I wrote about this way back in 2005 when I was in the Middle East. I had several conversations with our troops on R/R from Iraq. One of their favorite subjects was how full of crap the mainstream media’s coverage in Iraq was at the time. Stuff like reporting from the Green Zone while embedded and never going out on patrol with the troops. This issue came up time and again. The troops were very offended as they took great pains to be sensitive to the Iraqi culture and the civilian populace. The took great pains to be careful, as directed by their leadership, to then just see themselves raked over the coals by these idiots in the press whose sole agenda was to lambast the President. Then again, my cousin, who was working for Blackwater at the time, did pride himself on peeing in Saddam Hussein’s pool. Guess we aint all perfect.

Damage to Iraqi Antiquities was Media Hype

American-led coalition forces were blamed for the destruction of Iraqi antiquities following the 2003 invasion, including inflicting serious damage to the ancient site of Babylon.

But reports of extensive damage have turned out to be largely media hype, according to Forbes magazine columnist Melik Kaylan.

Writing in Saturday's Wall Street Journal, Kaylan noted that John Curtis, head of the British Museum's Middle East Department, was "the single most persistent source" of reports on the supposed destruction.

In January 2005, the BBC reported that "coalition forces in Iraq have caused irreparable damage to the ancient city of Babylon," attributing the disclosure to the British Museum.

The BBC said "sandbags have been filled with precious archaeological fragments and 2,600-year-old paving stones have been crushed by tanks."

Curtis went on to say later that a coalition helicopter base had caused cracks in the bas-reliefs on Babylon's original walls.

A story the Boston Globe stated that "Iraq's U.S.-led invaders inflicted serious damage on Babylon, driving heavy machinery over sacred paths, bulldozing hilltops, and digging trenches through one of the world's greatest archaeological sites."

But this year Curtis began to step away from his earlier claims, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein "had already caused grievous harm to the site in various ways" before the invasion, Kaylan observed in The Journal.

And a memoir published in April by Emilio Marrero, who was chaplain of the Marine Expeditionary Force that first secured Babylon from looters in 2003, said the site was already in poor condition and U.S. forces worked to protect and preserve it.

Marrero told Kaylan that the helicopter base was "up to two football fields away" from the area of supposed damage and the cracks in the bas-reliefs were there before the invasion.

He also discounted allegations that tanks had crushed paving stones and archaeological fragments were used to fill sandbags, saying they were in fact filled with earth.

Kaylan disclosed that Curtis made a June 2008 trip to Iraq along with Elizabeth Stone from Stony Brook University in New York, and found "little or no post-Saddam damage" in southern Iraq's eight most important archaeological sites.

"They did not visit Babylon in the north," Kaylan wrote, "but the places they saw covered a full fifth of the entire landmass of Iraq — all relatively undamaged."

The National Museum in Iraq has now been reopened to the public, with most of its greatest treasures back on display, Kaylan adds, because "the museum's most valuable items were locked away in a vault, untouched by looters."

Okay, so it’s taken me a while, but here it is. Like I’ve said, Billy Joel and Ruben Blades are two of my favorite singer/songwriters. I’ve already written of the philosophy of Billy Joel (look back in my notes for that one).

Ruben Blades is a unique individual. He’s the kind of dichotomy to which I can relate. A Harvard educated lawyer, he has made his living for the past 30 some years as a Salsa musician. For those who do not listen to Salsa he has also had a fairly successful acting career. If you go to IMDB you’ll see an extensive and diverse body of film work. Originally from Panama, he even ran for the country’s presidency a few years back. He has been a groundbreaking songwriter in the latin music genre and his CD Mundo is a masterful fusion of world music into the Salsa genre. He also has one of those distinct voices that is unmistakable. You hear it once and you’ll recognize it if you hear it again.

The problem I’ve encountered in writing this is that some of my favorite lyrics of his simply do not translate well. For example I love “Buscando Guayabas”. The pure simplicity of the lyrics and the snappy melody just make it a fun song (particularly Ruben’s vocalization of a guitar solo). When I attempt to translate Una guayaba salve morena, una guayaba que este bien buena!  I get the funny looks my wife always gives me when I try to translate some Latin colloquialisms.

Another problem is that many of his songs are complete stories and it’s difficult to simply translate just the one lyric without its context within the song.

In any case, here is my small sample of the world according to Ruben Blades.

Si naciste pa’ martillo del cielo te caen los clavos.- Pedro Navaja (If you were born to be a hammer nails will fall from heaven).

God has a plan for you. You may not like it but in the end you must follow it. For those who don’t believe in God the same thing applies to fate and karma.

Cuanto control y cuanto amor, tiene que haber en una casa. Mucho control y mucho amor para enfrentar a la desgracia.- Control y amor.  (How much control, and how much love, must there be in a household. A lot of control and a lot of love to face tragedy).

Despite what family does, they are family and you must support them, failing that, you must love them. Family is family.

 Sin tu carino son de carton todas las estrellas, y no hay poesia ni hay alegria cuando no estas.- Sin tu carino. (Without your love the stars are made of cardboard, and there is no poetry nor joy when you are not here).

The entire song speaks of the emptiness of the world without the love of the object of your own affection. Who has not been there?

Como el carino que guardias despues de muerto a abuela. Patria son tantas cosas bellas.- Patria. (Like the love you still cherish, even after death, for your grandmother. Country means so many beautiful things).

