Saturday, August 26, 2006


The controversy swirling around the Dixie Chicks centers on statements made by lead singer Natalie Maines while the trio was on concert tours in London. Since the other two members of the trio have not repudiated the statements made by Maines, it must be obvious that she is their designated spokesperson. With Maines, the Dixie Chicks have erased any doubts about the Theory of Evolution.

In March of 2003, while commenting on her opposition to the Iraq war, Maines said she was "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Her comments were praised in Europe. In this country, she was accused of being unpatriotic and many radio stations in the South boycotted the Dixie Chicks by refusing to play any of their records. Fans and civil libertarians immediately rushed to defend the trio by proclaiming that it is not un-American or unpatriotic to speak out against the war, and that the boycott amounted to an attempt at stifling free speech.

I beg to differ with those who have defended the Dixie Chicks. I do agree that it is not unpatriotic to speak out against the war in Iraq, but only as long as it is done here in Ameirca. Family members squabble with each other all the time, but they will not "wash their dirty linen" in front of outsiders because, when push comes to shove, FAMILY ALWAYS COMES FIRST! By making her remarks outside of the United States, Maines provided fodder to the majority in Europe who dislike America for one reason or another, and who express their dislike for this country by opposing our war with Iraq.

Among the many comments made on the statements by Maines, one said it best. "I am a Canadian citizen but born in England and I think it is disgusting that the 'Chicks' have chosen to voice their negative opinion of their president while outside their own country. Come on girls, get some balls and speak out politically in your own country not just to appease and please a crowd some where else in the world."

Maines apparently has come to realize that she was unpatriotic when she made her statement in London in 2003. This past June, while the Dixie Chicks were on another concert tour in London, Maines attacked patriotism itself in the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph. "The entire country (US) may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country ... I don't see why people care about patriotism." Say what? Hmmmm - Stupid is as stupid does!

Maines' statement in the Telegraph validates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Natural Selection, Darwin's process of evolution, has left Natalie Maines behind with the brains of a brilliant ape or, possibly, with the brains of a stupid Neanderthal. And the same goes for Martie Maguire and Emily Robison, the other members of the trio, since they have never repudiated their spokesperson's asinine statements. I could spend an hour commenting on the statement in the Telegraph, but I will limit myself to saying that NO COUNTRY CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT THE PATRIOTISM OF ITS CITIZENS. The Dixie Chicks are nothing more than a bunch of unpatriotic sorry-ass ingrates.

Monday, August 21, 2006


As I predicted in my blog on Mel Gibson's apologies, Gibson copped a plea in the case of his July 28th drunk driving arrest. He had been charged with (1) driving wihile having a 0.08 percent or higher blood-alcohol level, (2) driving under the influence of alcohol, and (3) driving with an open container of aclohol. Under California law, the first two charges are midemeanors and the open container charge is considered an infraction, rather than a crime. A defendant facing such charges is not required to appear in court for dispostion of his case.

On August 17, one of his attorneys appeared in Malibu Superior Court and plead Nolo Contendere (no contest) in Gibson's behalf. While technically not a guilty plea, its effect is the same, since by not contesting the charges, the defendant implies that he committed the offense(s) with which he has been charged.

There was no way that Gibson was going to go through a trial where the sordid facts attendant to his arrest would be rehashed in public and in the presence of a scandal-hungry media. Indeed, Gibson's attorney appeared in court unbeknownst to the media and entered the plea a month before his next scheduled court hearing. Thus, his case has been laid to rest with minimal public attention. And by appearing a month early with a prearranged plea bargain agreement, his attorney succeeded in avoiding the usual Superior Court oder for an investigation and sentencing recommendation by the Los Angeles County Probation Department.

The plea bargain called for the dismissal of the driving under the influence and the open container charges. On the remaining charge, Gibson was placed on three years of probation, fined $1,608, and had his driver license restricted for 90 days. As part of his probation, he was ordered to attend "self-help meetings" five times a week for four and a half months and three meetings per week for another seven and a half months. He was also required to complete a prescribed three month alcohol education and counseling program.

