Erectile Dysfunction gets Rush

The CBS News website reports: “[Rush] Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours Monday at the airport after returning from a vacation in the Dominican Republic[emphasis mine]. Customs officials found the Viagra in his luggage but his name was not on the prescription, said Paul Miller, a spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.

“He joked about the search on his radio show Tuesday (27 June 2006), saying Customs officials didn't believe him when he said he got the pills at the Clinton Library and he was told they were blue M&Ms. He later added, chuckling: "I had a great time in the Dominican Republic. Wish I could tell you about it. [emphasis mine] "

According to Unconfirmed Sources (www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=1787), “Rush Limbaugh Broadcast[ed] Live from Lock-up in Palm Beach County Florida.”

Obviously, people of the Left, whom Mr. Limbaugh skewers in his radio talk shows, cannot contain their glee. AlterNet.org, a liberal website, asks: “What was Rush doing in the Dominican Republic? Why was he returning from a country known for its thriving sex trade, with a bottle of Viagra that didn’t have his name on it? [emphasis mine]”

It quotes from a 2001 Wired.com article: “the Dominican Republic is one of the biggest sex tourism destinations in the world, thanks in part to Internet sites that extol the country as a ‘single man's paradise.’[emphasis mine]”

“Rush Limbaugh, who once called himself "the most dangerous man in America," nowadays seems mostly a danger to himself,[emphasis mine]” says the Forbes magazine. “First there was the 2003 incident on the Walt Disney Co.'s…ESPN, where Limbaugh declared that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb enjoyed racial "social concern" from the ostensibly bleeding-heart National Football League.

“Then, the radio star was accused of alleged "doctor shopping," supposedly deceiving physicians to get overlapping controlled-substance prescriptions. Limbaugh, 55, denied the charges, but reportedly admitted a painkiller addiction. In a deal reached last month with prosecutors, the "doctor shopping" charge will be dismissed if Limbaugh doesn't get arrested for 18 months.”

According to The Detroit Free Press, “Radio know-it-all Rush Limbaugh's deal could be in trouble with prosecutors in a long-running prescription fraud case[emphasis mine] after authorities found a bottle of the erectile dysfunction drug Viagra in his bag at Palm Beach International Airport. Why? The prescription was not in his name. Problem? Besides ED, you mean? That could be a second-degree misdemeanor. Under the deal reached last month with prosecutors, Limbaugh was not to be arrested for 18 months[emphasis mine].”

I feel sad about him; Mr. Limbaugh seems to get in trouble on things that he criticizes. According to CBS News, “Before his own problems became public, Limbaugh had decried drug use and abuse and mocked President Clinton for saying he had not inhaled when he tried marijuana. He often made the case that drug crimes deserve punishment.

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.”

But Terrance (www.republicoft.com) does not feel bad about criticizing him. “These are not nice questions, which is why most people won’t ask them. But Rush is not a nice guy. And when a pundit whose party pokes its noses into people’s private affairs as a matter of policy is caught pocketing pills to pump up his penis, on his way back from a country plenteous with prostitutes…Well pardon me if I’m compelled to prod and ponder why this public personality required a prescription for his penis in that place, and where he put it while he was there [emphasis mine]”

So, with a propensity to be in trouble for the very things he criticizes, I am curious to know what will we know in the future about his tirade against gays, for example. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, who knows what Mr. Limbaugh is hiding. For sure, he isn’t coming out soon, and we will have to wait and see. This sure would make believers even out of the extreme left and communists, that there is a God.

One other fact is amusing to contemplate. While the Democrats (the Kennedy clan, President Clinton) are hypersexed, Republicans either don’t know their birds and bees (Rep. Barr) or end up selling Viagra (Sen. Dole). Mr. Limbaugh could have a future as a brand ambassador. Mr. Dole is already one for Viagra; Mr. Limbaugh could inquire about Cialis or Levitra.

Terrorists' Bank Accounts

For once, I could agree with Bush, and Representative Peter T. King (Republican of New York) that the reporting by The New York Times of the Administration monitoring the bank accounts of suspected terrorists is disgusting.

However, I agree more with Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said that “…he wanted to "learn more" about the program, but indicated that he did not see a need for hearings. Mr. Specter, a Republican of Pennsylvania, said he found the financial-data program less troubling than the N.S.A.'s secret program for warrantless wiretaps of calls between people in America and suspected terrorists overseas.”

