AVOIDING THE PAT-DOWN

Susan Castillo, a former winner of the Miss USA Beauty Pageant, has become an Internet sensation of sorts, but not for her beauty or talents. She's become the newest critic of the US Transportation Security Administration's pat-down procedure used on a small number of passengers attempting to board airliners here in the United States. Miss Castillo has been quoted as saying that she felt "helpless and violated" by the ordeal, but before I go any further in this discussion, I want to point out something omitted from her statement. That something is that she chose to undergo the procedure.

Although Ms. Castillo may have felt "helpless and violated", she made two choices with full knowledge that those choices would place her in that situation. First, she chose to travel by air. Second, she refused to pass through a full-body scanner. Had she chose an alternate mode of transportation or elected to walk through the full-body scanner, she would have avoided the pat-down procedure altogether. But she didn't. She made her choice, and now she wants to moan about the consequences. Pardon me if I'm not sympathetic.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm as irritated as the next person about having to go through all the security measures these days. You can't go into a government building without getting searched and having to remove your belt from your pants and keys from your pockets. I find the whole process invasive and demeaning. But I also recognize that the world is a very dangerous place, with no shortage of wing-nuts and terrorists trying to create mayhem, and if we're going to have to sacrifice personal freedom for safety, whatever safety measures that are undertaken better be rigorously applied and applied to everybody.

Miss Castillo was quoted as saying, "I just kept thinking, 'What have I done to deserve this treatment as an upstanding, law-abiding American citizen?' Am I a threat to US security? I was Miss USA, for Pete's sake!"

I can answer those questions. What Miss Castillo did to deserve the pat-down treatment was choose to fly and refused to walk through the full-body scanner. Is she a threat to US security? Probably not, but just because she was a former Miss USA shouldn't give her a free pass to bypass a safety checkpoint the rest of us must pass through. We're upstanding, law-abiding citizens too.

Let's face it. Terrorists are fixated on airplanes. September 11th proved how destructive they can be, and since then, there have been no shortages of attempts to bring down more of them. We've seen explosives hidden in a shoe and in a crotch, and you can bet there are plotters out there looking for any way possible to bring explosives onto a plane. That's just a harsh fact of life. If we're going to continue allowing travel by air, and want to keep it safe, the scanners and pat-downs will need to remain until somebody comes up with a non-invasive method of keeping unwanted things off an airplane.

In the meantime, if you want to avoid the pat-down, take a train, a bus or a car. It's your choice!

PAT ROBERTSON: DIVINE WEATHERMAN?

It's not like me to start wondering about the 700 Club's Pat Robertson without provocation. Occasionally, I'll be channel surfing and his face will flash across the screen – for about 1/10,000th of a second before I switch channels, but usually the only time I think about the Reverend Pat (and I use the word "Reverend" in its loosest sense) is when he opens his mouth and some sort of idiotic drivel spills out. This past week has been different. I've been thinking about Robertson a lot, yet he's been eerily quiet and I haven't watched the TV for several days. I knew something was wrong. I just couldn't figure out what it was….until now.

For the past couple of weeks, nature has been unleashing its fury upon the United States in the worst way. Floods have ravaged Missouri, Arkansas and river towns in the upper mid-west. Rains have pummeled the northeast with more precipitation in April than any year on record and severe wind storms and tornados have ripped across the South and caused hundreds of deaths. And yet, in the midst of all nature's fury and destruction, Pat Robertson has remained deathly quiet. It makes a person like me wonder why?

When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Pat labeled the event God's retribution against a city known for its decadent ways and America's stance on abortion. When a hurricane blew through Orlando, Florida, Pat explained that it was God's pay-back for "Gay Days" at Disney World. According to Pat, God also sent the tsunami to Japan this year for it being liberal toward gays. When an earthquake hit Haiti this past January, killing tens of thousands of Haitians and leaving the country in utter ruins, Pat preached that the event was divine retaliation for a pact Haitians supposedly made with Satan hundreds of years ago to get Napoleon the Third off their back.

