran's involvement. 

Obama was given an F in economics by 45 of the country's leading economists, who are all astonished at the stupidity of recent moves by the Obama administration that are making the already bad world economy worse, not better, when there actually are a lot of things the administration could be doing to make things better.  If only he would do those other things, he might get an A next time the grades are issued.

China, the biggest creditor of the United States, has expressed concern over the stability of the American economy and dollar, like a bank seeking more guarantees that a huge debt will be re-paid.  Yet Obama keeps leading the way in digging us deeper and deeper into the hole for trillions, when he still has a few more years to go.  Many people can't even count as high as the debt he thinks we can take on and just print money to cover.  Maybe we should all go into the printing business -- printing dollar bills, that is.  Looks like the only good business to be in right now.

Is anyone else out there feeling vulnerable?  Weak?  Impaired?

Don't think Obama himself feels it yet.  He has earned himself the promise of millions in new book deals he has signed to write about his days in office as the first (half) black President of the United States.  And will he mention he is also alleged to be the first President who wasn't born in the United States, or who isn't even a citizen of the United States?  And who does not look after the United States' interests at all, much less our allies' interests?

And that's just Obama's first 60 days in office since being sworn in as President of the world's number one superpower.  No wonder the Georgia legislature just voted against a resolution proposed by black politicians to applaud and recognize President Obama for his contributions.  They specifically said they do not approve of his actions so far.  It's possible that the President's failing grades will be the impetus to revive the Republican party.  Let's hope that happens before WWIII.

Chavez Battles Superman, Batman and Robin

   AP Photo, Doll of Francisco de Miranda, Venezuela's independence hero

"It's a battle against Superman, against Batman, against Robin, against all that poisons our minds and makes us admire the empire from the time we are children," said Hugo Chavez, the socialist president of Venezuela.  The "empire," of course, is the United States, which he considers his greatest enemy.  And the weirdest part of all is how he takes himself so seriously.  In the past he repeatedly called President Bush the "devil," and claimed he smelled "sulfur" lingering whenever President Bush left the room.

Chavez is considering financing a line of action dolls featuring historical figures -- "Venezuela's Heroes" -- that his government could give out free to poor children, to counter the influence of American culture.  The proponents of the dolls have arranged for a manufacturer in China to make the prototypes.  What I am wondering is...will Chavez's liberal Democrat (i.e., socialist) buddies in Hollywood join Chavez in his war against, well, against Hollywood?  Sean Penn and Benicio del Toro are examples of the many famous actors who have made personal visits to this enemy of America and everything we stand for.  Will they, too, take on Superman, Batman and Robin? 

I'm beginning to see a video game take shape...Chavez, Venezuela's Heroes, Sean Penn & Co. battling the forces of the "empire" and its "imperialism," "capitalism" and "culture," with President Obama standing in the middle of these forces, unclear which side to take.  After all, Chavez has been admiring President Obama's actions in office so far, calling on him to nationalize everything here the way Chavez has done in Venezuela.  Obama seems to be listening!  Chavez has called on him to join socialism, and pointed to the USSR as an example of how even the United States as we know it could become a thing of the past, and oh so quickly.  Did you read the cover of a recent news magazine, saying the United States is already socialist, thanks to President Obama's first couple of months in office?

Once President Obama has succeeded in making the United States fully socialist, he can hand out free action figure dolls to our newly poor children -- children of all the once wealthy business owners, bankers and stockbrokers who find themselves homeless and destitute.  Only who will be "America's Heroes" then?  Maybe we will have action figure dolls of our great business people who made this country the most amazing wealth-making machine in history, and the world's land of opportunity.  Maybe we will look back in awe on these capitalists, longing for such heroes again, if only our socialist government would still allow them the opportunities of the past.  I hope this is only a bad dream, and not a glimpse of the future.  Superman, Batman, Robin...where are you???  Rockefeller, Gates, Trump...where are you??? 

What Color Is Your Sky?

"Is the sky blue?  Do you have to shower after walking around outside for an hour due to the pollution like here, or is the air clean?" 