The NYT claims that this monitoring is being done without appropriate oversight. This Administration has been known to do that, like wire-tapping and analyzing phone records of calls made within the US, by common US residents, without the appropriate oversight and protocol.

This is a slippery slope. Even though the intentions of this administration may be noble, once a precedent is set, it is a wild guess how any future President may use it, and if he/she will have the right intention. Who could be suspested as a terrorist? Anyone? Or just Muslims? Or anyone some group of neo-conservatives deem to be terroristic? I would be more comfortable if accounts of real terrorists, not anyone suspected, are monitered. With proper oversight, of course.

We are living in a ‘newer’ world order. Terrorism is a real threat and has to be overcome. However, the Administration has to do the things in a proper way. What’s wrong if they would have asked a court to sanction this monitoring? No one would have said no.

While it bothers me that a questionably essential program has been brought to light, it bothers me more that this Administration thinks that it is above the law. If this is true that the Administration engaged in a reckless hunt of anyone it MAY suspect, the NYT has done us a big service. How else could we have known about this Administrations's misadventures?

For the full article, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/washington/26cnd-bank.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fK%2fKornblut%2c%20Anne%20E%2e&oref=slogin

George Bush impersonation at the 2006 WHCA Dinner

I always take George W. Bush with a pinch of salt. However, at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner, I really liked his light-heartedness when he addressed the audience with his impersonator, Steve Bridges. In this act, Mr. Bridges speaks what actually goes through Mr. Bush’s mind, before or after he has spoken.

If you’d like to watch the video, go to: http://www.talentbookingusa.com/look-a-likes/george-bush-steveb-movie.htm

Steve Bridges has his own website, where you can mind this and other funny videos. Go to: http://www.stevebridges.com/videos_bush.html#

Google video has also a good collection of George Bush impersonation videos and can be found at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1921276117304287501

The only sad thing is that what the impersonator jokes about is true.

Orwell rolls in his grave: Movie review

I was not surprised but shocked and appalled after seeing this documentary. This is about how media manipulates the news we hear. This film is neither as flashy or hyperbolic as a Michael Moore work, nor ridden in conspiracy theories. This is a must see, especially for the right-wingers, who often complain of a "liberal media". This movie expressly dispels that notion; they care not about what's left or right (pun intended) but just about themselves.


To whet your appetite, I will highlight some of the contents of this superb piece of work. It contends that we are moving from a democracy to what can be called a "Mediocracy". We have an 'illusion of choice', as we see so many magazines, newspapers, cable channels, music and films available. What we do not realize is that there are so few publishers, studios and labels who control the majority of information fed to us. In the early 1990s, there were over 50 companies ran media institutions; this number has dwindled down to five or seven at present.

They are one of the biggest lobbyists in Washington, and the sad part is that they control what you can know. Why would NBC, for example, give you news that could be potentially damaging to General Electric or ABC for Disney? What is even more shocking is that the regulatory body of our government the FCC, is in their pocket. After retirement, many of the FCC employees go to work for the companies that they were regulating. The Chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, says that he "...has no idea what the public interest is", and adds, "the oppressor here is regulation".

In addition, they fund trips for our Congressmen, which are of course 'educational'. However, we won't know that, because they don't want to report it. You would never know that $11 million were spent to scuttle a requirement for the media to allow free airtime for candidates. The Chairman of their association calls this democratic exercise a "...unconstitutional infringement on the broadcaster's free-speech rights". Come again!

It has become a complex and intertwined affair between the media, the government and corporate business. Just like TASS could not criticize the system of Communism in the old Soviet times, our media handles big business with kid gloves. Alas, we are becoming more and more like them.


Distortion of the news leads to a vastly uninformed public. And it doesn't help, as Hitler observed in Mein Kampf, that the people's power of forgetting is enormous. Soon after the Gulf War II, in March 2003, a CNN/Gallup poll found that 51% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. They probably also didn't know that not a single highjacker was Iraqi.

There are things that the Media does not want you to know, or know too well, much less analyze the issues. Here are some examples:

• If the much-hyped DEATH TAX is repealed, 50% of the benefits will go to 1/10th of 1% of population. The entire (100%) benefit will go to the top 2%. This means that 98% of us DO NOT PAY any inheritance tax to derive any benefit!