With Pat, there's always a divine pay-back in every natural disaster. If a storm flooded Las Vegas, God would be punishing gambling. If a hurricane hit San Francisco, gays would be the cause. A tornado in Chicago would be God's punishment for decades of Democratic rule, or possibly for the Windy City's blind support of the Cubs. A disaster in Boston would be laid at the feet of atheistic liberals. Ditto for one in New York or Washington, D.C. Apparently, in Pat's view, God just can't get enough mayhem to suit his purposes.

That's why I'm so mystified by Pat's silence about this recent streak of horrible weather. It's not like him to sit on the sidelines without casting blame. What is God extracting punishment for this time? And why from folks living in the heart of the "Bible Belt" - the mainstay of Robertson's own television ministry? I know it's a cliché to say this, but inquiring minds like mine want to know!

PROFITING FROM GENOCIDE

When you invest in a corporation or a mutual fund that holds stock in corporations, you have the right as a shareholder to vote on issues raised at the corporation's annual meeting. Oftentimes, the voting at those meetings is for which candidates, or slate of candidates, will receive a seat on the corporation's board of directors, but sometimes, other interesting issues are brought to the table for a shareholders' vote, and those issues can be quite contentious.

For example, when opposition to South Africa's apartheid was reaching its peak in the late 1980's, many corporate shareholder annual meetings held votes on whether that particular company would continue doing business with South Africa or South African corporations. Opponents of apartheid hoped that outside economic pressure would eventually lead to its demise, and their efforts were eventually successful, but not without considerable opposition from corporate boards and the large shareholders who controlled them. For most corporate board of directors and their largest investors, profits, not improved social policy are the measure of corporation's success.

I raise this issue because a mutual fund proxy ballot arrived in the mail last week, and one of the resolutions being voted upon was an "anti-genocide" measure. You'd think a measure like that would be a "slam dunk winner". After all, who's pro-genocide, except perhaps, a handful of brutal dictators? Surely, they couldn't hold that much sway over an American corporation! But then I noticed that the Board of Directors of the corporation in question was recommending that shareholders vote down the proposal. What gives?

I'll tell you what gives: MONEY!

It seems that many corporate boards have no shame when it comes to where or how their profits are made. As long as it's legal, it's fair game…even if that game involves genocide.

Earlier this year, the board of directors of JPMorgan Chase fought a corporate resolution offered by "Investors Against Genocide" (IAG), a shareholder group that is fighting countries that permit genocide in the same manner groups fought South Africa for permitting apartheid. Despite the efforts of the JPMorgan Chase board to prevent the resolution from coming to a vote, the Securities and Exchange Commission notified the banking giant that "Investors Against Genocide" was entitled to a vote on the resolution. Whether it passes remains to be seen, but at least shareholders will have an opportunity to vote on the matter.

The drive to end genocide in places like Darfur in the Sudan will not be an easy goal to accomplish, but many of us can't say that there is nothing we can do about the matter. There is. We can vote! Our vote may not carry the day, but it's a start!

TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT - MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!

Holy cow! If the polls are to be believed, Donald Trump…that's right, THE Donald Trump of reality TV's "The Apprentice" is the new standard-bearer and presidential front-runner of the Republican Party. Pinch yourself and ask: "What's the world coming to?"

Trump's latest media splash involves his charge that President Obama didn't deserve to be admitted to the two Ivy League universities he attended – Columbia and Harvard. Never mind that the President graduated from Columbia in 1983 with a degree in political science, no small feat at an institution as rigorous as Columbia. And then, there's Harvard. Did the President prove "the Donald" right? Apparently not!

President Obama graduated from the most prestigious and academically demanding law school in the country, Harvard, and graduated magna cum laude – that's with highest honors in case you're wondering. At a school where only the brightest of the bright are admitted, Obama not only proved himself by graduating, he did so at the highest tier of his class!

So, what's Trump's point? That Obama was, and therefore is now, an intellectual slouch too stupid or lacking the mental toughness required by the Oval Office?