Was Gibson's sentence a mere slap on the wrist? Not at all. The sentence was fairly severe for a first-time drunk driving offender. The only thing missing is the usual community service part of a drunk driving sentence. In addition to the three month alcohol counseling program, Gibson is also required to attend a one year long self-help program. That does not leave much time for any community service. Of course, there is a very good chance that, at a later date, his attorney will succeed in having the self-help and alcohol counseling progams reduced to a much shorter period of time. It is also possible for the period of probation to be modified if Gibson remains on good behavior.

What about Gibson's tirade during his arrest? He threatened to make the arresting officer's life miserable, but since Gibson made no physical threats, his mouthing off is not against the law. He made some vitriolic remarks about Jews, but anti-Semitism is not against the law either. The courts have recognized angry expressions, such as those against the officer and Jews, as constitutional protected speech. The one year long self-help program part of the sentence appears to be the court's way of addressing Gibson's hatred of Jews.

If Gibson had been a rock star or a hip-hop star with a legion of rabid young fans, his hateful remarks would have led to a significant increase in anti-Semitism. Fortunately, instead of an idolized rock star, he is an aging Hollywood celebrity with a declining number of fans. Gibson has a deep hatred of Jews, but his fans are either already anti-Semites or, if not so, they are not likely to adopt his bigoted views.

Gibson's movie, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, which blamed Jews for Chirst's crucifixion, probably did lead to a rise in anti-Semitism. Ironically, the publicity for that movie was hyped in no small measure with the unintended help of Jewish community leaders in their public outrage against the film long before it opened in theaters. Those were some of the same Jewish leaders Gibson reached out to in the phony apology released by his publicist.

The fallout from Gibson's arrest and tirade is over. Now that the case is closed, you can bet that he is not going to seek the Jewish community's help in searching for the cause of his anti-Semitic outburst. After his murder trial, O. J. Simpson declared that he would spend the rest of his life searching for his wife's killer. Simpson's search is easy - all he has to do is look in the mirror. Mel Gibson's search for answers to his anti-Semitic tirade is much harder because he is in denial of his hatred for Jews.

Saturday, August 19, 2006


Now that there is a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, it is a good time to reflect on the outcome of their 34 day war. Israel destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure and it will take well over a billion dollars to rebuild it. Israel claims to have killed over 500 Hezbollah fighters and admits that 118 of its soldiers were killed. Over a thousand Lebanese civilians were killed, including many women and children. Hezbollah fired more than 2,000 rockets into Northern Israel, causing considerable property damage and a number of civilian casualties. Who are the real winners and losers in this conflict?

Hezbollah, a guerilla militia, faught Israel's once mighty army to a standstill and that amounts to a victory. No other Arab force, or combination of such forces, have ever come close to beating the always outnumbered Israeli army. Hezbollah's prestige is now sky high and it has gained the adoration of the whole Muslim world. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, is now the most popular and revered person in the Muslim world. Even many non-Muslim Europeans now admire Hezbollah and its leader, Nasrallah. The Lebanese government has declared that its army will not disarm Hezbollah. There is every indication that the proposed international peace keeping force, once it is in place between Israel and the Litani River, will not forcibly disarm Hezbollah.

Considereing the differences in the size of their armies, the loss of 118 Israeli soldiers is equivalent to the loss of 11,800 American soldiers. With around 2,600 U.S. soldiers killed in nearly four years of fighting, the majority of Americans are clamoring for us to get out of Iraq now. How quickly would our troops have been pulled out of Iraq if 11,800 of our soldiers had been killed there within a 34 day period?

A significant number of Israeli tanks were destroyed or disabled by a guerilla militia using sophisticated hand held rocket propelled anti-tank grenades. Returning from combat, Israeli soldiers complained about reservists being ill prepared, inadequate equipment and supplies, acute shortages of drinking water, and serious delays in the evacuation of wounded comrades. Israel's devastating bombardment of Lebanon has gained it world-wide condemnation. It is now more isolated than ever, the United States being its one and only remaining friend.