In this song, Ruben attempts to define the intangible concept of patriotism by comparing it to commonly felt emotions.

 Mientras no haya justicia, jamas tendremos paz. -Buscando America.  (While there is no justice, we’ll never have peace).

Injustice is the root of unrest.

Decisiones, cada dia, alguien pierde alguien gana, Ave Maria. -Decisiones. (Decisions, every day, some lose, some win, Hail Mary).

Decisions made carry inescapable consequences, good or bad, for all. “Ave Maria” is a generic Latin expression like “my goodness”.

Toma su sueos raidos, los parcha con esperanzas. Hace del hambre una almohada, y se acuesta triste del alma. – Pablo Pueblo. (He takes his frayed dreams, whets them with hope. He makes a pillow of his hunger and goes to sleep sad to his soul.

As with many of Ruben’s songs, this one speaks of the despair of poverty.

Again, these are my interpretations. Admittedly some of the extrapolations were snippets from songs that may as a whole have a completely different meaning. For example, Pedro Navaja is Ruben’s interpretation of the old classic Mack the Knife. Both are favorites of mine. In any case, I hope you’ve enjoyed it.

The one thing about Ruben’s music that is different from Billy Joels is that ate least if you don’t understand what he’s singing you can damn sure dance to it! And after all, dancing is a universal language.

Can’t Salsa? Sucks to be you!

Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite columnists, for several reasons, but mostly because he sees an orange, he calls it an orange. You can look at an orange and nuance your way around describing it, but in the end isn’t it simple enough to just call it an orange? Why? Because an orange is an orange. The precedent has already been set, and it’s a fairly mundane and universally known object. Failing any evidence to the contrary emerging it will remain an orange. Unless you had to describe it to an extra-terrestrial in which case it would also be simple. Hand it to them and say “orange”. Although it’s ridiculous to think this would be the topic of discussion should you come face to face with an ET.

There’s my orange theory in a nutshell. Later I’ll bore you to tears with the “Hubble bubble” theory.

My point? I don’t like people pissing on my shoes and telling me it’s rain.

Back to Dr. Sowell. Dr. Sowell is an economist. I like to read what economists have to say because math, economics and all things fiscal are not my forte. The problem with reading economists is that they are economists and express themselves as such. They are often pedantic and undecipherable to the lay person with little math skills such as myself. The reason Dr. Sowell is my go-to guy is because he’ll look at an orange and call it an orange. I read his column faithfully and can’t wait to start his new book. He’s not the only one I read, just my favorite. Here’s his latest sample (actually, his random thoughts columns remain my favorites):

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/13/magic_numbers_in_politics

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/10/14/magic_numbers_in_politics_part_ii

They have led me to this huge rant with which I’m about to punish anyone bored enough to read it.

I’ve heard the myriad of talking heads, people I know and people on television want to explain away the reason our economy (and the world’s economy) blew up. Most of them like to point to that evil genius (who also happens to be an idiot, according to them) President George W. Bush and the republicans. Then there are those who point to those bleeding heart liberal democrats and their social policies. None of them get a pass in my book, by the way. However, at some point, the problem had a Genesis.

Not being an economist, I got to reading and following the money trail. Discussing government regulatory policies and free markets can get a little complex and oversimplifying it with descriptions of oranges may well be irrelevant. But human nature is much easier to explain. Human nature is my forte.

Human nature is governed for the most part by self-interest and ego. Whether you’re a politician or a businessman you really can’t get away from this. It’s probably splitting hairs stating which one is governed more by self-interest and ego, the politician or the businessman. The difference between a businessman and a politician is that a businessman’s self-interest and ego will usually serve humankind by proxy in a positive manner, regardless of the altruistic nature of the businessman. In a competitive market he will have to serve the consumer and compete with others who may make the product cheaper, better etc.

It’s why professional badminton players do not get millions of dollars to play. To some, badminton may be a better sport than football. To most it is not. Clearly it’s safer. If it attracted more spectators it would in turn attract more players, more teams, more badminton stadiums, etc. Tom Brady may then have been the greatest badminton player that ever lived instead of one of the greatest football players.

It’s also why I can communicate via this media. Bill Gates ego and self-interest has served me the consumer, Microsoft’s employees and its stockholders. It has fed a myriad of other industries by proxy. It has created millions of jobs directly or indirectly. He has to continue to serve me because the very second someone else does it better, Bill Gates loses. The consumer does not, nor do stockholders or employees. They may initially, but in the long run they can also find other options in a competitive market.

A lot of people bandy about the term “greedy corporations” (as in “greedy automaker CEO’s”, “greedy oil company barons” and the most recent “greedy insurance companies”). Politicians attempting to legislate love throwing those terms around. But what the hell is that exactly? Corporations, as such, are neither greedy nor altruistic. They are intangible legal arrangements created by people for the purpose of conducting commerce.

So are people greedy? You betcha. That in itself doesn’t mean that owners of corporations, big or small, are greedy. Funny how people like to point their fingers at CEO’s of major corporations as evil and greedy, but have no problem with an NFL quarterback demanding hundreds of millions of dollars to play a game. Which one of those two create jobs and wealth? Regardless of motive, the CEO’s, entrepreneurs and small businessmen create jobs and wealth. That is also an indisputable fact. Oh and guess who else are the owners of “greedy corporations”. That’s right, every single person who owns stock or contribute to a retirement plan.