These are real questions posed to my Chinese exchange student from her coordinator back home.  He wanted to know what her first impressions were of the United States, in contrast with China.  I recall laughing when I read these questions.  They seemed so absurd.  Of course the sky is blue.  Of course you don't need to shower from walking around outside for an hour.  Then I began to wonder what could prompt such ridiculous questions, and I learned more about China's pollution problem, which goes well beyond the smog in Beijing that we all became familiar with during the summer Olympics. 

Just check out the latest headlines:  "China Blames Pollution as Birth Defects Rise."  "Pollution in China:  Is China's Industry Poisoning Its Children?"  "Chinese Pollution Reaches U.S."  "The Last Empire:  China's Pollution Problem Goes Global."  "China's Pollution Nightmare Is Now Everyone's Pollution Nightmare."  "Living in China, Despite the Pollution!"  "As China Rises, Pollution Soars."  "International Companies Exposed for Pollution in China."  "Cost of Pollution in China." "China Shaken by 51,000 Pollution-Triggered 'Public Disturbances'"  "Pollution Poisons China's Progress."  "Too Sensitive to Publish:  750,000 a Year Killed by Pollution in China."

I now understand better why my exchange student ran full speed to take a shower after swimming in a nice, clean neighborhood swimming pool, as if she had just taken a dip in nuclear waste.  No amount of explanation as to how clean the water was could slow her mad dash to the shower.  Perhaps swimming back in China requires such an immediate scrubbing to avoid illness.  After all, while swimming pools here are fine, we do need to watch out for pollution levels in our rivers before going kayaking or even dipping a big toe in the water.  If the contaminant levels are too high, we must avoid all contact with the water -- and that situation bodes for most major rivers in the United States today (an issue that only kayakers seem to be aware of, unfortunately).  Should I ever unwittingly have contact with the water in my local river on a high pollution day, then yes, I'll do the mad dash thing, too!

But really, is that how we want to live our lives?  Checking for the day's pollution levels before going swimming in a river, or looking at the sky to see if it is blue for yes or gray for no before deciding to go for a walk?  Do we want to wake up to Chinese-style headlines?  We should view the situation in China with grave concern, because not only is it due to worsen as the developing nation increases its consumption without adequate pollution controls, but the troubles there are already spreading to the rest of the world, like some toxic disease.

The savings China has taken advantage of by not having environmental protections has helped China become the third largest economy in the world.  But at a great and unacceptable cost to the planet and the people trying to live on it.  It is high time to put pressure on countries like China to clean up their act, plus deal strictly with the international companies that are taking advantage of the situation.  With restrictions on imports that are produced without adequate pollution controls, for example, we could keep business and the economy back home more competitive while at the same time forcing China and any similar "anything goes" countries to step up to the plate and instill the minimum of controls.  It will be for their own good, and the good of the rest of us as well.

Otherwise, our great grandchildren may one day look with fear upon dead rivers and lakes, and may only get to read about blue skies and see the rich blue hue in photos and paintings, wondering what it might have looked like in person. 

IN THE NEWS: Dam Caused 2008 Earthquake that Killed 80,000 Chinese, Scientists Say

The Chinese are notorious for their dam-building projects, including the Three Gorges Dam that is the largest in the world.  Experts have long been fearful about China's dams, speculating that they could one day break -- possibly as a result of an earthquake -- and flood villages downstream where millions of people live.  Ironically, now scientists are saying that a dam itself triggered the earthquake May 12, 2008 that killed an estimated 80,000 people, many of them school children, after "the water volume amplified the strain on the Earth's crust," per Probe International.org.

Christian Klose, a geophysical hazards research scientist from Columbia University in New York, says geophysical data suggests that the Zipingpu dam reservoir -- just a few kilometers from the epicenter of China's great quake of 2008 -- likely triggered the deadly quake and explains how it happened.  According to Klose's presentation to last month's American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, "Several geophysical observations suggest that this M7.9 earthquake was triggered by local and abnormal mass imbalances on the surface of the Earth's crust....

Now, Science, the magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is covering the issue and explains Klose's theory:  "the added weight both eased the squeeze on the fault, weakening it, and increased the stress tending to rupture the fault.  The effect was 25 times that of a year's worth of natural stress loading from tectonic motions...When the fault did finally rupture, it moved just the way the reservoir loading had encouraged it to."

