Miley Cyrus Inhaling From A Bong

I am always amazed how the public at large fall for publicity stunts by stars, even when said stunts are telegraphed miles away. We are so in awe with these vainglorious denizens that there is a collective willful blindness on our part and we do not hold these stars’ feet to the fire like how we would our common brothers and sisters. I have learned long ago to enjoy the respective crafts of our celebrities, but to ignore their musings, advice, or moreover, not to emulate their behavior. To that end, Miley Cyrus came into my crosshairs because I have spent a bundle on her products because of my daughter’s love for all things Hannah Montana, Miley’s stage name. Miley was recently caught inhaling from a bong, though, we were assured that the substance in question in the bong was not illegal. I am of the opinion Miley’s bong incident was staged... so to give Miley that coveted ‘street cred.’ In essence, the conspicuous bong incident was a calculated effort to distance Miley from the ‘bubble gum’ crowd.

This is not the first time Miley and her people have done this; we all remembered her x-rated lap-dance gyrations on a man who was in his forties. We were later told that the man who enjoyed Miley’s lap dance was flamingly gay, and supposedly, Miley’s grinding was of no consequence – incidentally, any day now, I am now expecting Justin Bieber to give Jane Lynch, of “Glee’s” fame, a lap dance too. My being the cynic knows that Miley desperately wants to move on to the adult stage, Ala Britney Spears; and so… the behavior we are seeing is predictable. If Miley’s latest behavior now being vetted by the public is too much for her base, there will be a hurried apology… with the attendant photo-op, and with Miley innocently adorned in probably powdered blue color dress, hugging Mini Mouse or some Disney character down in Florida -- I swear to you that this has actually happened before (do the research). If the outrage is muted, Miley’s behavior, on what she deems risqué, will continue so to gain ‘street cred,’ which she thinks will elevate her to the ranks of Britney Spears... hopefully without the drama.

This is how far these stars and their handlers will go to maintain fame, even though they are financially loaded. We see now where c-listed celebrities are willfully leaking their sex tapes... so to be back in the spot-light.  I am certain that there are former stars who are wishing with bated breath that some star of note would die… so that they can attend the funeral and be seen, or moreover be interviewed, hoping that it will give them back some ‘shine.’ Case in point, when the great Michael Jackson was being tried for pedophilia, how many of the celebrities you saw at his funeral (John Mayer, Brooke Shields, etc) were at his criminal trials?  All these examples of questionable behavior are no different from what Miley Cyrus is currently engaged in - they are merely gradations on what some of these celebrities would do to maintain, or be back in, the limelight….   

The 'Hypocrats' Are It Again

President Obama just reneged on one of his campaign promises – discarding the Bush tax cuts - which supposedly benefit the wealthy or more specifically… those who make over $250,000.00. Those who follow politics know that there are consequences to elections and the ‘shellacking’ in the recent mid-term elections suffered by the Democrats, as described by the President himself, was the reason for his compromise. Besides the apparent capitulation by the President is the constant refrain by some of the Democrats that the tax cuts will increase the coffers of the ‘rich,’ and moreover, add to the gargantuan deficit. I have no quarrel with the Dems over their position as ‘deficit hawks,’ but stop being ‘Hypocrats’ and pay the taxes that would have been paid… had the Bush taxes were revoked. Do we really need a law to force us to do what is right? In essence, do we need a change in the tax code to make the Democrats who are wealthy to pay the taxes that they are so adamantly against?

One would mistakenly think that only Republicans are wealthy… forgetting that John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi – all Democrats - are some of the wealthiest legislatures in our seat of government. I also know that many of the Democrats supporters are our Hollywood stars… who are wealthy and they too parrot the Dems in their outrage of taxes for the rich. For all those politicians, movie stars, or the regular folks who are against President Obama’s compromise on the Bush tax cuts… simply pay what you would have paid had the taxes been revoked. But alas, I know many of these politicians and stars do not have the courage of their convictions – years ago, when John Kerry ran for president, there was a box designated on the Massachusetts tax form… for him or anyone to check off said box to pay more taxes than were compelled… you guessed it, Senator Kerry ignored the box.

