Fine, whatever, I’m so happy for both of them. But I hope they don’t marry, because if there’s one thing Jennifer Lopez isn’t—it’s Smart.

I can’t understand Jennifer’s seemingly perpetual need to be subservient to a man.  Toy-boy isn’t even the right term, it more accurately describes Madonna’s latest, disposable accessory. No, Jennifer appears to have a deep-seated need to be arm candy.

The body language is clear and cringe worthy.  Photos show her clinging to Casper’s side, as he holds her hand with the intensity you’d see of a parent with a toddler.  He leads, she follows.  He takes charge on sidewalks, clearing a path through the paparazzi and dragging her along behind him.  Hooray for Casper.

Don’t Take His Name

You’ll have moved on before the monogrmamed stationery is delivered.  It’s a good thing she hasn’t hyphenated yet, as she’d be Jennifer Lopez-Noa-[Combs]-Judd-[Affleck]-Anthony-?

Her relationships all follow the same pattern:

• Boyfriend/husband as bulldozer
• Boyfriend/husband in her music videos
• Boyfriend/husband in her movies
• Engagement
• Brief marriage
• Divorce
• New boyfriend/husband
• Former husband/fiancé threaten to release photos or memoirs with juicy details.
• Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

EWWWW: Don’t Mix Work and Pleasure

Jennifer loves to put her latest love on show in her concerts, videos, and movies.  I can’t wait for the next season of American Idol to see who or what she writhes around. Just get a dance pole already; same effect for much less cost.

Gigli.  Need I say more?

Act Like a Girl Scout

Hey, Jennifer!!!  Please don’t sell yourself short.  You are talented, beautiful, and wealthy.  Be independent!  Be assertive!! Were you a Girl Scout?  When your daughter turns 5, sign her up ASAP, so at least she can develop the courage, confidence, and character to make the world a better place.

Don’t be shallow and vain.  If you have more kids, don’t sell the photos for another $6 million and pocket the money.  The People magazine photo shoot of the twin’s nursery was nauseating in its extravagance.  Did your kids really need silk sheets? Matching cribs at $1400—each?  How many poor mothers and babies could $6 million help?

Step up and speak up for a cause.  Put some of those piles of money to good use.  You won’t miss it, but the people it could help would certainly appreciate it.  Heck, they might even buy your next CD, so you could profit on philanthropy.

If Casper needs arm candy, maybe Paris Hilton could loan him one of last season’s accessory animals.

While the books portray members of the Secret Service as self-sacrificing heroes ready to throw themselves between the president and an assassin, they also confirm a long-standing secret: agents place very little value on women.

In Mrs. Kennedy and Me, Clint Hill recounts his years assigned to protect Jacqueline Kennedy.  Hill may be history’s best-known agents.  He was inches away from JFK when the fatal bullets hit and is the man in the video clips climbing onto the trunk of the convertible as Mrs. Kennedy tries to crawl out of the car.

Hill’s memoir is circumspect, seeing his actions in Dallas not as heroic, but as an assignment that he failed. “I did all I could. But I still feel guilt.”  He admits that he was initially “deeply disappointed” at being assigned to guard Mrs. Kennedy. After being part of Eisenhower’s detail, “I knew where I was going to end up: fashion shows, afternoon tea parties, and the ballet. I felt as if my career had come to a screeching halt.” But in time, he grew to respect the first lady and their unusual relationship.

The April 2, 2012, New Yorker published an excerpt from Robert A. Caro’s The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson. The article focuses on one day, November 22, 1963, switching between Dallas and a Senate hearing on alleged shady campaign finance techniques possibly linked to Johnson.  Coverage of the Senate hearing fades as the motorcade approaches Dealy Plaza.

Hearing gunshots, Rufus Youngblood, the agent assigned to Johnson, leaps over the front seat, grabs Johnson by the shoulder, shoves him to the floor of the car, and jumps on top of him. Mrs. Johnson and the other passenger in the car, Senator Ralph Yarborough, were left alone and tried to duck and cover. Once at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Youngblood refused to leave Johnson’s side, but little attention appears to have been given to either Mrs. Kennedy or Mrs. Johnson, until they are needed for photo ops.