The point is…there is no point! There's just Trump running at the mouth, not saying anything meaningful, grabbing headlines, which is something Trump is a master of doing. That's great if personal aggrandizement is his aim, but don't kid yourself. Trump's windbag of blather won't solve any of this country's problems.

Seriously folks, is there anybody out there who can identify Trump's position on the civil war in Libya, North Korea or Iran's nuclear ambitions, China's monetary policy or the bioethical questions involved with stem cell research? I doubt it. Do you know what Trump thinks about job creation through government spending, ditching Medicare and Social Security or the elimination of food stamps? I doubt that too, and it's not because you're stupid. It's because Trump never talks about issues. He just talks about Trump. Occasionally, he calls other people names, but mostly, he talks about himself.

In the end, Trump won't run for President, even though he's now the GOP front-runner. It's not in his nature. Being President requires a person to think of somebody besides their self, and Trump simply isn't capable of doing that for any measurable period of time. So, he'll spend as much time in the media limelight as the rest of the GOP candidates allow, and then he'll traipse back to his CEO chair on T.V. where he can fire people at will and look cool for the cameras. In the end, that's a whole lot easier than running a nation.

FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE

If you search the Internet, you can find a lot of dramatic pictures of the Black river in Missouri, which has blasted through levees built to protect communities along the river from the spring flooding season. The problem is this, 2011 has not produced a normal spring. Many communities in Missouri have already seen twice the amount of rainfall as they normally get in April, and a host of devastating storms that have swept across the region of late show no sign of letting up. That means more rain, more flooding, and more and more destruction.

It's heart-wrenching for folks to battle the river day after day and watch the accumulation of an entire lifetime of blood, toil, sweat and tears, to borrow the phrase, being washed away before their very eyes. What's worse is the fact that many of those people will be unable to rebuild their homes…or their lives.

Many communities along the Black river in Missouri lie in natural flood plains, and thus, are unprotected against flood losses under normal homeowner insurance policies. Those who have federal flood insurance will recoup some of their losses, but efforts to limit their ability to rebuild on the government's dime has seen a major push in the GOP-led House of Representatives.

The people of New Orleans can attest to the grim fact that the government largely turned its back on their rebuilding efforts following hurricane Katrina, much in part due the drive of Republican conservatives who view the federal flood insurance program as middle class welfare. The river people of Missouri are due the same rude awakening.

I'm bothered by the ease with which we, as a nation, turn a blind eye to the true scope of loss suffered by our fellow citizens, and I'm saddened that our society is not ready or willing to sacrifice collectively so that the lives of a comparatively small group of people can be put back together again. In the end, we all suffer because of the loss, but our society doesn't always see it that way.

THE GOOD MAN BEHIND THE BADGE

Officer Rafeal Espinoza was a good cop. His fellow officers admired the dedication he exhibited in carrying out his duties, and nobody on the Anchorage, Alaska police force had an unkind word to say about him. Officer Espinoza earned the respect of the citizens he served by kindly and fairly performing his job, and those who came in contact with him, came to appreciate his tireless work ethic and commitment to keeping the City of Anchorage a safe place for them to live.

But Officer Rafeal Espinoza had a secret. He was not Rafeal Espinoza. In reality, he was Rafeal Mora-Lopez, a Mexican national who did not have a valid immigration visa to be in the United States. Rafeal Mora-Lopez was using another man's identity, a U.S. citizen who did not live in Alaska, to work and live in Alaska as a well-regarded, law-enforcing U.S. citizen. Rafeal Mora-Lopez even had a U.S. passport under his assumed name, but when he tried to renew his passport, the government discovered Mora-Lopez's true identity. He's now under house arrest awaiting trial on federal immigration charges. Though he's lived and worked in America for over twenty years, after what appears to be a sure conviction on immigration charges, that status will change and deportation will follow any served sentence.

It's easy for a lot of people to write off a man like Rafeal Mora-Lopez, because it's clear he broke a number of federal statutes in order to set himself up as a law-abiding, upstanding member of the Anchorage community. For many, Rafeal's deception (fraud if you will) automatically cancels any good he achieved in his life or service in Anchorage, and Rafeal will no longer be thought of as a "good cop", but rather, an illegal immigrant - a common criminal.