The same cannot be said of the politician. Politicians do not create private industry jobs. They create government jobs which have never stimulated the economy or created wealth. They take money from the pockets of hard workers to give to others who may not be as industrious or talented. They make it sound like they have altruistic motives for this, but for the most part their motives are driven by the same machine as the businessman. Self-interest and ego. However, the self-interest and ego of a politician serve only the politician. The problem is the politicians actions normally will leave me with little or no alternate choices and when the politician has legislative pens and an enforcing arm on his side, they can wreak havoc on the rest of us.

That is the Genesis of the problem. If you haven’t been following where I’ve been leading you, I’ll spell it out for you. Politicians are the root of our problem.

Few disagree with the fact that the housing market was the catalyst that blew up our financial system. What is in dispute is who wore the black hat. Politicians (mostly the Democrats) are pointing their fingers at that evil Wall Street and those evil Bankers! Evil greedy bastards! They say they were not “regulated” enough or watched carefully enough. That their “greedy” tendencies are the root of all evil. That there are a few Gordon Geko’s on Wall street is clearly indisputable, but while they’re making money for your 401k you don’t notice them nor will you render a judgment one way or the other. Your own outrage is allayed by your“greedy” tendencies when you're making.

Other politicians (mostly the Republicans) are pointing their fingers at Democrats and blaming their social engineering policies and pandering to “the poor” by giving out entitlements for the root of this problem.

They’re both right. And wrong.

As there’s a paucity of space, here are three things for you to read and research: The Community Reinvestment Act, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980), the Depository Institutions Act (1982), and the Glass-Steagall Act (and its repeal in 1999). What do these things have in common? You guessed it. They were implemented and/or repealed by whom? Politicians. Both Democrats and Republicans. All of these have led at one time or another to often catastrophic consequences. The CRA and GSA repeal are some of the factors that have led to where we are today. That people took advantage of the politician’s actions and played the system should come as no surprise to anyone. Human nature. Self-interest.

Go out in the middle of a crowded city sidewalk, take a wad of money, throw it in the air and see who among the people walking don’t make a grab for a stray dollar or two. Human nature. Self interest. No consequences there. No sacrifice either. That’s the government, except they don’t take their own money to throw out there. They take my money.

What is never talked about in the saga of Robin Hood (and all other similar stories) is what the people he robbed did to obtain their goods and riches. They may have worked very hard, contributed to charity and earned every precious shiny stone. But in the minds of the stories authors, they are painted with a wide brush as greedy, evil and deserving of being robbed. The poor (to include Robin Hood) are noble, industrious and deserving of receiving the robbed goods. Who makes that call? Robin Hood? What qualifies him? And at what point does he then become “the evil greedy corporation”?

I bet you were thinking that I was going to lead to the whole “it’s Carter’s fault, it’s Clinton’s fault, it’s HW’s fault, it’s W’s fault, it’s Pelosi’s fault, it’s Reid’s fault, it’s Gingrich’s fault!” Well you are wrong. It’s our fault for allowing them to get that powerful.

I’ve been reading of late how this magnificent country got its start on very shaky legs. It was the intention of the vast majority of the founders that the gubmint, particularly the central federal government, never be allowed to become as powerful as it has become. Precisely because of all the reasons I’ve explained. In our entire history, what has emerged as a crystal clear fact, is that we were at our most prosperous and peaceful when the government was reigned in and had very little power over us as individuals and states. Once we began turning to the government for our safety, prosperity and guarantor’s of outcome, not opportunity, we have screwed the pooch to the point where it gave birth to whole litters of inefficient, stifling, controlling and corrupt little puppies. What’s worse is, the dogs are also running the kennel and the offspring of those particular puppies will not get any better.

Isn’t it about time to delegitimize the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)? They are continuously caught with their pants down and their hands in the cookie jar and the Left is continuously rushing to their defense.

This is how far into looney liberalville we’ve travelled. The defense they keep mounting in the face of clear criminal fraud is that these are “right wing hit jobs”. How is that a valid defense? If there were no fraudulent acts being committed there would be no “hit job”, as it were.

James O’keefe, a young documentarian has taken a page from ACORN’s and the Left’s own playbook and conducted a “sting” operation in a Baltimore ACORN office. Essentially he and a young lady posed as a prostitute and her boyfriend trying to buy a house so that she could continue to conduct her prostitution business. They were completely transparent about the young lady’s profession and their intentions with regards to the use of the house. They even suggested that they would be bringing in some under aged Salvadoran girls to employ as prostitutes in the house.

 Not only were they encouraged by the ACORN office, they were given advice on how to buy the house, hide the income and defraud the IRS. They received advice on how to sign the under-aged girls on as dependents (even though the girl posing as the prostitute stated she was only 19). In a word, the actions conducted by the ACORN office employees are despicable and criminal. Read the transcript of the conversation here.

http://biggovernment.breitbart.com/

This is not an isolated incident and these are not “rogue” ACORN employees. This appears to be the M.O. of this organization. Let me remind you, this is the organization that committed voter registration fraud throughout the country in an attempt to get Obama elected. This is the organization that used race baiting to get banks to extend loans to people who could not pay for them. This organization is supported by your tax dollars and they’ve recently been recruited to conduct the all important Census next year. This is the organization that is firmly entrenched in President Obama’s pocket. Talk about letting the wolf loose in the hen house!

It would be nice if our “watchdog media” were conducting these types of sting operations on what is clearly a criminal organization. Fat chance as it would taint their “anointed one”. 