Youngblood was asked about the assassination for the rest of his life, but he always noted that being a bodyguard is only a part of the duties of a Secret Service agent. “A lot of people wrongfully assume that a Secret Service agent on protective duty is principally a bodyguard. That is an aspect of what you do, but one of the main things is to make advance arrangements for presidential tours. That is a wide-ranging thing that takes you all over the world. It is quite interesting.”

“Quite interesting” seems to be an understatement when describing the debacle in Colombia. An 11-member advance team was dispatched to Cartagena, Colombia, in early April, ahead of President Obama’s arrival for the Summit of the Americas.  In their spare time, the advance team treated themselves to copious amounts of liquor and copious amounts of copulation.  They hired women for sex—prostitution is legal in Colombia—but one tightwad gave new meaning to “undervaluing women.” Instead of paying the agreed upon $750 for his companion’s services, he offered $30, and she pitched a fit in the hotel that soon went viral.

When the incident reached Paula Reid, Secret Service supervisor for South America, she ordered her staff to investigate.  They discovered that the rumors of egregious misconduct were true, and she began disciplining the agents involved.  The incident has escalated into the largest scandal for the service in recent history, with multiple investigations launched by Congress and Homeland Security.  Aside from the major ick factor associated with hiring prostitutes—and the bottom-dwelling scum factor of married men who hire prostitutes—bringing foreign nationals into, ahem, “close contact” with security preparations is major breech of national security.

Women make up a tiny proportion of personnel, and the service is known as an old boys’ club.  Women could not become agents until the 1970s, and currently about 25% of Secret Service employees are female, but among agents and the uniformed division the number is closer to 11%. Past efforts to recruit more women have largely failed, and they likely won’t get a rush of applications any time soon.

Reid is a highly respected and increasingly high-profile agent, she is also an endangered species. “The general public is intrigued to see a black female in my position,” she told Women for Hire. “They always need to confirm that I really am a special agent. I enjoy being a role model for women and minorities.”

In a 1997 interview, Reid told USA Today that when she and male agents were working together on an assignment, their managers would usually ignore her in favor of her male counterparts.  Until the perception of agents as big, bulky men changes, she said at the time, women have to “learn not to take it personally.”  However, that perception is unlikely to change, so long as most agents really are big, bulky men.

On April 27 the Secret Service issued new rules for behavior while on assignment and announced that two nannies chaperones will accompany future trips.  The rules seem identical to those issued back in my high school band trip days.

Coverage of the Cartagena case has had its share of a never-mind, “boys will be boys” attitude.  Studies of the Kennedy and Clinton years regularly turn up instances of presidential dalliances with rather unsuitable women, but presidential protection details seemed willing to turn a blind eye to the action, if not directly facilitate trysts.

The boys-will-be-boys argument is easy to make, and predominantly male presidential details cover male presidents.  But if when a woman becomes president, which agents will protect her—big bulky frat boys or professionals?

Perhaps the best person to answer this question is Sarah Palin.  She, along with the late Geraldine Ferraro, have gotten closer to the Oval Office than any other female politicians.  In fact, one of the disgraced agents in Colombia, David Randall Chaney, was part of her security detail in 2008 and had even posted on Facebook that he “was really checking her out, if you know what i mean?”

But instead of substantively adding to the discussion, Palin attempted to blame Obama for Chaney’s behavior, even though his jerk-ness obviously predates the Obama administration.

Thanks, Sarah.  I couldn’t have said it better myself…..  No, wait, I actually can speak coherently.  If sexism and misogyny is a longstanding part of the Secret Service culture, it will take radical surgery to instill new attitudes and professionalism.  But if Romney should win, Sarah, would you really have the savvy to take on that task?

We can start with who’s not on the short list: Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Sarah Palin. Santorum and Gingrich may have just enough ambition—not to mention a lack of other job prospects—to swallow their pride if it will get them to the White House. Paul is too contrary to accept. Palin? That boat already sailed and sank.

Romney needs a running mate who will compensate for his weaknesses.