• George W. Bush violated security laws, which included insider trading, four times, according to a report by the SEC. This was available four months before the 2000 elections


• BBC reported that five months before the 2000 elections, Governor Jeb Bush moved to purge 57,000 people from voting rolls in Florida, supposedly ex-felons.A private company with Republican ties charged millions of dollars to go through databases to come up with this list. It now says that the list is inaccurate. Only 1 in 20 people on this list MAY have committed a crime; so 95% of the 57,000 are unequivocally innocent. Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, certified the election in Florida for Bush with a plurality of 537 (yes, 537) votes. Ms. Harris was Bush's campaign manager, and the Governor his brother. Oh yes, 54% of people on this list were African-Americans.


• Within days of 9/11, why did Bush allow 140 Saudi citizens, including members of the Bin Laden family, be flown out of the US with limited or no questioning?


• In was no coincidence that the hostages taken in Iran were landing as Reagan was taking the oath of office. That image, shown split-screen on TV, is etched in the brains of all those who were watching.

An Iranian specialist in the Carter Administration, Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council from August 1976 to April 1981, had this to say (in part) in his Congressional testimony on 5 February 1992.

“In the course of interviews in the United States, Europe and the Middle East, I’ve been told repeatedly that individuals associated with the Reagan campaign for 1980 met secretly with Iranian officials to delay the release of American hostages until after the presidential election. For the favor, Iran was rewarded with a substantial supply of arms from Israel.”

“From October 15 to October 20 1980, events came to a head in a series of meetings in Paris. Accounts of these meetings vary. There is, however, widespread agreement on a number of points:

• William Casey, Reagan’s campaign manager, was a key participant.


• Iranian officials agreed that the hostages will not be released prior to the presidential election on November 4.


• In return, Israel would serve as a conduit for arms and spare parts to Iran.


• Five of the sources present in Paris for these meetings insist that George Bush was present for at least one of these meetings.”

As our hostages were coming back home, a planeload of aircraft tires was on its way to Iran from Israel.


The stories about disenfranchisement of 57,000 voters in Florida, the flight of the Saudis, and the deal with “terrorists” for the hostages would have made great works of investigative journalism. Alas, these days it only means getting a story first.

Sadder is the fact that news organizations rely on official sources, the feet of the people these “fifth columnists” are supposed to hold to fire. CBS news killed the story about the Florida voter fraud based on denial by Governor Jeb Bush, who was the TARGET of this investigation!

In “1984”, George Orwell said, “…who controls the past…controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. It is scary if you think how we think that we are the freest country in the world, which is true, and so everything should be very transparent.


Nevertheless, we have some semblance of ‘free-speech’, and let us hope for the best. It is very true that despite all this bad news, we still live in a country and time where the general populace is the most well-off, most comfortable and the most informed in any time in history.

Addiction to Oil

“Oil is more expensive than it’s ever been, and consumers in the US are starting to feel the burden. Francis Slakey has a radical short-term solution.” In the May 13-19, 2006 issue of the New Scientist (Comment and Analysis), Mr. Slakey suggests that we should go back to the 55 mph speed limit. “In one decisive act, the US could save more than 50 million gallons of gasoline a day”, he claims.

“Here's why it would work. Every car engine has a sweet spot in terms of efficiency, typically when running at 55 mph. Beyond 60 mph, engine efficiency plummets because of higher temperatures. In addition, three other factors that affect gasoline consumption become more significant at higher speeds: tire resistance, wheel bearing friction and air drag. What all that means is that for the average car, cutting the speed from 75 mph to 55 mph improves fuel efficiency by roughly 25 per cent.”

What about the increased commuting time, since America relies on cars and there is lack of decent public transportation in most of the country. “For most of us, a reduced limit would add only about as much time as it takes to butter the morning toast”, he stresses.

Well, Mr. Carter, the only President with an Engineering degree, imposed this speed limit and introduced CAFE standards for the auto manufactures, there was a public outcry and he ended up losing the following election. As the present president, Mr. Bush, puts it, we should not do anything that interferes with the ‘American way of life’.

Drivers complain that it gets lonely out there, especially in the Western states, where roads go in a straight line for miles and miles, with nary a person in sight. Even in the Carter era, you could drive 80 mph in North Dakota and get a $5 ticket if caught – for wasting gas!

Mr. Slakey also complains that the auto industry is doing its part. The CAFE standards have “…been fixed ever since [the late 1970s]. It shouldn't have been: if the standard had tightened over the years in step with progress in engine design, inching up to, say, 33 miles per gallon today, the nation would be saving 2 million barrels of oil a day. There could be an incentive too for manufacturers to improve an engine's sweet spot to make it run more efficiently at 75 mph.”