Hopenchange, the other white meat.

Well hell, it’s the same defense that can be used by a dope dealer that arresting them in the act of peddling dope is a “police officer hit job”. If there were no crimes being committed

This collection of letters addressed to the Feminists in Academia is an extraordinarily bold endeavor by Dr. Adams who must feel like a canary in a room full of cats. The only problem is, unbeknownst to the cats, this canary has fangs! Dr. Adams mocks the hypocrisy of the feminist movement in our institutions of higher learning with his unique blend of humor and razor sharp wit. In what must be extremely acerbic confrontations in what can only be described as (ironically) a hostile environment for him, Dr. Adams pulls back the curtain to reveal the man (or woman in this case) pulling the levers and pushing the buttons. He entertains, educates and gets a little comeuppance in the process. A superbly entertaining read!

Clearly I have to amend my original blog regarding the Crowley/Gates arrest incident. I had written that if anyone should be accused of racial profiling it should have been the 911 caller. Turns out, she did not cite race when she called.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/27/gates_caller_didnt_cite_race_police_say/

Here’s my caveat however. Had she cited race I wouldn’t have considered her a racist for making the call. It was the actions of the men that prompted her to call and not their race.
I keep reading and hearing about people trying to find “teachable moment” in this case. I can’t believe no one has figured it! The closest pundit I’ve heard come up with it was Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday. Ironically I rarely agree with Juan Williams.

 Let me summarize the “teachable moment for you.  

Mrs. Whalen was aware that there had been break-ins in the area, she sees two men trying to force their way through a front door. She calls police. Sgt Crowley responds to the call, goes to the house, sees Dr. Gates in the house and asks him to identify himself.

Okay, here it comes; the “teachable moment. Ready?

Dr. Gates, a highly educated Harvard professor responds to this request by becoming belligerent and saying, “Why? Because I’m a black man in America?” He follows this up by insulting Sgt Crowley’s mother, in the presence of another black officer and a Hispanic officer.

It’s a scene right out of an Eddie Murphy parody on SNL. So did you get the “teachable moment”? I know, everyone seems to keep missing the point. Why? Because Dr. Gates is indeed a “black man in America”. He gets the instant victims pass. He gets a double pass because he is a personal friend of the President.

If he had been a member of any other ethnic group he would have gotten no sympathy from anyone and his actions would have immediately been questioned. People would have been rightfully stating that becoming belligerent with a police officer investigating a crime is stupid. They would be making fun of a highly educated moron who displayed a huge lapse in common sense and judgment. He would have been mocked for the inordinately large chip on his shoulder. Rightfully so. 

Instead, no one can seem to figure out the “teachable moment”. It’s the huge elephant in the room no one wants to seem to acknowledge.

If you look at my pictures and pictures of every Arab terrorist who hijacked a plane you'll see more similarities than differences. You don’t have to tell me. When I was in Qatar I saw the similarities. It was like I was among my relatives. As a result, I've been "profiled", as it were, on multiple occasions.

Want to know what the difference is between my reaction and Dr. Gates? I'm not as educated as he is, but I am easily credentialed, I'm respectful to the official questioning me and I dont have a huge chip on my shoulder.

Here's the thing, since I do happen to look like every terrorist who ever hijacked a plane, AND since I also have to fly in those airplanes, I would rather they take a second look at me than at an 85 year old white grandmother. I dont call it "profiling". I call it good security based on tangible, historical evidence. Plus, I notice that the officials questioning me provide me with the same measure of respect as I provide them. Thet have been, without exception, professional exchanges.

So you say, I'm not black. That is the point isn't it. With the culture of victimhood being propagated by the black leadership (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and now President Obama) a black person will always be a victim. Victimhood is an opiate. The more you get the more you need. That’s the big elephant in the room. The one person who had the power to prevent this entire fiasco was the one who created it to begin with.

Ironically, he was the most educated as well. Ain’t that something?

There are multiple theories being bandied about on the entire Obama/Crowley/Gates situation, but the one thing that keeps coming back to me is this. Regardless of who you think is right, who misspoke, whose motives are in question, what is clear to me is that this is yet another example of President Obama acting in a way that is completely un-Presidential. There really is no way to rationalize the verbiage of his statement. Every reasonable human being in this country, about whom he may have said the same thing would have taken offense. Period. I don’t need concurrence. I’m a student of human nature and those comments were at best un-Presidential and at worst, insulting. In fact, Sgt Crowley has been the most level headed person in this whole situation!

It seems like every time the President goes up against the average American he winds up faring poorly. Even his “surprise” at the “controversy” his “straight-forward” comments has caused underscores his attitude toward the common man. More to the point, why does the President of the United States feel he has to pick a fight with individual citizens who mostly are doing their jobs or exercising their right to free speech? From Joe the Plumber, to Rush Limbaugh and now to Sgt Crowley, he constantly winds up bloviating from his bully pulpit. Then he goes around scolding us for taking umbrage at being insulted! Talk about hubris.

I’ll say another thing, Robert Gibbs is fabulous! I hope Obama keeps him for his entire term. He’s almost as fun as the Vice President. Neither one of them can avoid stupid.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25381.html

Note how he trivialized the FOP by dismissively stating they “endorsed McCain”. Right. Do I have to spell out what that means? Since there may be some Obama voters reading this I suppose I do. It means, that if your organization did not endorse Obama or endorsed the other candidate, your positions are no longer relevant in this country while Obama is president. At least as far as the Press Secretary is concerned.