Charisma: Face it Mitt, you’re dull, dull, dull and out of touch, touch, touch. He could use a blunt, rough-around-the-edges pol who can rev up crowds.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie fits the bill.  I’ve suspected a deal between Romney and Christie for months, as the promise of the vice presidency is one of the few believable explanations for his adamant non-candidacy and enthusiastic support for Romney.  Has Christie ever been this coy about anything?

Ovaries: Romney faces a major popularity gap with women, and Congressional Republicans have only added to that problem.  His campaign is trying to use his wife to show his softer side, but she is hardly more relatable.  Yes, I feel her pain regarding the difficulties of managing five kids, multiple houses, those two Cadillacs, and her stable of dressage horses, but I bet she would melt down after spending five minutes in Wal-Mart with the rest of us. Plus, choosing a woman as a running mate would open the door for an avalanche of polygamy jokes.

Despite the specter of Sarah, several women seem to be under consideration.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s name was floated after she endorsed Romney, but, like Palin, she is barely into her first term as governor.  She has taken political heat from her tea party supporters for the endorsement and it may become a liability for her.

Popular Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin carries the burden of a last name resembling “Palin.” With the talk of the Palin Problem already hovering over the GOP, Romney shouldn’t so obviously invoke the 2008 debacle.

Mainstream Christian: Romney’s religion is still a sticking point for many voters, so he should consider someone from a mainstream Christian denomination. Not a stuffy Episcopalian, but a more fundamentalist, folksy view. She’s female and Republican, but steer clear of Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell.

Brand name: Jeb Bush has become a topic of conversation as a possible running mate. The former governor of Florida might help Romney attract Hispanic voters. The blessing of the Bush family might appeal to Republicans wary of Romney, but that family has had its own difficulties in downplaying their wealth.

Austin–Boston:  From JFK and LBJ to Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen, presidential hopefuls from Boston have turned to Texans to balance their ticket. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, an experienced politician about to retire, might be a savvy touch.

Dark Horse: Romney may pull a McCain and pick a relative unknown, inexperienced politician.  My suggestion? Kim Kardashian, of course!

Charisma? Check.  Female? Check.  Brand Name?  Check.  Austin–Boston? Well, there’s the brother-in-law who played for the Dallas Mavericks.

Dear Kim recently announced that she’d like to run for mayor of Glendale, California, in three years.  In the interim, she wants to learn more about politics. (And she does have a lot to learn, as she doesn’t meet the residency requirement and it’s an appointed position.)  What better way for a lightweight to learn about politics–it worked for Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin….sorta.

Best of all, Saturday Night Live already has a skilled KK impersonator.

The launch had been a hot topic all week, as the available launch window approached.  It was timed to coincide with the 100th birthday of North Korea’s first leader, Kim Il Sung, and a Workers Party plenum.

Outside of North Korea (DPRK), observers focused on two aspects: the international debut of Kim Jong Eun, who became leader after his father died in December, as well as the number of international agreements that a launch would violate.

The United States, United Nations, and other members of the international community warned that the real goal was to demonstrate the ability to launch a long-range rocket powerful enough to deliver a nuclear weapon to the continental U.S.

Although the launch was a bust, the failure should not hurt Kim’s position as supreme leader, for at least four reasons:

1. Tradition and secrecy

In some respects, the failure could be regarded as carrying on a Kim family tradition.  Kim Jong Il never got a satellite into orbit, either.

Pyongyang claimed to successfully launch a Taepodong-1 ballistic missile on August 31, 1998, that carried North Korea’s first home-built satellite, Kwangmyongsong-1. In April 2009, a second long-range missile purportedly deployed the Kwangmyongsong-2 satellite.  Official media proudly announced the successful launches, adding that both satellites played “patriotic music” as it orbited the Earth. However, much to the disappointment of fans of patriotic North Korean music, international observers never detected the satellite or its transmissions, and they believe a misfire prevented the satellite from being successfully placed into orbit. A test of the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile in July 2006 also failed shortly after launch.

