One Senator's Love Pats...

Let's hear it for Senator George LeMieux (R Fl) for agreeing that the "enhanced" pat downs are invasive, they've gone too far and that he wouldn't want his wife to have to suffer one. A voice of reason in the midst of deafening silence from his colleagues.

If anything irks me more than the senselessness of the current procedures, it's the contempt of those forcing them upon us under threat of arrest and an $11,000 fine for refusing. Oh, what if the Christmas bomber had succeeded? Does anyone remember that he did not board a flight in the U.S. and that the passengers on the plane are the ones who subdued him regardless of the precautions supposedly taken in Amsterdam? And that immediately afterward Secretary Napolitano claimed our that obviously our system worked? How can you not shake your head over that one. Our system had nothing to do with it. We're just fortunate there were observant passengers on board that plane.

Now both Napolitano and John Pistole, who is fronting for the TSA on this one, have experienced the "enhanced" pat downs. Why do I question that? Somehow I don't imagine any TSA agent is going to grope Big Sis or Little Brother.

Even worse is the attitude of those like Senator Claire McCaskill (D Mo) who commented, "I'm wildly excited that I can walk through a machine instead of getting my dose of love pats." Love pats indeed.

You know what is left unsaid? If indeed she's not just talking down to us, it would indicate those who have their separate lines and government identification have a different standard applied.

Grab their junk like they grab ours and see what happens. They still claim the images are seen by one person in a separate room. Explain to me then why one woman's blouse was pulled down, exposing her breasts and they stood around laughing about it. When an agent coming on duty asked what was so amusing and was told, he exclaimed he'd have to be sure to view the tapes.

Well trained professionals. Let's give them some love pats!

Off To Peruse Pablo

We cannot miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to study some 150 works of one of the most renowned artists of all time. As Hub says, we wouldn't own one even if we could afford to but we'd like to understand the the body of work and the man who created it.

See you later in the week.

"National Stupid Day" ~ November 12

I saw this headline, "Garfield" creator apologizes for Veterans Day strip, and began racking my brain as to why. The strip was part of a story line about Garfield whacking spiders, which he does quite often. It had been running for several days. If the strip from November 11 had run today or on the 10th, nothing would have been made of it. However, it ran on the 11th.

The spider about to be whacked tells Garfield if he goes through with it he'll (the spider) will have a day of remembrance to honor him. The last frame shows a classroom of spiders with the teacher asking why they celebrate "National Stupid Day".

Somewhere, someone decided it was making fun of the day on which we honor our military. Enough someones, apparently, that Garfield creator Jim Davis apologized.

Please. Why do I not think Davis decided to write a strip to offend veterans? How would that scenario go?

Let's see. The 11th is Veterans Day. What can I do to offend them? Garfield offends everybody! I've got it. I'll do one of my spider story lines and on the 11th I'll have one of them declare a National Stupid Day! That oughta do it!

I've got to tell you, I read Garfield yesterday and never gave it a thought. I guess that makes me insensitive to veterans. It almost makes me apologize for flying our flag because of the mixed message it sends about my sensitivity.

I'll tell you what. To get Davis off the hook, the man who has a brother who served in Vietnam and son in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'll take responsibility for "National Stupid Day" and date it November 12. No apologies needed.

Is The TSA A Breeding Ground For Sexual Predators?

I've wondered if all the scans and pat downs are really necessary and have for years. Over stepping the bounds of propriety is nothing new. Before the scanners came along to bare you to strangers, the pat downs have often been invasive. Ask some really attractive young woman. Incidents of sexually implicit touching, groping, are on the increase. What a playground for those so inclined!

Now, with the scanners, even pilots and flight attendants are saying enough is enough. The question is and I've yet to see a definitive answer, have they ever actually caught anyone? If they have why has it not been headline news? And why, if they have with lesser measures, are they going to these draconian means?

I would like to know if Secretary Napolitano has every experienced an enhanced pat down or gone through the scanner. How did she feel? How would Michelle Obama feel. Not only about herself but her girls? What parent wants their child handled by strangers? How do members of Congress who still fly commercial really feel about it? Why don't they say enough is enough! Are they waiting for the public to get beyond the "I don't like it but if it's keeping us safe" mind set? To that ask is it keeping us safe or merely providing great entertainment for those who would do us harm?

Consider this. Bombs in printer cartridges. Sure they still want to kill us, but planting bombs on nit wits didn't work too well. Could they have moved on to more sophisticated means?

It's Time For The Republicans To Get Serious

Not long before the elections Rush Limbaugh declared that no one but he would decide whether or not Christine O'Donnell was electable. He then touted her conservative tenor. Guess what. He was wrong. So was Sarah Palin using the same criteria. This is where the pundits do a disservice to the voters. They treat it like a game. It isn't. The welfare of the country depends on who we put in office.

Fortunately there are those among the ranks of the Republicans who recognize the game for what it is and speak out. Of course they get royally trounced. Like Carl Rove. Never known to soft pedal anything, he did back off his criticism of O'Donnell, though not completely. He's now back to trying to dispel the myth of Sarah Palin as Superwoman. He's still getting trounced. I hope it emboldens rather than dissuades him.

Kathleen Parker hit the nail on the head when she labeled Ms. Palin as dangerous. She of little substance and a surplus of words. None of which, I'd be willing to bet, are actually hers. The worry is she is already running a campaign on Facebook and Twitter.

Two things need to happen soon. The Tea Party has to define itself by deciding if they want to be folded into the Republican party or stand on their own merit. Otherwise they will continue to send mixed messages which will lead to their being inconsequential. They also need to get real about who they support.

This is the coy season that always precedes presidential primaries. Potential candidates have to be careful what they say so as to not lose their lucrative gigs too soon. It's a good time to look at them and eliminate those we know cannot win - like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, among others. It's really, really important because there isn't much to choose from at this point and the traits that make many of them dubious are traits not easily overcome.

We elected one rock star who was short on experience going in. We overlooked everything important, instead focusing on a pleasing personality and wishful thinking. Can we afford to do it again? You know what I think.