What is telling to me is the quality of a man’s character when the heat is on. President Bush endured 7 years of some of the most foul, direct public attacks ever heaped on a sitting U.S. President. Not once did he direct a personal attack in response; regardless of the content. He bore them all with grace and humor, often self-deprecating in his response. His Press Secretaries were (with the possible exception of that mealy mouthed weasel whose name escapes me right now) equally as classy. Can you imagine Tony Snow or Dana Perino dismissing a statement by NOW or the NAACP at a press conference because they “endorsed Gore or Kerry”?

We can discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the Gates arrest all day long. What I’m addressing here is not even the arrest. This is what it comes down to. President Obama has stated, without reviewing the facts, and clearly using his own prejudice regarding his friend and his race, that an officer of the law in the performance of his duty acted “stupidly”. This is Barrack Obama at his least presidential. Health Care anyone?

I don’t know if anyone remembers a couple weeks back in Philly, a day camp of black children were turned away from a private swim club because they were black. Allegedly. See when I hear about things like this, particularly when it’s a “he said/she said” situation I usually reserve judgment until the facts are in. The facts are, the black Day Camp paid for the use of the private clubs facilities. They went once and the following day their money was refunded and they were told not to come back. The facts are that the president of the Valley Swim Club (Dr. John Deusler) stated, "There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club."

I know when I swim my laps I’m usually concerned that some of that wonderful cinnamon color I’m blessed with will leak into the pool. After all, there is chlorine in there! So now some other facts have come to light (again, not because of that crackerjack MSM reporting either). It appears that the good Dr. Duesler is an Obama supporter. Why am I not surprised?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/pool-kids-booter-is-obama-supporter"

I’m not saying that Democrats are inherently racist (you be the judge). What I’m saying is that they are the masters and all must serve the master! Those who have stepped off the plantation have paid dearly for their arrogance! People like Clarence Thomas and Dr. Condoleeza Rice are prime examples.

How dare Justice Thomas preach a message of personal responsibility, independent thinking and conservative values? How dare he mention a Creator! What an uppity black! Or as Bill Cosby calls him, “brother lite”.  And who the hell does that Condie Rice chick think she is??? Not only is she black, but she’s a woman! What the hell is wrong with her?

I think it just chafes the feminists raw to see a conservative woman rise to those heights without pulling the sexist/racist victim card. This is not just hypothetical. Witness the vitriol launched at these women from the liberals and the feminists. Which confuses me because aren’t women like Dr. Rice, Sarah Palin and Phyllis Schlaffly the epitome to which women are supposed to aspire? Funny how that works.

I watched the Justice Thomas/Anita Hill circus back when he was confirmed and I’ve watched Dr. Rice endure questioning by the Democratic Congress and Senate and I’ve rarely seen the nastiness elevate itself to the level the Democrats shamelessly show these two outstanding public servants. In fact, I forget who it was (but I clearly know he’s a Democrat), but someone had the audacity to say the Justice Thomas’ opinions were poorly written and not all that “smart”. Of course he hadn’t read any. Funny how that works too.

It’s not just blacks either. My fellow “hispanics” vote overwhelmingly Democrat too, although I am proud to say that the current governor of Puerto Rico is a Republican. The first since Luis A. Ferre way back in the 70’s. The treatment that Alberto Gonzalez got from the Democrats should have been enough for some hispanics to wake up and say HEY!

Probably none of them know who Miguel Estrada is, but he should have been the first Hispanic to serve on the SCOTUS. And no, not because he was Hispanic but because he was a brilliant jurist. But we’re sure proud of that J-Lo chick and that Ricky Martin dude!

What’s the difference between Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzalez and Sonia Sotomayor? You guessed it. Estrada and Gonzalez are conservatives. The fawning of the Democrats over Sotomayor has been sickening!

And so we vote for the party that tells us they have to take care of us because it’s clear we cannot make it on our own merits and talents. We vote for politicians who want to treat us as their idiot children. And ultimately, we vote for the party that will ensure our subservience to their ideology (I use the term “we” lightly as I’ve never voted for any of them).

The grand ole Democratic Party. Because they’re doing so well now that they’re in control aren’t they?

In my lifetime I have noticed two very general sets of attitudes toward the U.S. I have lived abroad and travelled extensively, so I have a basis for comparison. We have either been grudgingly respected or dismissively ignored, with very few exceptions, during very short periods of time (after 9/11, etc.), There has been little middle ground. Our allies have been our allies and our enemies have been our enemies. Their actions have been contingent upon both of those sets of attitudes and which one was prevalent. Care to guess during which presidencies either have occurred?

I have a vivid recollection of the Carter years. I was active duty Navy at the time. It was post-Vietnam era and as a country we were walking around hanging our heads in shame for Vietnam and Watergate and it seemed patriotism was a dirty word. What did we have to be patriotic about? The media and Hollywood fed this national hangdog attitude with their drumbeat of “shame on you, shame on you”. Movies like Coming Home portrayed patriots as Neanderthals, insensitive, fringe lunatics and baby killers. Debauchery was also the rule. If you watch other movies from the 70’s it seemed everyone smoked dope. It was portrayed as an acceptable practice by regular moms, CEO’s, religious leaders and military people. Non-dope smokers were portrayed the same as patriots were. Whether society was a reflection of Hollywood or vice versa is irrelevant. It was what it was.