 

Breastfeeding Is Not Obscene, Despite What Facebook Tells You

It is outrageous that more than 10 years after the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that all mothers breastfeed their infants for one year minimum (a modest amount of time, considering the World Health Organization recommends at least two years), we still hear of opposition to the public display of breastfeeding, such as the recent headlines on how Facebook prohibits photos of breastfeeding mothers. 

Last time I checked, it was A-okay to show breastfeeding and topless women to any audience whatsoever -- including little children -- as long as those women were black tribal Africans appearing on a spread in National Geographic magazine.  Remove the women to the United States however, and suddenly this natural act becomes obscene.  I encountered this very response when I breastfed my daughter for 18 months.  No one stopped me in McDonald's or cafes or other public places, but I was leery of the stares, knowing that each year several women still get arrested for violating some law or other by the mere act of feeding their infant in the most healthy and economical way possible. 

What discouraged me even more was when the father of my child was the one to insist that I stop breastfeeding before I had met my goal of continuing for two years.  Even he considered it somehow sexual and obscene.  Another disappointing response came when I met with a commercial real estate developer about adding breastfeeding stations to office buildings to accommodate working mothers.  He had just gotten defibrillators put into several office buildings to assist people (men?) who experienced a heart attack.  I thought he may be concerned about the health of people, and understand that breastfeeding is healthy for the baby and mother, and therefore beneficial for businesses, health insurance companies, and much more.  Yet my mention of the word "breast" in conversation got him sexually aroused, and he began to try to seduce me in blatant and vulgar terms. 

Maybe if we changed the name of the act to something other than breastfeeding then it would not get such bizarre and ridiculous reactions from men.  Milkfeeding, as opposed to formula feeding?  Mothernurturing?  Sustaining?  Cuddlefeeding?  Immunizing?  Lactationfeeding?  Or maybe men just need to get over the fact that this miraculous milk comes out of an actual breast.  A mother's milk results in stronger immunity for the child, fewer illnesses, less occurrence of asthma, much higher intelligence, and a greater mother-child bond, plus it has the added benefit of preventing certain types of cancer in the mother as well as osteoporosis and Type 2 diabetes.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture even estimates that $3.6 billion in medical expenses annually would be saved if there were a 50 percent increase in the number of children who were breastfed for at least six months.  U.S. taxpayers would save nearly $500 per infant in Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) costs and Medicaid expenditures.

Breastmilk was critical for my own child, as she was born three months premature, and the doctors said she needed my milk to even survive.  For three months while she struggled to live, I expressed milk with machines every three hours, 24/7, and daily drove the collected milk to the hospital.  During that time, I also managed to work full-time in the legal department of a large corporation that did not offer any lactation stations for breastfeeding women.  I found myself standing in bathroom stalls trying not to touch anything dirty as I expressed the milk, and feeling self-conscious when people in other stalls could hear the strange sounds.  I felt even weirder emerging from the stall with a container of this miracle milk, and then lugging it down the hall in my refrigerated lunch box.  Yet the results:  my daughter not only survived her prematurity, but she thrived.  She's been in the gifted program since Kindergarten, and scores in the 99th percentile nationally in every subject on standardized tests.

California is leading the way -- as it does in so many areas -- in supporting breastfeeding, by having a law that requires businesses to accommodate breastfeeding and provide female employees a decent place to express milk.  I'm thrilled to present the following model outline of a breastfeeding office policy prepared by First 5 LA:

Breastfeeding-Friendly Workplace Policy Template

Purpose
To establish guidelines for promoting a breastfeeding-friendly work environment in the [Agency].

Policy
[Agency] recognizes that breastmilk is the optimal food for growth and development of infants and [Agency] encourages employees and management to have a positive, accepting attitude toward working women and breastfeeding.  [Agency] promotes and supports breastfeeding and the expression of breastmilk by employees  who are breastfeeding when they return to work.

Discrimination and harassment of breastfeeding mothers in any form is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at [Agency].

It shall be the policy of [Agency] to provide:

Training
The [Agency]'s Breastfeeding Friendly Workplace policy shall be disseminated to every incoming and current employee in the [Agency].

Information about breastfeeding support after returning to work shall be provided to employees prior to their maternity leave.

Time to Express Milk or Breastfeed (Lactation Time)
Lactation times shall be established for each employee based on her work schedule.  If possible, the lactation time is to run concurrently with any break time already provided.