In that same vein, I recently saw a very good movie, “The Good Guys,” by Will Ferrell, but the only critique I have of that movie is the proselytizing at the end when the credits were rolling… against those who work on Wall Street about their greed, which may be true. But Mr. Ferrell makes some $20 million a movie, dutifully negotiated by his agent/lawyer… but does anyone thinks that he gave back any money for the many stinkers he has made before redeeming himself in “The Good Guys”… some of these movie stinkers that did not even made back the money it took to make them? Years ago, there was a report on which politician gave more to charity per capita, it was dick Cheney; this made sense because, supposedly, only Republicans are wealthy… Hypocrats!

The Social Networks: Twitter; Face-Book…

I must confess that I do not have a dog in this hunt… because I have said in past blogs that I am almost a Luddite vis-à-vis computers and their attendant outlets like the growing social networks. Perhaps, I am going to be biased in favor of as many communications outlets to be had because of my legal training… where much emphasis from the first day of law school is placed on the import of freedom of speech codified under our sacred First Amendment. In this vein of opining, permit me a little latitude because a couple weeks ago, one of the prominent preachers in the Tri-State area told his flock not to visit Face-Book and the like because it was the catalyst for many a hookup… resulting in separations, and moreover, divorces - there was quite a debate in the media if the preacher had a right to chastise his flock about the usage of the social networks.

I conveyed this story to show that that there are limits to everything… not that there should be any curtailment of the social networks’ use, but notwithstanding my bias… these networks make it convenient to do bad things. Yes, I know… it is up to the person as to how much he or she values fidelity towards marriage and that no social network compelled anyone to cheat. I supposed the preacher looked at the social networks like the concept in law, which is called an “attractive nuisance:” for example, it is akin to dangling candy in the presence of children to entice them to engage in bad behavior – of course, these adults in the preacher’s congregation are not children, but we can see the apt analogy.   

Anything in its absolutes is bad; you know the old adage, one cannot cry fire in a crowded theatre... notwithstanding the right to free speech. Case in point, we can laud Wikileaks under the rubric of ‘freedom of speech,’ but at the expense of outing Intelligence operatives… who are deep under cover protecting us? I will surmise that the typical user of the social networks do not think so deeply and think that they should have unfettered access to say and access the networks… without any limitations. But there must be ‘checks and balances,’ whereby, now one can go on any social network and spread disgusting rumors about anyone… with cyber space being the protective buffer for such cowards. No one can effectively police this kind of behavior unless one is raised with ‘decency,’ but we seldom see this decency restraint on the social network.    

The genie is out of the bottle and the social networks are in most part a good thing because they make our lives convenient. I know for certain that there are people with great minds working on updates to add or to replace the existing networks. The horse and buggy telephone land line did not cause infidelity, bullying, or the spreading of rumors… and to borrow a phrase from the Second Amendment lovers: guns don’t kill people… nor do the social networks in of themselves cause bad behavior. LOL!

The Travails of The TSA

At this present moment, one can honestly say that members of Al qaeda would get more love from the American people – at least those who are frequent fliers - than those who are employed by the Transportation Security Administration (hereinafter the TSA). We have seen all the stories and disturbing images of little boys and girls being groped for the benefit of securing air transport and maintaining the peace of the friendly skies. But these are the times we are living in and these drastic and intrusive methods are what are needed to combat an enemy that will keep attacking. When I first came to this country as a boy, I would ponder how drugs made their way inside our prisons; yet, I know that this was a reality. My father, the police officer, explained to me the disgusting ways, one of which includes hiding drugs in orifices to feed the addict’s addiction - I mentioned this to underscore the  parallels of the terrorists’ resolve to carry out their perverted cause.  