The public usually hears rosy accounts of the country’s rocket program, thanks to the government-controlled media. In fact, “following the failed rocket launch,” BBC reported, “Kim Jong Eun led tens of thousands of people in lavish celebrations in central Pyongyang at which giant statues were unveiled to his late father and grandfather.”

2.  Position already safe

Little was known about Kim Jong Eun before his elevation to lead North Korea, even his age is only a guess. Korea-watchers considered him too inexperienced and likely vulnerable to power plays by other high-ranking officials. However, four months into the job, Kim has apparently consolidated his hold on power.

This week he received a new set of titles, including first secretary of the Workers Party, standing member of the Politburo, and head of the National Defense Commission.  If Kim’s future hinged on the satellite launch, why was he promoted beforehand?  Heads likely will fall over the debacle, probably at Kim’s direction.

3. Few alternatives, especially within the Kim family

There appear to be few alternative candidates to lead the country, much less to continue the Kim dynasty.  Kim Jong Il bypassed two older sons to anoint his successor.  While Eun’s physical resemblance to his revered grandfather was probably a plus, Eun had little competition from his brothers, one of whom tried to flee to Japan in recent years.

4. It’s not about the satellite.

Under Kim Jong Il, North Korea often made attention-getting announcements about its military and technological prowess.  Like today’s launch, past announcements have been timed to significant domestic and international dates, including on July 4, 2006, and July 4, 2009, as well as Memorial Day weekend in May 2009. The 1998 test came just days before the 50th anniversary of the establishment of North Korea.

After much huffing and puffing, the DPRK would usually agree to return to the negotiating table, where it would promise to behave in return for foreign aid. As recently as February 29 the government announced it would suspend testing of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in exchange for 265,000 tons of U.S. food aid. Obviously, the promise was short-lived.

International attention

Today’s launch may not be the typical attention-seeking stunt. Instead, it may be the opening act for a much worse coming attraction.

Past launches have followed a consistent pattern: rocket fails, satellite destroyed, United Nations Security Council imposes sanctions, North Korea thumbs its nose at international protests, North Korea tests a nuclear weapon.

North Korea tested nuclear devices on October 9, 2006, and May 23, 2009. South Korea believes that preparations are underway for a third underground test.

Glasnost?

There are some very interesting details emerging from the rocket debris.  First, on April 8, international journalists were taken to the launch station and allowed to see the rocket being readied for launch. Second, and even more surprising, the government announced the failure to deploy on national television today, presumably after the scheduled festivities ended. The admission was made five hours after the incident, and may have been forced by the presence of foreign journalists or seen as inevitable given news that spills over the border with China.

It is far too soon to suggest that Kim Jong Eun’s time as a student at a Swiss boarding school has fuelled a desire to bring freedom of speech or freedom of the press to North Korea, but events over the next few weeks may be very interesting to watch.

These words, spoken by future president John Adams, open the musical 1776, an embellished account of the writing of the Declaration of Independence.

I saw 1776 at Ford’s Theater in Washington, DC, last week.  My family always watches the movie version on the 4^th of July and we try to see stage versions when we can.

This particular performance coincided with the Maryland and DC primary elections, which provides a good opportunity to compare the Continental Congress and our current Congress.

Unfortunately, the current, 112th Congress doesn’t fare well. With popular approval ratings hovering around 12%, the congressional chaplains have stepped in to try and keep the peace.

If prayer doesn’t work, perhaps tickets for the show would. Congress, our modern legislators might learn at least three lessons from their dancing and singing forefathers.

“At a time when Congress is stunningly unpopular, with approval ratings in various recent polls around 12 percent … these clergymen [are] in the position of trying to nurture civility within this fractious flock and trying to explain to a skeptical public that all is not as dire and broken as much of the citizenry plainly believes.”

Debate Without Sacrificing Respect and Decorum.

The fictionalized members of the Continental Congress relished argument and debate, but not at the expense of respect—for each other and for the institution of the Congress itself. Benjamin Franklin is quick to remind Adams of the need for respect.

These men, no matter how much we may disagree with them, they are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about—they are proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies. And whether you like them or not, they and the people they represent will be part of this new nation that you hope to create. Now, either learn how to live with them, or pack up and go home!