Our foreign policy seemed to consist of walking around the world bowing our heads and speaking softly to everyone, except we had no big stick. I remember a political cartoon during the Iranian hostage crisis that depicted President Carter, the IDF general who rescued hostages at Entebbe and the head of Scotland Yard who rescued the London hostages from that department store hostage crisis in London. Sorry, I could spend hours researching both their names, but what’s relevant was that in the cartoon, both the Israeli and the Brit had medals hanging from their chest with the names of their successful rescue operations. Carter was wearing a rose on his lapel. The caption said “yep, I grew it myself”. I was ashamed to read that cartoon.

Then came the Reagan years. The elites hated Reagan, both at home and in Europe. They portrayed him almost as badly as they did Bush 43. The portrayals ranged from him being a simple minded boob to a narcissistic arrogant cowboy. Sound familiar? Yep. The one thing they could not take away from Reagan however was his ability to communicate to the people. As a result, our national pride soared and suddenly we were getting the grudging respect from the rest of the world. They still didn’t like us but they damn sure respected us. I was still in the military and I saw the attitude of the military change dramatically as well. Patriotism seemed to come in style again and movies depicting dope smokers faded away. Again, whether society was a reflection of Hollywood or vice versa is irrelevant. It was what it was.

This patriotism carried us through the Clinton years during which we were repeatedly attacked by Islamo-fascists. From the first WTC bombing to the USS Cole we couldn’t seem to stop them. While this was going on, our Department of Justice became famous for raiding Americans homes and compounds (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonalez family’s house). Meanwhile they were prohibited from sharing information with the CIA thanks to Jamie Gorelick. Information that may have prevented 9/11.

In came our second “clueless cowboy”, President Bush. This is when the world really amped up its hatred. They loved us briefly when we were victims after 9/11, but that ended the day we decided to fight back.

What? Fight? Are you insane?

This defeatist attitude began to spread back home too. Of course the media grabbed that torch and willingly ran with it. Comparisons to Vietnam invariably surfaced. Of course not the true Vietnam history where we were winning but the media’s attitude that it was a quagmire. This despite the fact that both wars could NOT have been more different. It was failure that the peaceniks wanted to emphasize. They wanted to go back to those hangdog glory days where the US was not the big badass sheepdog. Liberals love victims and it just won’t work if we win.

Of course they ignored the fact that attacks on our soil and sovereign assets stopped abruptly after April 2003. Sure they attacked Spain and Spain immediately surrendered and pulled their troops. They attacked EVERYONE BUT THE US.

Why the diatribe? Well I just read a fabulous piece in the New York Post of all places and it immediately took me back to those blasted Carter years.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04082009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_amateur_hour_163368.htm?&page=1

Let’s hope we don’t see the same resulting effect. I for one am not optimistic. This administration’s going to get us killed. But that’s okay cause we’ll become victims again and maybe, just maybe, the world will love us. At least till 2012 when we decide to get our grudging respect back. Who gives a rats patootie if they like us. I like it when they shake their fists from the relative safety of their side of the fence. I’ve seen those guys in real life. Their bark is definitely worse than their bite. 

Hey how about this for a feather in Obama’s cap?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/congressional-caucus-members-meet-with-the-castro-cousins-in-cuba.html

Now I’m sure, much like the LA Times, most would love to tout this as a foreign policy success, but before you start tooting that horn let me ask you. Why now? What is it about this administration that makes Castro so willing to work with it? Could it be that we are heading toward Cuba’s form of government at a breakneck pace? Ding, ding, ding! Give the man a cigar! Make it a Montecristo while you’re at it.

Listen, as a child of the Caribbean, I’m all for relations with Cuba. I would love nothing more than freedom and prosperity for all Cubans and for that island to leap forward into the 21^st century. Here’s the problem. While Castro’s oppressive communist regime remains in power, despite the leader’s failing health, that just ain’t gonna happen. Much like all Communist regimes, any kind of treaty or economic deal we begin with the Cubans is going to benefit the elite few. The poor downtrodden Cuban’s plight will remain the same. The fact that liberals don’t see this is yet another clear indication of their inability to think critically. 

 I was raised with expatriated Cubans in Puerto Rico. My uncle even married one. I guarantee you that the vast majority of expatriated Cubans have a deep seated mistrust and hatred for the Castro regime. They know the true deal. The Cuban community in Miami has been avidly working for regime change in Cuba for the past 50 years. Some have died valiantly pursuing the dream of Cuba becoming a free democratic society. Here’s another side of the story.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/myriam-marquez/story/989534.html

But to people like Michael Moore, Sean Penn and the Black Congressional Caucus, Castro is just misunderstood and has been abused by our past administrations. Dr. Thomas Sowell put it best this week in his column of random thoughts.

“How a man who holds the entire population of a country as his prisoners, and punishes the families of those who escape, can be admired by people who call themselves liberals is one of the many wonders of the human mind's ability to rationalize. Yet such is the case with Fidel Castro.”

I spent 19 months working as a DOD contractor in the Middle Eastern country of Qatar. Being an unarmed American working for the DOD in an Arab country, I was more than a little paranoid of being kidnapped. Reading this article kind of brought the whole thing home for me again.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/20/1844071.aspx

For the most part, I was safe, as Qatar is one of those “moderate” countries trying to appear more modern to the Western world. They see the writing on the wall. Their oil and natural gas reserves are a finite resource so they’re trying to become like the Arabic French Riviera. The Emir is trying to modernize it every single day. It was however, an Arab country, the headquarters of Al Jazzeera is based there, and my job was a very sensitive one. I worked with hundreds of Arab, Assyrian, Palestinian, Egyptian, Iraqi, Kurdish, Somali and Etiopian linguists every single day. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, Atheist and a couple Scientologists. I travelled out into the city of Doha frequently.