No one I know believes that there is some perverted thrill that those who engage in these searches receive – they are simply doing their jobs until we can come up with a better solution to thwart the terrorists. It is easy to lose our resolve and become complacent; but do not forget how far these murderers would go to harm innocents. It was just over a couple years ago when a terrorist mother was willing to take her newly born child on a flight… filling the baby bottle, not with formula, but a liquid to ignite and bring the plane down over the Atlantic Ocean – this is what we are up again. Something also tells me that the authorities must know… that we are not privy to and that is why so far, notwithstanding the outcries, that the TSA is maintaining its resolve in carrying out these intrusive searches.

Politics have also intervened in the fight against terror. Case in point, when the former President Bush was fighting terror… by having the phone calls going to and from terrorist enclaves monitored, the biased media were up in arms… invoking Constitutional privacy rights, but now they are loudly quiet – I wonder if it is because there is a Democratic President at the helm? That is the danger of politicizing the fight against terrorism… I supported President Bush then and I wholeheartedly support President Obama now in our tireless efforts to combat and destroy the terrorist network.

I have seen an elderly gentleman who peed his pants due to an invasive search; I have seen the breast cancer survivor who had to surrender her prosthesis momentarily; and I have seen the little girls/boys being subjected to searches – that if these searches were not under the color of law, that the ones doing the searches would be brought up on pedophilia charges – but again, these are the times we are living in. Of course, we could also adopt the Israeli method of screening would-be passengers, but this would mean we would have to overcome the malignant cancer of political correctness that directly resulted in the killing of thirteen soldiers down at Fort Hood.  

There Is A Case Sometimes For Pre-emptive War

No policy undertaken by the past Bush Administration has caused more angst among the various pundits and public alike than “Preemptive War.” This concept is maligned because it is looked upon as the catalyst that got the United States involved in the unpopular Iraq war, and moreover, because it is a policy championed by the so called Neo-Cons, part of President Bush’s cabal who are now out of favor in Washington.

Notwithstanding the advocates of pre-emption, there is merit sometimes in employing such a policy in our Geo-Policies, all in all to serve the greater and long time good. We all need not do have walked the hollowed halls of Ivy League academia to have expertise in geo-politics like Bismarck, Richelieu, Churchill, or Kissinger, to understand pre-emption. In our everyday lives, we practice pre-emption: we exercise to prevent obesity, which could lead to Heart problems and other ailments; we visit our doctors periodically to make sure that we are healthy; we take vitamins to help fight off maladies; and we save our monies for a so called rainy day - all this we do to pre-empt something bad happening in our future.

Countries are like human beings who practice pre-emption… only that they do so for the collective. With that said, there are many countries which are justified to employ the strategy of pre-emptive war. How many times have we heard the vitriol coming out of Iran on how it wants to bring about the utter destruction of Israel - should the Israelis wait until Iran developed Nuclear weapons and are nuked… before they protect themselves by carrying out a preemptive strike? During the morning of May 04 2009, General David Petraeus, thinking of the merits pre-emption, warned the Pakistani government that it has two weeks to confront the Taliban; the fear then was that the Taliban was going to soon have access to the fifty or so nuclear weapons because there were Taliban sympathizers in the Pakistani army - Again, should we have waited until this occurred?

What should India do if these weapons end up in the hands of the Taliban, knowing the bloody history of wars between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir? Tonight, before I go to bed, I too will engage in some pre-emption of my own by brushing my teeth - my goal is to prevent bad breath, tooth decay, and gingivitis… what of countries facing nuclear annihilation with enemies who think their rewards are in Paradise… rooted in  perverse eschatological ideals?

Poor, poor, Conan O'brien

   I deliberately chose not to blog about the late night hosts wars that were raging months ago because what would have been the fun in doing so when everyone was giving their take and taking sides. With tempers cooled, due mostly to the new news circles, I have the latitude to give my take, and perhaps, from a different perspective. What I saw and heard from the many voices… including one of the principals involved, was how Jay Leno was being selfish and that he reneged on his promise to walk away and turn over the hosting to the new guard, Conan O’brien. I even saw Conan bitching on the program “Sixty Minutes” about how he was dealt a raw deal; poor Conan had to walk away from NBC with some 40 million dollars for his troubles.