Holding back my own fantasy of seeing Nancy Pelosi smack Mitch McConnell or John Boehner on the head with a walking stick, Franklin is right.  Civility must prevail if Congress is to function.

Put Duty Ahead of Personal Interests

One of the most touching scenes in 1776 concerns Cesar Rodney of Delaware. Near death due to cancer, Rodney bravely travels by horseback from his home to Philadelphia to cast a crucial vote on independence.  In reality, Rodney did have cancer, but he lived until 1784, and when it came time to vote, he was away from Philadelphia on other business.

There have been members of Congress who have struggled to carry out their work under great physical strain, such as Bob Dole and, more recently, Gabby Giffords, but in today’s Congress, when the going gets tough, Congress goes home.  An unusually large number of high-ranking members of Congress have decided they’ve had enough and announced they will not seek re-election.

For example, Evan Bayh (D-IN) declined to seek re-election in 2010, saying, “There is too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the people’s business is not being done.”  Many observers accused him of wimping out. “If in fact he believed that the Senate was broken and dysfunctional,” noted Rutgers political science professor Ross Baker, “then he had a responsibility to stand and man the pumps rather than run for the lifeboat.”

Two years later, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) announced her retirement, citing polarization and political brinksmanship.  “Simply put, the Senate is not living up to what the Founding Fathers envisioned.” Instead of an institutional check on majority rule via the House of Representatives, the Senate would safeguard minority rights. Snowe reminded, “The Senate’s requirement of a supermajority to pass significant legislation encourages its members to work in a bipartisan fashion.

There Is Honor in Compromise

Snowe specifically cited the need for compromise: “For change to occur, our leaders must understand that there is not only strength in compromise, courage in conciliation and honor in consensus-building — but also a political reward for following these tenets.”

Today’s legislators would rather preen for the cameras, engage in name-calling, and let Congress grind to a halt.  No one has continued the tradition of Kentucky’s legendary Henry Clay, known as the “Great Compromiser” for his efforts to broker crucial deals in the early 19^th century.

The climax of 1776 is the debate over slavery.  The Northern delegations insist that all men, regardless of color, are to be equal citizens, while the Southerners press to maintain their “peculiar institution.”  In the end, Adams grudgingly concedes on the slavery issue.  “Mark me, Franklin… if we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us.”

“That’s probably true,” Franklin replies, “but we won’t hear a thing, we’ll be long gone. Besides, what would posterity think we were? Demi-gods? We’re men, no more no less, trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed. First things first, John. Independence; America. If we don’t secure that, what difference will the rest make?”

Where Are the Women?

The story of the American Revolution, whether in books or on stage, sorely lacks founding mothers.  Only two appear in 1776, Abigail Adams as wise counsel to John, and Martha Jefferson, sent to slake Tom’s yearnings. The Congress debates the rights of male slaves, but completely ignores the rights of women.

Even today, women are grossly under-represented in Congress.  Women hold 17% of the seats in the House and 15% in the Senate. Women’s issues are low on the agenda.

It is a shame that the sitting U.S. Congress has failed its responsibility to preserve the rights of all Americans.

The flyers must contain a disclaimer: “These materials are neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Board of Education of Montgomery County, the superintendent, or this school.”

One of the February items sparked widespread debate over the flyer policy. The controversial material came from Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays (PFOX), a group that maintains that homosexuality is a choice. Therefore people can chose to renounce and change their sexual orientation.  In particular, the flyer says:

Every year thousands of people with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave a gay identity through non-judgmental environments or their own initiative.  Their decision is one only they can make.  However, there are those in society who refuse to respect an individual’s right to self-determination.

Critics of the PFOX message objected to their theory of homosexuality, argued that it might be construed as homophobic or hurtful, and could confuse students about the school system’s position on sexual orientation. The county’s high school sexual education curriculum describes sexual orientation as innate.

The new school superintendent, Joshua Starr, weighed in, calling the handouts “reprehensible and deplorable,” but insisted that MCPS has an obligation to distribute information from any registered non-profit organization as long as the message does not contain hate speech. “We can’t really do that much about it, unless we want to cut off all flier distribution.”