Lactation time beyond the regular break time is unpaid and will be negotiated between the employee and [Agency].

Space and Equipment for Expressing Milk or Breastfeeding
Employees shall be provided the use of a clean, comfortable space or "Lactation Area."  For ideas on use of office space as a lactation area, visit www.wicworks.ca.gov.  A toilet shall not serve as the lactation area.

The Lactation Area:
- is equipped with an electrical outlet
- is in close proximity to the employee's work area
- contains comfortable seating.

Ideally, the Lactation Area will be near:
- a sink with hot water and soap for hand washing and cleaning of equipment
- a refrigerator for storage of expressed breast milk.

Atmosphere of Tolerance
Breastfeeding should not constitute a source of discrimination in employment or in access to employment.  It is prohibited under this policy to harass a breastfeeding employee; such conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance and creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.

Any incident of harassment of a breastfeeding employee will be addressed in accordance with the [Agency]'s policies and procedures for discrimination and harassment.

IN THE NEWS: Mormon Publication Promotes Radical Politics, Calls on American Soldiers to Disobey Commanders

A Mormon publication "devoted to Mormonism and radical politics" has, in its latest edition, lumped the United States government into the same category as Hitler's regime, and called upon American soldiers to stop obeying their commanders. 

The "Obedience to Authority" article by Tariq Khan, appearing in the fifth edition of The Mormon Worker, makes a case that the evil in the world is committed by ordinary people blindly following their corrupt leaders. 

Most evil acts in the world are not committed by abnormally mean psychopaths.  They are committed by quite ordinary people who are "just doing their jobs."  Most murder, torture, and destruction in and of the world is perfectly legal and is carried out by civilized, well-mannered, average individuals who are "just fulfilling their duties" to governments, businesses, and religions.  They're "just trying to make a living."

Then, rather than illustrating this point by discussing the people who follow the ruthless dictators of the world, or the village-butchering tribal leaders in Africa, or other repressive regimes, the author goes into a lengthy portrayal of one U.S. military action after another -- from the present Iraq war which ended a brutal military dictatorship and resulted in the first democratic elections in Iraq in more than 50 years, to the actions the United States took to end World War II, much to the world's benefit (and the author's unwitting benefit as well).  The article is accompanied by an image of what appears to be enemy propaganda, showing an American soldier standing over a prisoner with Arabic words above him (see below).  After describing the U.S. military actions, the author attempts to analyze how such "tyranny" can occur, and takes it out of the battlefield and into the boardroom and beyond:

But for some reason, mainstream society lets all kinds of official abusers such as cops, politicians, and soldiers get away with that...Obedience to authority, rather than being a virtue, may be the number one cause of blood and horror in the world.  All of the war and occupation the world over would not be possible without obedient men and women in uniform who say, "yes, sir" to the orders from up the chain.  It would not be possible without the docile clerks, managers, and bureaucrats doing the administrative and logistical work that makes the death machine run smoothly.  It wouldn't matter if a Hitler popped up if no one would obey the Hitler.  And it wouldn't matter if the U.S. government wanted to wage war if soldiers refused to fight, or better yet, refused to be soldiers in the first place.  Tyranny cannot function without yes men.  It is obedience, not maliciousness, that makes the piles of dead bodies grow...

Imagine a society that places more emphasis on being true to one's own conscience and less emphasis on being true to an institution..A society in which people act on their own convictions rather than acting on orders handed down from above...Bush could cry war all day long, but with no obedient solders to fight his war for him, there would be no war.  Sure, he could go to war by himself and even kill some people, but he wouldn't get very far, and he would never, even if he wanted to, be able to kill the amount of people that an army kills.  He wouldn't have much luck setting up checkpoints, curfews, and torture chambers either.  Those wicked endeavors also require obedient servants who will carry out orders.  The same goes for any power-hungry maniac.  Women-hating, queer bashing, reason-ignoring ministers, popes, rabbis, and imams would be out of business in such a society.  The same would go for gang leaders, war lords, and corporate CEO's.

Apparently the author thinks that this disobedient world he envisions would function brilliantly, but even a symphony cannot play without a director, and a household cannot run without obedience to parents, and a school cannot function without authority.  Just the way the author fails to see that not all authority and obedience is bad, he fails to see that not all military action is bad.  In criminal law itself, one must look at the motive before judging an act a crime.  Was it self-defense, or defense of another person or society or principle or property, or was it for evil purposes? 