50 million barrels of oil a day means over 18 billion barrels a year. This could translate to over a trillion dollars every year, if the oil stays around $70 a barrel. Of course, the price of oil will fall with reduced demand, but we will still save hundreds of billions of dollars. With improvements in technology, if the big three can be up to it, we would save another 630 million barrels and therefore $44 billion annually.

Take notice, Mr. President. A trillion dollars added to the budget would mean that you could balance the budget and still give even more tax cuts to the rich, and nobody will complain. You can even find additional money for Iraq or dream up of a regime change in another country.

Even the Democrats would love you, you will go down in history as the ‘Energy (though not energetic) President’, and Jeb will have a good chance of becoming the next president of the United States. And if you can cajole the big bosses in Detroit, we will still be preserving the American way of 75 mph. We can then have our cake and eat it too.

You see, Mr. Bush, the possibilities are endless. You are the decider, so decide quickly, before your term runs out and Hillary changes the curtains of the White House.

Can India Fly?

Every few years, The Economist publishes a Survey of India. The magazine has been always more optimistic about India’s potential than I am, but has often lamented the low ‘Hindu’ rate of growth, which was because of a creeping bureaucracy often called as the ‘license raj’. For the first time last week (June 3-9, 2006 issue), it has a 14-page special report on business in India and asks the question: Can India Fly?

The survey opens optimistically. It quotes the head of the biggest temporary employment agency in India who feels that 2006 is a “once in a lifetime” opportunity for India, and the head of a major IT company who contends that though India has always been a country of promise and potential which has not delivered, the “worm has turned” now.

The Economist had always called India a caged tiger. It feels that many of the bars have now been removed and the beast is “free to roam and roar”. It correctly points out that “…Indian business can play a big part in delivering faster growth, but only if the government helps” (italics mine).

Now there’s the catch, or a Catch-22. Despite all the chest-thumping that India and Indians can justifiably do, the basic issue remains that the change there is painfully slow. It is not the ‘institution’ of the Government of India Inc. that holds the key, but the political will of the nation.

I will be posting a lengthier review and analysis soon. To access the article, go to http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SDDQQPP&CFID=82057964&CFTOKEN=1d44373-0cf6ca16-b728-4dfa-8909-07451d26a6ff, but you must be a subscriber to read it in full.

Dynastic previlege

In his article, ACCIDENTS OF BIRTH, in The Hindustan Times (June 25, 2006) , Vir Sanghvi states his discomfort with dynasties ruling the day in Indian politics, business and the film industry. He argues that this gives the progeny of already successful people a leg up and makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for someone from the general populace to try, succeed and rise to the top.

He also gives the example of the US, where the winning presidential ticket could include a member of just two families, if either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush win the 2008 elections, form 1981 through at least 2012. Still, he believes that things are more transparent in the US than in India, and a person can be successful solely on his merit.

Well, dynasties are as old as civilization (if that’s the correct word) itself. This, in a way, is the basis of caste system that exists in India, and the class system everywhere else. Since schooling was not so formal a few thousand years ago, it is natural that the son of a priest became a priest, a warrior’s son a warrior and a businessman taught his craft to his. Even then, the caste system did not consolidate till the Gupta period; before that any one could be a priest, warrior or a businessman, because India had a relatively young Aryan civilization at that time.

Similarly, the concept of the United States is barely over a couple centuries old. It was formed expressly in reaction to the ‘dynasties’ of Europe. When there was a talk of keeping George Washington as the head of state for life, he didn’t like it and stepped down after his term. As America ages, and consolidates, it is starting to get the flavor of the old world, albeit slowly.

Many migrants, for example, called the ‘undocumented aliens’ are despised and bills are in the Congress to arrest them and send them back where they came from. This may seem ironic as this country was built on immigrants, a whole lot of them arriving at Ellis Island with a big WOP – Without Papers – sign hanging from their necks. However, there was a general welcome to these ‘migrants without documents”. To be fair, the latter did go through proper processing, and amalgamated with the prevailing culture and mores while changing it a bit, as well.

The same goes with hereditary privilege. A young America had brave men and women to dared to go into unknown circumstances and establish themselves. Of course, without any lineage to draw from in a new country, meritocracy had to prevail.