The war started over the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Israel has not gained the release of these soldiers and there is now talk among Israeli government leaders of a prisoner swap, which is exactly what Hezbollah wanted in the first place. The popularity of Ehud Olmert, the inept leader of Israel, is now at an alltime low, and the reputation of Israel's armed forces has been severely damaged. Hezbollah has shown that the land of Israel is very vulnerable to rocket strikes.

So, who are the real winners and losers in the war between Israel and Hezbollah? Israel wanted to get back its kidnapped soldiers and destroy Hezbollah, but it failed to achieve either objective. Even though it had every right to defend itself against attacks by its enemies, international condemnation for its devastation of Lebanon and homefront discontent over mounting casualties and incoming missle strikes forced Israel to abort its effort to destroy Hezbollah. For now, in this conflict, Israel is seen as a big loser, while Hezbollah is perceived as a big winner. However, stay tuned for the inevitable upcoming Round 2.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006


Joe Foss , an 86 year old retired Marine Corps general and former Governor of South Dackota, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his extraordinary heroism during the battle for Guadalcanal. As a fighter pilot in World War II, Foss shot down 26 Japanese planes in one-on-one air-to-air combat. The Congressional Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in combat that can be bestowed upon American military personnel.

On January 11th of this year, long before the current heightened security alert, Joe Foss was leaving his Arizona home for a trip to address the Corps of Cadets at West Point. He took his medal with him so he could show it to the cadets. When the security screeners at Phoenix International Airport found the medal in his jacket pocket, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND PARANOIA bells and whistles went off.

The screeners considered the Medal of Honor a suspicious five-pointed metal object similar to a HIRA SHUNKEN, the Japanese Ninja throwing star. These idiot security screeners, who are under the Transportation Security Administration branch of the Department of Homeland Paranoia (oops - I meant to say Department of Homeland Security), must have watched way too many Kung Fu movies. You would have to be pretty ignorant not to recognize that metal object for what it was.

After 45 minutes of being hassled and passed off from "nasty" screener to "nasty" screener, Foss was finally passed through security with his medal in hand. During that time, this 86 year old man was ordered three different times to remove his cowboy boots, his bolo tie, his cowboy belt, and his cowboy hat for inspection. When he was told to discard the medal so that it could be destroyed, he told the screeners that he would not give it up.

All of us should support the thorough screening of airline passengers and their baggage for any dangerous weapons and explosives. But subjecting an 86 year old man to three inspections of his boots, tie, belt and hat, over a 45 minute period is a bit too much, to put it mildly. And there is a world of difference between a medal for valor and a hira shunken. Dishonoring a genuine great American hero by threatening to confiscate and destroy his Congressional Medal of Honor is unbelievable and unforgivable.

Monday, August 07, 2006


On January 7, 2006, I published "Israel's Future Survival After Sharon," a blog concerning the aftermath of Prime Minister Sharon's debilitating stroke. One of the headings in that blog read, AFTER SHARON? ISRAEL NEEDS BENJAMIN NETANYAHU! I was concerned about Israel's survival in a sea of Arab hostility.

At the time, I wrote that neither former Prime Minister Shimon Peres nor Amir Peretz of the dovish left-wing Labor Party would be resolute enough to maintain Israel's long-term security. And, I wrote that Ehud Olmert, leader of the new Kadima Party formed by Sharon, would not ensure Israel's survival either. I believed that the outcome of the election between Kadima and the Likud party "is now in doubt." I wrote that "Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud is the best man for the job. He is a strong leader who will not allow Israel's security to be compromised."

Well, the people of Israel did not agree with me and Kadima won by a landslide. Olmert became the new Prime Minister. But, was I wrong about Olmert? I don't thinks so, On August 4, 2006, an op-ed column by Charles Krauthammer, a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, supports my contention that Olmert was not the man for the job.