In my book, that's a shame. Millions of naturalized American citizens have not done as much for their community as Officer Rafeal Espinoza has done for his. Millions more have not gained the respect of their fellow citizens, exhibited the work ethic, or showed the kind of good moral character that Officer Rafeal Espinoza demonstrated in his community. And yet, it is Officer Rafeal Espinoza who will forever bear the stigma of a common criminal here in America and be forever barred from walking free within its borders. That's too bad! America is a far better nation with Officer Rafeal Espinoza, or whatever you want to call him, living in it. It's too bad this nation doesn't realize it.

EASTER & TERROR

Yesterday, security forces loyal to Syrian President Assad sprayed a funeral procession in the city of Douma with gunfire. They killed at least eighty-eight mourners and scores more were seriously injured in the attack. What is it with brutal dictators, Islamic terrorists and members of the Westboro Baptist Church – always feeling the need to attack innocent mourners at funerals?

Oh, I get the fact that funeral attendees are the most emotionally vulnerable, and thus, the least likely to be expecting such an attack, but where is the honor and dignity in picking on the weak? Maybe that's the point – there is none! In fact, the practice probably says volumes about the merits of a cause that has to focus on torturing the lowliest and most vulnerable to make its statement.

Heinrich Himmler, the sadistic director of Germany's feared Nazi SS, made the case for terrorism when he stated, "The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear."

I raise this point on Easter Sunday, as hundreds of millions of my fellow Christians world-wide are celebrating the birthday of our church. Himmler's brand of terror succeeded for the better part of three and a half years, fueled totally by fear and the murdering of over six million innocent people, and then it withered and died. Christ championed the lowly and the oppressed, and didn't kill anybody, and two thousand years later, we're still celebrating his name.

SMALL GOVERNMENT & THE CASTLE DOCTRINE

Every now and then I have an Epiphany of sorts, and two ideas that seem remote in time, space and relevance suddenly jell into a cohesive picture, albeit a warped one – like a Dali painting. I had one of those moments earlier this morning, so I thought I'd take a moment to jot my thoughts down on paper and see if any of it made sense. I'll let my readers be the judge.

The first idea I was considering was the much-hyped GOP notion that what America needs is small government. Small government proponents believe that the federal government should consist of the President (preferably a Republican one), a vice-president (ditto on the party choice), a Secretary of State (preferably a 3-star general or higher), an Attorney General (only staunch death penalty proponents can apply), Congress (with GOP majorities in both houses), a Supreme Court (all right-wingers) and a military. Beyond that, it's every man for himself.

In the small-government scheme of things, there's no need for bureaucrats or government regulators because, in the small government advocate's view, there's no such thing as a good regulation. Companies should be free to pollute at will and sell whatever they think the marketplace will bear. If citizens suffer or die as a result, that's the price they pay for living in the freest nation of earth.

Of course, the major up-side of small government is little taxation, and that's apparently a big plus in this day and age.

The second idea I was batting around in my brain was the "Castle Doctrine", the medieval notion that a man's home is his castle and he should have a right to defend it against any aggressor with lethal force without first having to make an effort to retreat if it could be done safely. It's the backbone of current self-defense laws in many states. Recently, a growing number of states have been expanding the castle doctrine to include a person's place of employment, business and automobile, and some have even erased the duty to retreat altogether, no matter where the person is attacked. Personally, I think that advocates more violence, but that's not the point here, so I'll move on.

Here's where my Epiphany occurred. What if I'm sitting in my home, 16 miles from the nearest nuclear power plant, and the radiation warning sirens start wailing, indicating that lethal radiation is leaking from the plant because we no longer have big government regulators to monitor and require plant safety? Isn't that radiation threatening my life? And at that moment in time, shouldn't I be able to pull out a gun and start blasting away at everyone from the power company CEO to my neighbor who's a stockholder in the plant, because…well, they're threatening my life, and our newest "Castle Doctrine" says I can use lethal force against such threats anywhere I darn please?