Modern America is developing a class system. As Mr. Sanghvi observes, merit is still important in success in the US, though it is easier of a person of privilege to exploit contacts and ventures. It is like running in a 100-meter dash 10 meters ahead of the starting line. It is so natural. Taking advantage and using an edge is basic human nature, and nothing to complain about.

Nonetheless, I can understand Mr. Sanghvi’s gripe about people taking undue advantage because of their accident of birth. With rampant corruption, lack of law and order, and that of transparency augment the negative aspects of genetic advantage. These are the things that should be addressed, and others will fall in place.

To read a full article, go to: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1727652,00300001.htm

Mr. Bush goes to Baghdad

It is interesting that Mr. Bush went to Baghdad to show his support for the new Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki. It is funny to think that someone with a popularity in low 30s would help raise the recognition of a new government.

Mr. Bush can take comfort in the fact that his popularity ratings are still almost double of his veep, Mr. Cheney.

Soccer in the USA

In an Op-Ed article in USA Today (14 June 2006), William R. Mattox, Jr. suggests that rules for scoring soccer (football to every non-American) should be changed and become more like those in basketball so that there is a lot of points each team can make rather than winning the game 1-0 or tying it at 0-0, for example. He feels that the game is boring to watch because of low or no score in a 50-minute game.

I think Mr. Mattox's observation is correct. While soccer may be the most watched game in the world, only about a tenth of us ever want to sit and watch this scoreless spectacle. Unless we have a game where the score is 84-65, with a goal every minute, we will not spend our precious time with watching tricks those payers can do with their feet.

Essentially, it boils down to our national personality, if you will. We are hard working, with little time for recreation (that's why cricket never caught on here - nobody has 5 days for a test match or even one whole day for an ODI). Moreover, we are more for individual accomplishment rather than a team play (that's why baseball is the national sport).

In addition, we see things black and white more than we appreciate the intervening shades of gray. And the reward has to be immediate. How can we tell who is the stronger team if twenty players are running around with the ball without depositing it into either goal? There has to be an end-point, which is a goal. A goal (or point) is the reward for good play (or work). Without that, it becomes too nuanced for us to follow. Only Europeans, and the rest of the world, have patience for this kind of play.

We also like the play to be rough. That'’s why Football is so popular because we have strong and macho players who don'’t have a second thought about wringing the other guy'’s neck. Even though there's a whistle a minute when the play is stopped, the points are counted and we can easily see who is up throughout the game. A friend of mine thinks that had it not been for organizations like the ACLU, gladiators would have been the most highly paid and watched athletes in the country.

Finally, good has to triumph over evil. Unless we have a definitive proof that one side has an upper hand, by the points scored, we will not like to watch that game. We do not have enough time, patience or attention span to sit through a pointless (pun intended) game. If we want to appreciate the 'art', we will visit a gallery.

Quotes on war by our founding fathers

George Washington's adviced fellow citizens to be wary of "those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

James Madison: "Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies. From these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, debts and taxes are known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Unity08: A new political movement

I have always wondered how only two parties can represent the opinion of 250 million people. That's why when Ross Perot started a movement, I was delighted, but was quickly disillusioned. I had hopes on people like John McCain and Sam Nunn, but it seems that the hold of these two major political parties is very strong.

I was amazed to learn that, unlike India, United States has no independent Election Commissioner! The body that oversees our electoral process has two co-chairmen: a Democrat and a Republican. Even here, there is no representation, or hope of one, from any other third party.

It seems that there's an alternative movement afoot. A bipartisan group has started a website, http://www.unity08.com. According to Newsweek, "this Internet based third party is spearheaded by three veterans of the antique 1976 campaign...", two Democracts and a Republican, and are "...joined by the Independent former Governor of Maine, Angus King".

Unity08 plans to have an Internet convention in mid-2008, and delegates will be chosen in January 2007. They plan to have a Republican and a Democract (or an Independent) candidate, in whatever order, on the ticket for the 2008 Presidential election.

This site (party) has just been launched, and it is too early to tell how successful it will be. However, Internet is THE medium of the early 21st century, just like Radio and TV were of the 20th. It is not a question of IF Internet will be a major influence in elections, but WHEN.

I urge you all to check out this site. You can become a member of this party even if you are registered to any other party. You can also sign-on to become a delegate. Donations are welcome, and you can pay by any major credit card. I did.