Implementing screening standards for flyer distribution to ban “objectionable” groups risks crossing a boundary. Who would determine which flyers are “acceptable” and which are not?  What standards/rubric would be used to evaluate the flyers?

School officials, citing the right to free speech, are considering ending flyer distribution altogether.  On February 27 the school board voted to send the issue to a policy subcommittee for review.

As a long-time Girl Scout volunteer, I am upset at the thought of ending the flyer program.  Deadlines for submitting flyers are circled in red on my calendar, as these are a vital way to reach new Girl Scouts and their families.  We rely on the backpack program to announce fall registration, opportunities to form new troops, spring-break sampler camps for non-Girl Scouts, and summer camps. When school administrators are reluctant to devote staff time to assembling flyer packets, Girl Scout volunteers often step in.

I oppose the screening of flyers because it violates free speech, but also because I believe it will ultimately harm Girl Scouts and other inclusive organizations by limiting their access to students and their families.

But as I type that sentence, I am donning my body armor to face the nearly inevitable attack on Girl Scouting.  A small, but vocal, segment of the population has their radar on alert for any statement that links homosexuality and Girl Scouting. Here they come now.

The anti-Girl Scout camp trots out the same allegations that they have used for decades, preferring to whip up hysteria than to actually listen to statements from GSUSA. Throw in a few references to abortion and Planned Parenthood and it’s time for them to light a bonfire made of cookie boxes.

GSUSA’s policy on membership is crystal clear: For All Girls, period.  There is no organizational position on sexual orientation, abortion, or birth control.  Rather, “We believe these matters are best discussed by girls with their families.” This stance contrasts vividly with that of the Boy Scouts.

I am proud to be part of an organization with a long history of inclusion.  Girls of different races, religious, abilities, and economic background have been welcome since the first troop was formed in Savannah, GA, in 1912.

I hope that narrow-minded groups will not interfere with our reaching more girls and helping them grow into young women of courage, confidence, and character who make the world a better place.

Quick question: What is the official language of the United States?

Answer? There isn’t an official language – yet.

Yesterday Frederick County, Maryland, passed an ordinance making English the county’s official language. The comments by one dissenter, Nick Carrera, particularly caught my attention: “I’m really embarrassed that we have to go through this tonight. It’s a measure that’s nasty and small-minded. … It would brand Frederick County as being unfriendly and xenophobic.”

The Frederick News-Post reporter at the council meeting added, “Carrera, like many of the other speakers, said it creates a perception that Frederick County thinks it is superior to those who speak a different language.

The combination of “superior” and “different language” immediately reminded me a letter to “Miss Manners” the previous day.

Dear Miss Manners,

I am a multilingual person who has lived in four continents, only recently back in the United States.

In the U.S., I frequently meet first-generation Americans who mispronounce their own names. This is, of course, part of the American ethnic experience, where minorities with complicated names simply adjust and butcher their monikers for the majority’s comfort.

As someone who can speak the relevant languages and thus knows how to say the names properly, do I refer to these persons as their names should be said? Or do I defer to the majority, and distort the names as they do?

Yes, you read that correctly, he isn’t correcting people who mispronounce his name; he is correcting how people pronounce their own names. Instead he is imposing his own linguistic rules on others.

When it comes to language, whose rules (legal or linguistic) take precedence?

Language is a fundamental component of identity, for both countries and individuals. France does business in French, for example, while Japan’s citizens speak Japanese. It can provide a compromise mode of communication in multi-lingual areas, such as using English as an additional state language in India or French in Senegal.

Language also is an effective way to draw a clear line between “us” and “them.” We speak English, they don’t. And if we don’t understand their language, surely they must be talking about us, right?

In the U.S., mastery of the dominant language – English – has been considered a prerequisite of economic advancement. There are enough socio-economic benefits of learning English that there has been little need to force the issue. There have been prior calls for designating English as the official language, but such calls tend to coincide with perceived threats to the English-speaking majority. In 1982, U.S. Senator S.I. Hayakawa (R-CA) introduced an amendment to new immigration legislation that would give English such status by saying, “Language is a unifying instrument which binds people together. When people speak one language they become as one, they become a society.”