I had a couple things going for me. For one thing, I look like everyone over there. I could blend into a crowd (unless I was taking some R&R guys out or going out with my co-workers). I didn’t wear a Thob, but neither did every local over there. What is astounding is how everyone looks like they sprouted from my family tree (or vice versa).

I wasn’t completely unarmed. I ALWAYS carry a nice 3” knife with a locking Tanto blade I can open with a flick of my wrist (hold the Rican jokes please). Plus, I’ve been a training martial artist for almost 37 years. Ironically, although invaluable, my training is not completely essential for survival.

My most powerful weapon was the one permanently imbedded between my ears. What I did, that I consider my best “preventive” self-defense system was to create what Tony Blauer (Blauer Tactical Systems) calls a “Mission Directive” in my head. It’s somewhat specific. Mine went something like this:

“If I am under threat of a kidnapping attempt I will fight to the death. I will become such an impossible victim that my kidnappers will be forced to kill me on the spot rather than take me to some undisclosed location and film me while decapitating me and putting the film on the internet for my children to see. I will fight them until I am dead or unconscious and when I regain consciousness I will fight again. Survival and escape are secondary. Primary is to NOT be taken.”

I repeated this like a mantra every single day. When I awoke and went to work, and every time I left the base. When I remembered I would repeat it again.

For those cringing and thinking this is an extremely paranoid way to live I’m here to tell you it is the opposite. It’s very empowering. I have several mission directives here at home. No matter where I am. What they do is prepare you to leap into action without hesitation when a violent attack begins. It removes that initial few precious seconds of hesitation where most victims find themselves either thinking or even uttering out loud “I can’t believe this is happening to me!” It’s like programming your hard drive with a mental directive to act NOW!

Even though in the above directive survival and escape were “secondary”, my death was not a foregone conclusion in my mind. I created scenarios where I killed every single one of them. I swapped them continuously; in a restaurant, on the street, in the mall, in the Suqs, at the gate, in a cab, in a car, driving, passenger etc. etc. Even at the Embassy surrounded by armed Marines. I kept them simple knowing that anything I did would be under an extraordinary amount of stress and I would be highly adrenalized. Why does that matter? Loss of fine motor skills. I always knew where the escape routes were and where anything I could use as a weapon was. You’d be amazed how little time this takes. I knew the city like the back of my hand and could drive over there like a local.

Situational/geographical awareness are important. Physical skills are also important, but you’re kind of stuck with the physical frame you have and the training you’ve allowed yourself. Not everyone’s gonna be Bruce Lee or Rambo. The mindset I’m describing however, is invaluable! It manifests itself in the way you carry yourself physically and sends subconscious messages to everyone around you, human and animal. You stop walking and acting like prey.

Does that mean that because of my mental state a potential kidnapper sized me up and decided I was “too much trouble”? My theory is the same for a lunatic islamist as it is for a potential mugger. Yes. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the picture above and others they have kidnapped and tell me what they have in common? More importantly than how they perceived me, it was me training myself for how I was going to react. There would be no pleas to my country to “Help me please!” Whether I was sized up by a criminal or a terrorist are irrelevant to me.

It’s never a wasted effort no matter where you are. Ask the family of that pastor that was shot and killed on the altar of his church a couple of Sundays ago. For those who say there was nothing he could do, that’s where you’re wrong. He had time to deflect the first bullet with his bible, therefore he had time to spring into action. It was the inaction that allowed the gunman to eventually find his mark with a bullet. This is not meant as criticism of the pastor as he reacted like the vast majority of the population will react in an incongruous sudden violent act. They simply have no mental training for it. Just so you know, I also have a mission directive in church.

In the end, I suppose the correct answer is, I’ll never know. I intend to keep it that way.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You may have many disagreements with President Bush on his policies, his decisions as president, his personal beliefs etc. You may be one of the hordes of sheep who repeat the MSM and late night comedian mantras about how the former president is just not that smart. Or the other side that he’s a megalomaniacal genius who manipulated the world. All those I can grant you. But the one thing that cannot be disputed is the man’s grace under fire.

This president has been one of the most maligned in at least my lifetime. I’ve never seen such venom spewed at one man in the course of eight years in very public forums by very prominent people. Not once have I ever heard the president publicly retaliate or respond in kind. Personally I don’t know how he does it. He may have a shouting closet in his house or he may just leave it out on the trail in one of his 100 degree plus 5 mile runs in Texas. In any case, he has shown more class than some of those who are supposedly more “sophisticated” than he (I recall John Kerry stating how he couldn’t believe he was getting beat by this “idiot”). Here’s his latest public statement about President Obama at his first public speech since leaving the White House:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_ca/canada_bush_first_speech_20

Recently there was yet another adolescent moment with President Obama’s press secretary. This guy (Gibbs) can’t talk without sounding like the freshman that keeps getting thrown into a locker at school. He insulted the former Vice President who had answered a journalists question with his honest opinion. Clearly Cheney’s answer was critical of the present administration, but it was also directed at the issues. Gibb decided to thumb his nose at Cheney (who has more time on the commode than Gibb has in government) like a juvenile dolt. Cheney is no Bush and is known for his less than gracious responses to criticism, but President Obama’s press secretary is starting to sound like Rush Limbaugh with half the IQ. Point is, we have serious problems that need to be dealt with by serious people. They’re going to have to grow a couple more layers of skin if they expect to survive. If they’re this thin skinned at this stage of the game I can’t imagine them withstanding the criticism George Bush had to endure.