Krauthammer, commenting on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, wrote that, "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war Cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive Cabinet debates are broadcast to the world as was Olmert's own complaint that 'I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night.' (Haaretz, July 28.) Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence."

Krauthammer continued. "His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation, but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence - and the relationship it reinforces - is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue."

If, at the beginning of its conflict with Hezbollah, Israel had launched a full-scale invasion of Southern Lebanon, its army would by now have reached the Litani River, some 18 miles north of the border. Such an invasion would have led to significant Israeli casualties, but it would have established a buffer zone to protect Israelis from Hezbollah's rocket attacks. It is clear that Israel's air strikes have not destroyed Hezbollah's military capabilities, but they have done serious damage to Lebanon's infrastructure and have led to world-wide condemnations of the Jewish State, and of America.

Hezbollah is now more popular than ever, while Israel's military prestige has been greatly damaged. I feel vindicated by Krauthammer's column. As I predicted, Olmert has not been up to the job. Benjamin Netanyahu would have launched a quick full-scale ground offensive across the Lebanese border in concert with the air strikes Israel has been conducting since the inception of this conflict. Olmert's limited incursion into Southern Lebanon was too little and too late. It is likely that, under Netanyahu's strong leadership, Hezbollah would have been significantly weakened, if not destroyed.

When all is said and done, Olmert will wilt under international pressure, fold his tent, and disengage prematurely, leaving a much hated Israel weakened, more isolated than ever, and back on square one. Does anyone really believe that an international force or the Lebanese army will take on Hezbollah and fight to disarm it? You can bet that, thanks to Olmert's ineptitude, Hezbollah's militia will survive to fight Israel another day.

Sunday, August 06, 2006


Mel Gibson's drunk driving arrest, at 2:30 AM on July 28th, revealed that he harbored deep-rooted anti-Semitic feelings. During the patrol car ride to the Malibu sheriff's station he let loose with a tirade of inflammatory statements, which included references to the "fucking Jews" and the statement that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." That statement has its foundation in the long-held anti-Semitic myth that Jews own and control everything.

When Gibson's ugly behavior first became public, he issued a statement in which he insisted that he was not anti-Semitic, and he attributed his inflammatory outbursts to alcohol doing the talking. He said that his religion, conservative Catholicism, did not allow him to bear any hatred toward others. When that did not calm down the uproar generated by his inflammatory remarks, his publicist released a statement in which Gibson apologized for his behavior to anyone he may have offended, but he left out any references to anti-Semitism. That omission only served to further fuel the controversy surrounding his arrest.

Finally, on August 1st, Gibson's publicist released a lenghty apologetic statement. In part it said, "I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words. Please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith. There will be many in that (Jewish) community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable. But I pray that that door is not forever closed." The statement also said that he wants to "meet with the leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one-on-one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing. I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display, and I am asking the Jewish community , whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery."

As a Jew, I have been subjected to a number of anti-Semitic slurs, and I have overheard many such slurs used in conversations which were not personally directed at me. These have always been offensive and hurtful to me. Was I offended by Gibson's anti-Semitic tirade? Somewhat, but his hateful words were not uttered in my presence. As a person with a number of years in law enforcement, I was much more offended by LASO's obvious attempt to cover up Gibson's anti-Semitism. Do I believe that Gibson's apology is sincere? Not really! All his apologies were issued by his publicist. It is obvious that these are not Gibson's own words. They were carefully crafted by his public relations people in an attempt at damage control. I would have been more impressed had Gibson held a press conference, admitting he was an anti-Semite and offering an unscripted off-the-cuff apology.

Gibson's most recent apology reveals that he is really in denial about his hatred of Jews. "Please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot." That's the problem - in his heart he is a bigot. His anti-Semitism is like any other addiction - there can be no cure until the addict admits that he is addicted to aclohol, to narcotic drugs, to gambling, to sex, or in Gibson's case, to anti-Semitism. Gibson was raised by an anti-Semitic father who believes the holocaust was a hoax. He was probably infected with bigotry long ago at the family's dining table.