It’s easy to roll your eyes and shake your head at the presumptiveness of the “Miss Manners” reader and to think the U.S. government would never interfere in something as personal and subjective as your own name. But mandating language usage can be a slippery slope.

Language policies have framed the lives of individuals in many countries for better or worse. In the 1990s the Bulgarian government issued a list of “acceptable” Bulgarian names to the Turkish community. If parents still wanted a Turkish name for their newborn, they would be denied a birth certificate. Greece and Macedeonia each claim the right to the name “Macedonia,” winding up with the post-Yugoslav country being known as the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.” Students may find themselves shut out of choice universities that teach only in one language, and many post-Soviet states angered residents when they switched from Cyrillic to Arabic script, instantly making thousands of residents essentially illiterate.

Frederick County’s law is a purely defensive move. “The folks who pushed for this legislation in Frederick aren’t doing it because they want to commune with their new neighbors. They aren’t offering English immersion classes or anything else constructive,” writes Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak, who own parents prioritized learning English when they arrived from Czechoslovakia. “Declaring English the official language is a backhanded slap at immigration and immigrants, usually aimed at Hispanics. It’s straight-up code for Get Out from people freaking out because their town is starting to look less and less like them.”

Anti-immigration sentiments continue to rise across the country and are predictably accompanied by calls for language policy. The remaining four GOP candidates all support making English the only law of the land.

President Obama, who spent part of his childhood abroad, has agreed that immigrants should learn English. But he has added that American kids should start learning Spanish as a second language. I bet that idea will leave some folks tongue-tied.

Polls released last week charted the decline. Gingrich won the January South Carolina primary with 40 percent of the vote.  Five weeks later, CNN–Opinion Research reported that 63 percent of the electorate viewed Gingrich unfavorably, while CBS–New York Times registered 54 percent unfavorable versus only 16 percent favorable.

Gingrich does not understand the concept of time.
He played coy, shopped and sailed the ocean last summer instead of laying the groundwork for a national campaign. Time did not stop for the Gingrich vacation, and other contenders stuck to a schedule based on the primary timetable. By the time Newt came home, his staff had quit, deadlines had passed, and he was far behind in fundraising and grassroots organizations.

Gingrich unfailingly puts himself above other to fulfill his destiny.
Newt’s priorities are glaringly evident in his personal life, as he casts aside wives for newer models. Gingrich had no qualms about boinking Callista, his wife-du-jour, while castigating Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky incident.

As we all know, he was boinking for America. “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.

Newt has no time for such trivial moralizing because he is destined for a greater purpose: he alone can save Western civilization. At his first staff meeting following election to the House in 1978, Gingrich announced his crusade:  “It is not my job to win reelection. It is not my job to take care of passport problems. It is not my job to get a bill through Congress. My job description as I have defined it is to save Western civilization.”

In 1985, Newt announced, “I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it.”

Not only will Gingrich save Western civilization, he hopes to take it into outer space. While in Congress, he introduced a “Northwest Ordinance for space” that would allow a moon colony to become a state once 13,000 lived there.  Asked by a reporter when the moon-state would hold its presidential primary, Gingrich solemnly replied, “I think the moon primary would probably come late in the season.”

Space was still on his presidential agenda in January, when he informed NASA employees of his plans to return to the moon, as well as explore Mars and beyond. Gingrich modestly clarified that this goal would be realized in his second presidential term.

What Next for Newt?
Barring another surprising surge, Gingrich’s presidential run is history – maybe.

Newt might have a political future in Turkmenistan, which (re)elected a president on February 12.  The natural-gas rich former Soviet republic seems to breed leaders with outsize egos, little care for mundane matters, and a new interest in space.

Saparmurat Niyazov led the country from 1985 until his death in 2006.  He declared Turkmenistan to be neutral and entered into no international agreements, limited travel abroad, and ruthlessly censored the media and Internet.