Their only solution would have to be Achmed the Dead Suicide Bomber’s response,

“Silence! I keeeel you!”

So, things are not as bad NOW as people think they are and things were not as good THEN as people thought? Does anyone but me feel like we’re playing a game of three card monte?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/12/obama-declares-economic-crisis-bad-think/

I don’t necessarily have a problem with the President delivering an optimistic message to the country. It’s in my nature to be one of those annoyingly upbeat guys. People ask me how I’m doing and I usually say “Fabulous! Couldn’t be better if I were twins.” And the market/economy being driven by consumer confidence, I believe it is the president’s job to stay positive and deliver a positive message.

But how convenient for the president that things “aren’t as bad NOW, and weren’t as good THEN.” I’m sure if we were in the campaign season still it would be doom and gloom 24/7. Things wouldn’t be “bad”, they’d be CATASTROPHIC! And when the Consumer Index, GNP, and the market were up, it wasn’t as good as we thought.

I’ve been paying attention to Barrack Obama’s rise in politics since the buzz started about this “charismatic state senator”. The one universal thing that has bothered me since then and continues to bother me still is how I feel like I’m constantly being hustled by this guy.

Worse yet, I’ve watched him ascend to the presidency by running on a campaign of bromides and platitudes completely lacking in substance that people simply swoon over. Or get “tingles running up their legs”. I still don’t know how he got there. Scratch that, I know how he got there but it’s still staggering to me how we elected someone with no record to speak of, a highly questionable past and unresolved doubts about qualifications.

I’m not bitter. My attitude with this guy is the same as it was with Clinton. Okay, you got in, now get your arse to work. So Clinton’s first windmill was ensuring gays could serve openly in the military. Obama can’t seem to staff his administration and the stock market has plunged faster in this new administration than it has in 90 years! Not that he cares about that, since he believes the stock market ups and downs are just a thang. He’s spending my money like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

He has gone back on most of his major campaign promises. Not that I have a problem with that as I thought they were insane, but those were the things his base used as justification for his election (or coronation as it were). Unless you were black. Then you just elected him because he was black. Okay, so did some white people.

It doesn’t seem to matter what he says or does, he still gets a pass from the MSM. Not surprisingly so since they carry the lion’s share of the credit for getting him elected. They’d have to admit that they’d been bamboozled if they want to go after him.

As much as I detested everything Clinton stood for I used to admire his Teflon coating. Nothing seemed to stick to him. It seems I gave him too much credit. It wasn’t Clinton necessarily, but the generosity of the media that ascended him to bulletproof status. The reason I say this is because as soon as his wife started running against the newly anointed one, Bill couldn’t seem to get anything right. He went from Superman to Bozo the clown. He was the same guy, but now everything he said or did seemed to be a major faux pas. I even remember reading somewhere an analysis of Bill during the campaign that seemed to wonder what happened to him. It even floated the theory that his quadruple bypass had affected his judgment somehow. How convenient. Wish I could remember the reporter and the source.

In the art of the plausible, subterfuge and sleight of hand are most often the modus operandi. I get that. I have a healthy dose of skeptical cynicism. But is it too much to ask though that these people refrain from insulting my intelligence? I mean c’mon, really. I’m not that smart.

It’s been a while since I’ve done the Stupid Celebrity Quotes blog. Not because there’s a paucity of material. I’ve simply been focused on other things. In fact, I haven’t been blogging this prolifically in a while on any subject. So after clicking on one stupid quote, I stumbled on a treasure chest!

The whole fiasco of that Virginia State Senator wanting to ban Barbie produced a bountiful feast of dimwittiness! Chief among them from Khloe (with a K) Kardashian, one of those “celebrities” who is famous for nothing but being famous. Here’s her quote to the Senator.

“He can suck an egg, seriously. He's probably butt-ugly and always wanted a girlfriend that looked like Barbie but could never get one. People like that really annoy me."

Now I also agree that banning Barbie is a bit extreme and a really stupid move for a politician, but ya gotta love the vacuous bimbo with a forum.

On the same subject, from a supposed feminist and (of course) actress, of He’s Just Not That Into You,  Ginnifer (with a Gin) Goodwin:

"Barbie’s very empowering and my inner feminist is really very proud of our Barbie culture. She does have a rather tiny, unrealistic waist but she’s a doll and you know the thing about Barbie that I’ve always found very inspiring is she was fashionable and could have a fella if she wanted and sometimes she did, sometimes she didn’t and any career of her choosing. So if she was affluent it was due to her successes and especially for a doll that premiered in the 1950’s that’s pretty admirable that’s pretty incredible."

That is world class babbling right there! You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509097,00.html

And just so you don’t think I’m picking exclusively on the girls, this from one of my current favorite movie stars, The Rock, who believes in magic, but is also very logical. Here’s his “logic”:

"I can believe in the magic and the power of possibility but I am also pretty logical as well. A plus B most of the time equals C." Emphasis mine.

Have a fabulous weekend boys and girls!