A number of Gibson's Jewish friends have come to his defense, convinced through their friendship that he is not an anti-Semite. What fools they be! There will always be bigots who hate African-Americans, Latinos, Gays, or whichever group, who will have one or more friends from among the group they hate. Over the years, I've heard many an anti-Semite claim that "Some of my best friends are Jews," and some of them, undoubtably, were telling the truth. Gibson's Jewish friends would serve him better if they confronted him face to face with his anti-Semitism.

Gibson is a brilliant actor and director. Bigots can change, but not until they admit their bigotry. Because he is a big money maker, Gibson's career will not end. Hopefully he can overcome his addiction to hatred. He will never go to trial. He wil cop a plea. His attorneys are fighting to keep the video and audio tapes of his arrest from the public. He will probably be placed on probation, fined, and ordered to undergo counseling and to perform some type of community service.

I have a novel proposal which might help cure Gibson of his anti-Semitism. Instead of the usual community service, sentence him to live for 30 days with a working-class Orthodox Jewish family in New York. Since he has asked for the Jewish community's help, I am sure that the leaders of that community will be able to find an ordinary working-class Orthodox family in New York willing to take Gibson in for 30 days. That will either cure his anti-Semitism or it will drive him further to drink and reinforce his bigotry, but I believe that this unconventional approach is worth a try.

Saturday, August 05, 2006


On March 20, 2006, I published "Is it Professional Courtesy or is it Professional Irresponsibility?," a blog concerning favoritism shown miscreant off-duty police officers when apprehended by on-duty officers. Several of my law enforcement buddies got pissed off at me for what I wrote in that blog. Now we have a different example of police favoritism, and this one really stinks!

Recently, Hollywood's "Lethal Weapon" star, Mel Gibson, was arrested at 2:30 AM in Malibu on suspicion of Driving Under the Influence. He had been observed crossing lanes at 87 mph in a 45 mph zone on a dangerous stretch of the Pacific Coast Highway. After the stop, the arresting Los Angeles Sheriff's deputy walked Gibson back to his patrol car and offered to place him inside without cuffing him. At that point, Gibson bolted, and had to be chased down, subdued and cuffed, before being placed in the patrol car. A subsequent breathalyzer test showed Gibson with a blood-alcohol level of .12 , well above the .08 minimum level for intoxication.

On the way to the Malibu station, Gibson turned into "Mad Max" and let loose with a tirade against the arresting officer and against Jews. "You mother fucker, I'm going to fuck you," he shouted at the officer. He claimed to own Malibu and promised to make the deputy's life miserable. During the ride, he yelled something about "fucking Jews" and followed that up with "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Then he asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"

Before going any further, I want to pause and ask the question - is Mel Gibson anti-Semitic? My conclusion is - definitely yes! Why? No one is born a bigot. Bigotry is acquired from family and friends. Gibson, born and brought up in New Jersey before he moved with his family to Australia, was raised by an anit-Semitic father. Hutton Gibson has, publicly, made several anti-Semitic statements and claims that the Holocaust was a hoax. Gibson once responded to his father's Holocaust denial, by saying that some of his "best friends" had numbers on their arms, and that among the many millions killed in WWII, some Jews were killed in concentration camps. That is hardly a repudiation of his father's Holocaust denial. Gibson's drunken outburst about Jews, shows what is really in his heart and in his mind - a virulent hatred of Jews. He insists that he is not anti-Semitic, and that it was the alcohol talking. Gibson has issued several apologies, undoubtably scripted by his public relations people, but those apologies have a hollow ring to them.

What people say when they are drunk is considered by most to be a true expression of their feelings. However, according to Drew Pinsky, M.D., a board certified Internist and Addictionologist, drunks do not express their true feelings. Pinsky, better known as "Dr. Drew" for his popular radio talk show, was interviewed by Tucker Carlson (8-1-06) on the MSNBC program "Tucker." He defended Gibson by claiming that drunks and dopers are experiencing a severe dysfunction of the brain, causing them to behave in ways they would never do when sober, and say things they really don't mean and would never say when sober. Duh! Of course people are going to behave differently when drunk and most, especially celebreties, are not going to make inflammatory remarks when sober.