The anarchist world he envisions can most certainly be found in a place like Somalia, which has been lacking a fully functioning government for years.  Perhaps the author would like to move there and see if he finds it more to his liking.  Without any rulers or obedience of any kind, society erupts into chaos, poverty and strife.  And for every bad leader, there must be an even more powerful good leader to overcome him.  That is the role that the United States attempts to play, because it can, and therefore it must.  And it does not act alone but with many allies, for the good of all.  If the backing and obedience of our very own solders were to fail, then the entire country would be attacked and fall, and the world as we know it would fall, which perhaps is the true undisclosed goal of the author. 

Even our current economic woes and the far-reaching impact felt across the globe show to what extent the United States is the hub around which the rest of the world turns.  Rather than resent that position, the author and anyone who thinks like him should instead take a good long look at the alternatives.  If the United States seems oppressive and tyrannical, just ponder for a moment how the world would look if a Saddam Hussein is running the show, or an Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, or Hu Jintao.  Or consider how long a weak-kneed "diplomatic" ruler would last under world pressures.  (We saw in the last century how much the negotiations and treaties with Hitler did for West Europe.) 

Yes, it is easy to take cheap verbal shots at the world's only superpower, since no leader can be perfect in every way (and because we allow such freedom of expression), but so far the American model of government and its economic and military strength -- and the ways the government chooses to use these or not  -- has proven to result in the most peace in the world, time and again.  If you don't like American world leadership, once again, look carefully at your options.  Just like many Americans say when they go to the polls and vote:  "I chose the lesser of two evils."  You may not buy into every single thing the country does -- nor do all Americans -- but you can certainly weigh your options should the United States withdraw, purposely or by demise, from its leadership role in the world.  

For the entire article, see Obedience to Authority.  For the publication website, go to The Mormon Worker.

IN THE NEWS: Deceased Dictator Pinochet Honored in Chile with Ceremonies and Museum

General Augusto Pinochet, with American help, took over Chile in 1973 and ruled as a dictator until 1990, with thousands of people "disappearing" and being tortured and imprisoned during his reign.  Two years ago today, he died.  Yes, there are plenty who celebrated his death, and rejoice again upon the anniversary of it; however, many Chileans adored Pinochet and weep mournfully over the loss of him. 

Last year, I had such a Chilean living with me for a few months.  She told me how one of her relatives was a political prisoner under Pinochet for years, but despite that, she and her parents -- all devoutly Catholic -- loved Pinochet and went to his funeral, crying profusely.  She proudly told me how they had an autographed photo of him in their home. 

She came from a family of 12 who was living in a three bedroom home, along with one live-in nanny and another full-time live-out nanny.  Her parents are engineers.  Perhaps they benefitted from the "economic miracle" that was achieved under Pinochet.  Perhaps they strongly supported him because he stopped the country from becoming communist, the same reason he was backed by the United States and France.

In any case, it is an odd thing to encounter, face to face, a supporter of a dictator, and see that this person is nothing like you would expect from a supporter of a dictator.  She is peaceful, beautiful, happy, intelligent, rational, philosophical, ambitious and so much more.  And she just happens to love a dictator, just like the people who are carrying on the festivities and putting together the museum described in El Mercurio:

SANTIAGO.- Those close to deceased General Augusto Pinochet commemorated the second anniversary of his death, which took place on December 10th of 2006, with two religious ceremonies held at the Castrense Cathedral in Santiago, as well as the family land in Los Boldos, located in the Fifth Region.

The first mass was held at 11:00 AM today at the Castrense Cathedral, located on Avenida Los Leones, in the municipality of Providencia, and was organized by the Center for Retired Army Generals.

According to the retired general and former spokesperson for the Pinochet family, Guillermo Garín, the ceremony was public and was held by retired members of the Armed Forces.

Meanwhile, at 12:00 PM, a liturgy was held at the chapel on the Los Boldos territory, which was only attended by family members as well as some of the deceased general's closest friends.

On December 12th at 12:00 PM, a museum will be inaugurated in the general's honor at the Pinochet Foundation headquarters.