Hmm. Maybe we're onto something here!

RACISM SWINGING FROM THE TREES

Am I the only left-wing, liberal zealot in America who thinks that Marilyn Davenport ought not resign her representative seat in Orange County, California for distributing that offensive "Obama Chimp Email"? If so, I have a question for my liberal brethren. Why would we want to sweep under a rug the opinions of a 74-year old woman who had the courage to publicly proclaim her racist attitude, an attitude shared by millions of equally racist Americans who are too cowardly to acknowledge holding similar beliefs and/or too stupid to acknowledge their own ignorance?

It seems to me that latent racism is a far more powerful foe than the overt kind of racism Marilyn Davenport displayed for everyone to see. Her kind of racism speaks for itself. She couldn't even say "I'm sorry" without reading from a prepared statement. Where's the heart-felt remorse in that? And as if that wasn't enough, Mrs. Davenport stated that she assumed that she offended the black people, but in the next breath added that she only viewed the e-mail as political satire. Wow! That kind of stupidity leaves a person breathless.

Latent racism, on the other hand, is racism of a far more devious sort. It always has a cover – an alternate excuse - a justification meant to act as a shield to prevent the brutal sword at racism's tip from being exposed to the light of day, much like what happened to Marilyn Davenport when her email exposed her for the racist that she is. Latent racism allows folks, and especially white politicians, to espouse social policies meant to negatively affect minorities, all the while offering the white majority the luxury of disclaiming any connection to racism's filthy core. I guess it helps them sleep at night.

Davenport claims that her constituents are asking her not to resign, and by darn, I believe her. There's no better testament to how rampant racism still is in this country. Davenport responded to those constituents by saying that out of respect for them, she'll remain in office…which is just another way of saying, "Because I don't respect blacks, I won't resign."

At least she's being honest…which is more than I can say about a lot of other racists!

BIRTHER BLUES

Being the soft-hearted soul that I am, I feel a measure of sympathy for people who are part of the "birther movement" – that group of folks who believe that President Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and who recognize that Obama has perpetrated the greatest fraud in America's history by taking up residence in the White House. It seems that not enough people take the "birthers" seriously, at least not enough people in a position of power to do something about the situation, and it's downright frustrating to watch an injustice of epic proportion go on without those supposedly in charge doing something to correct the situation.

Oh sure, you might think that "birthers" have something to cheer about, now that Donald Trump and Charlie Sheen have jumped on their bandwagon, but even the most diehard "birthers" recognize that Trump's just in it for Trump, and Charlie…well, let's just say he heard the word bandwagon and figured that's where the booze is. All things considered, adding Trump and Sheen to the ranks isn't that much of a coup.

Another hurdle "birthers" face is the left-wing media, and all of us know how powerful and devious that media can be, FOX, Limbaugh and Beck notwithstanding. In fact, the left-wing media has been scheming for years to plant Obama in the White House, going so far as to publish his birth announcement in two Hawaiian newspapers at the same time Kenyan midwives were hoisting Obama's newborn frame to the sun gods in central Africa. Just the thought of such treachery makes me sick, but that's America – land of the free and home of the treacherous left!

And what does the future hold? "Birthers" know. They've seen the signs. It's only a matter of time before somebody in the White House with "photo-shop"© on their computer comes up with a forged document that the C.I.A. claims is an authentic Baptismal record of Obama's American birth. The fact that it hasn't happened already is testament to the ineptitude of Obama's left-wing staff. Sooner or later though, somebody will figure out the computer program and the left-wing media will take over from there. That's how things are done in Washington, and "birthers" know full-well there's not much that can be done about it. It's frustrating all right. Downright maddening, if you ask me. That's why I feel sympathetic to the "birthers'" plight.

The whole thing kind of reminds me how I felt after the 2000 election, when Dubya stole the White House and the Supreme Court gave him the "thumbs-up" and, then I had to sit by on the sidelines for 8 agonizing years as he drug our beloved nation down the economic toilet. It made me sick. And the worst part was having to look at those mean-spirited bumper stickers that said: The 2000 election is history – get over it!