    No one mentioned that, here we had two white guys (and a third, Letterman, taking sides) arguing over literal millions and griping about how terrible the situation was. With all due respect to Conan, this is a business driven by ratings…and are you telling me that NBC, out of much love for Leno and hatred for Conan, chose the former, absent the cold calculus of ratings…and moreover, giving Conan 40 million to walk away? What is it that I am missing? Why throw Conan under the bus when he is much younger than Jay Leno, and supposedly, can draw the very demos that the advertisers are coveting. The logical truth must be that Jay Leno was tracking better ratings, even among the coveted demos than Conan… resulting in the unceremoniously ending of the Conan O’brien show.

    All three late night hosts are funny in their own way, but their vocations underscore the lack of diversity in that genre. It is always funny to hear these Hollywood denizens opined on the popular issues…save for, of course, equality in the lucrative real estate of entertainment. It is true that one cannot legislate matters of the people’s choice for entertainment, but the interest of “fairness” became an issue among the three white late night hosts… when it really had to do with business. I mean that is what they tell most of the minorities who are seeking work in Hollywood. We feel your pain but the audience is just not there to develop a show around you or that theme, etc. But a late night host can walk away with some forty million and the sky was falling for him-what a life….

    You may want to know why is it that I left George Lopez (a minority) out of the mix - I did so because his show is but a suckling… of course, the grating irony is that this same poor Conan O’brien is now the lead in show for Lopez’s. This is what it must be like to become accustomed to heaven - incidentally, does anyone know the whereabouts of Arsenio Hall? 

Verily Prime

The United States Military Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

There are those who are gay or those who are well read will tell you that great military strategists, including Alexander The Great, were gay. Whether those who are gay readily provide this information to validate their lifestyle is of no consequence on the protracted debate we are now having on whether gays should openly serve in the United States military. It may be laughable to prevent someone who is willing to pay the ultimate price from serving his or her country over their personal lifestyle choice, but that is the reality. Perhaps, it is prudent to hear from someone like myself who is a heterosexual and who have served in the military - my take on the issue might be akin to many who have served and are now serving… and this is maybe the reason for the drawn out debate on the Army’s policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’

When I served in the Army in Germany, I was assigned to the Mechanize Infantry and at least three times a year, we had to go to the German forest for two long months of training. We would sleep in pup tents, two men assigned to said tent… with seldom any room, but for the sleeping bags, lighting, and your M-16 weapon. Now, that I have set this up, imagine my pup tent buddy being openly gay… think of the ribbing, think of the angst, that I would have to endure... even though it may be borne out of ignorance, it is still will be there - this is the culture that is causing the protracted debate and reluctance to do away with the United States Military policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ 

Close to a decade ago, I recalled reading where the Navy implemented a new experimental rule of having females station on the submarines - I am told that over half of the women were soon pregnant, shortly thereafter. No, I am not saying that those who are not gay and are in the pup tent with someone who is gay will be tempted to switch sides, but the former will start thinking and mistaking gestures, etc, from the latter… and this will cause consternation in the ranks. Let me be honest, I have a daughter and when she is of age and if she decides to join the Armed Forces, I will not want her to be in an infantry setting… like how I was… sharing a pup tent with a man.  

Is this fair to our gay brothers and sisters who want to serve their country- No! But that is the reality of the situation… void of logic and probably runs afoul of our Constitutional principles. I have always found it ironic that it was a Democrat President (Clinton) who enacted what is to many Liberals… so an egregious a policy to personal liberty. My take on this issue might be moot for now… in light of the seismic changes brought about by the recent Mid-Term Elections, where both houses of the legislative power in Washington, D.C. may leave the U.S. military policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ as is.