Pinsky is partially correct. Gibson was pissed off because he was under arrest. He did not mean and would never carry out the threats he made against the officer. That was the alcohol expressing his anger over the arrest. However, Pinsky is dead wrong about Gibson's hatred of Jews. What caused the angry anti-Semitic outbursts? Did the Jews get him drunk? Were the Jews behind his reckless driving? Did the Jews force the deputy to arrest Gibson? At the time, he had no reason to be pissed off at Jews. The alcohol loosened his tongue and he was expressing the feelings he harbored in his heart and mind. Come on Dr. Drew, wake up and smell the roses - when drunks lose their inhibitions, they are prone to express deep-rooted feelings, and that makes Gibson, like father, like son, an anti-Semite.

Now, continuing on with the police favoritism issue. After the arresting officer submitted his eight page detailed report, which described Gibson's attempt to flee, his threats against the officer, and the anti-Semitic outbursts, a captain called Sheriff Lee Baca who said he did not want the press to obtain any information from the report which might be damaging to Gibson's reputation. A lieutenant then ordered the deputy to re-write his report and eliminate all references to "Mad Max's" bad conduct and inflammatory remarks. When LASO notified the press of Gibson's DUI arrest, they announced that he had been arrested "without incident." That was before they became aware that the celebrity news Web site,, had obtained copies of four pages of the arresting officer's initial report.

When Harvey Levin, TMZ's managing editor, called the Sheriff's office to verify the information he already had, LASO denied that any of the inflammatory tirade took place, insisting that Gibson was arrested without incident. They denied "sanitizing" the DUI arrest report. Levin says LASO flat-out lied to him. When LASO learned that TMZ had copies of the initial report, their public relations unit went into overdrive.

First LASO said they had the deputy write a supplemntal report without the anti-Semitic tirade because they wanted to avoid a possible anti-Jewish backlash if the inflammatory remarks were released to the press at the time of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. What a crock of shit! Then they said that LASO often submits a detailed report and a shorter supplemental report of the arrest to the District Attorney's office, leaving it up to that office to chose which report to use. Another crock of shit - supplemental reports are submitted only when additional information in an investigation has been obtained. All the time, LASO insisted than nothing would be "sanitized" and no information about the arrest would be withheld. They explained that "without incident" means there was no violence involved - more LASO horseshit!

Without incident - let's see. Gibson fled on foot and had to be forcibly subdued by the deputy. Once in the patrol car, he repeatedly banged himself against the seat. The deputy called for backup to meet him at the Malibu station. Upon arrival, Gibson called a female sergeant, "sugar tits." And, when he could not get a dial tone on a pay phone, he threw the receiver against the phone. Without incident - my ass!

Mel Gibson is a personal friend of Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca. Gibson has helped Baca raise money for LASO charities. He has made a number of public service commercials for LASO and he has been a strong supporter of law enforcement. Previously, he had been stopped on the same stretch of highway in Malibu for driving in excess of the posted 45 mph speed limit, once while driving 64 mph and another time while driving 74 mph. In both instances, he was let go without receiving any citation. Something does not pass the smell test here. Would the average Joe Sixpack have been treated the same way? Of course not!

Anyone who believes that LASO was not trying to protect Gibson from a bad press must still believe in the tooth fairy. Whoever provided TMZ with copies of the initial arrest report will be up to his ears in deep shit if LASO manages to find out who did it. You can bet that the investigation of that leak will be far more intense than the investigation of the whole Gibson affair. It would seem obvious that LASO attempted to cover up Gibson's anti-Semitism as payback for his past favors to Lee Baca and the department. The favoritism they tried to show Gibson after his arrest reflects badly on all of law enforcement.