Niyazov also basked in a personality cult that cast him as his people’s hero and champion.  He routinely received at least 99.95 (yes, at least 99.95%) of the vote in presidential elections and was “unanimously” proclaimed president for life in 1999. He tried to alter time by changing the calendar to honor his family, and only his rambling book of platitudes, Rukhnama, could be taught in schools. To expand readership, in August 2005 a Russian rocket launched with a copy of the Rukhnama aboard, so that “The book that conquered the hearts of millions on Earth is now conquering space.”

Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, Niyazov’s successor, pledged to erase the Niyazov cult, a promise he has kept.  However, he has merely inserted his own name and face into the Niyazov model, and he easily won with 97 percent of the vote on February 12.  His victory was celebrated on Earth and in outer space. Reportedly, cosmonauts aboard the International Space Station phoned Berdymukhammedov to congratulate him on his win.

If the White House doesn’t work out for Newt, perhaps he can bring his ego and his space expertise to Turkmenistan. A national space agency was created in May 2011, and, reportedly, they are still looking for a suitable director.  That post might give Newt a launch pad for the 2017 presidential race in Turkmenistan.

ABC news in particular is using a photo of a beatific Whitney dressed in white, elegantly draped over white furniture against a white background. Producers only need to snatch a pair of wings from a passing Victoria’s Secret model to complete the look.

Today TV cameras are tracking the procession from Los Angeles back to New Jersey as the world waits with baited breath to learn when the memorial ceremony will be.  In a great ratings-boosting stunt (it is sweeps, after all), ABC has added dramatic photos of what appears to be a metal medical table splattered with red dots as they discuss the autopsy findings.

America, get a grip.

Yes, it is sad that the woman has died.  She leaves a daughter, mother, and large extended family.  Yes, at the height of her career she had the voice of an angel.

But these days, Whitney Houston has been anything but angelic.  To be blunt, she was a washed out, drugged up former celebrity who likely would have been ignored by the Sunday’s Grammy Awards ceremony had she still been breathing.  Now she joins the pantheon of celebrities who have tragically died too soon.

Why does our culture celebrate public self-destruction?  Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, Anna Nicole Smith….what is our continued fascination with them?  Why do their estates continue to rake in money from licensing deals?  Do we really need more Marilyn Monroe mugs or Judy Garland posters? How many records have Michael Jackson, Elvis, and now, Whitney, sold after their death?  Far more than they did in their final years.

Perhaps the obsession is merely the information age’s version of rubbernecking at an accident.  We hear the sirens, drive by slowly, crane our necks to see what’s going on, and then drive on, saying, “Whew, that could be me.”

Well, no it couldn’t.  Unless you have your own entourage to feed your addictions and detach you from reality.  Rather, our addiction is to the constant Tweets, posts, and texts that feed us ever more minute, lurid details. The media knows of this craving, which is why even local news leads off with the latest on poor Whitney.  I have to wait through the latest details (and, really, how many “new” details are emerging at 5 am?) on Whitney’s memorial service before I can find out if it’s going to rain today or if there’s an accident that’s snarling traffic.

Personally, I think we all need a time out.  The world has not stopped turning.  Pop music will survive. So light a candle, play your favorite Whitney song, and move on.

“White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and [Tim] Burton’s and [Johnny] Depp’s contributions went unacknowledged.”

White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, when asked by Washington Post’s Reliable Source, responded, “We may not have alerted folks that Johnny Depp was coming, but we didn’t announce Chewbacca was coming either.”

Other “explosive” revelations in Kantor’s book expose Michelle as an influential member of the administration, who initially wanted to stay in Chicago following the inauguration.

If Michelle had reservations about becoming first lady, it shows sound judgment, not a lack of patriotism.  The job “First Lady” is impossible to carry out for five reasons:

First, it is not even a real “job.”  The position has evolved over time and the term “first lady” was introduced in 1860 when Harriet Lane served as hostess for her bachelor uncle, James Buchanan. There is neither a salary nor a written job description; rather, the acceptable parameters have accumulated over time.  “First Lady” is a negative job—no one will say what it is, but everyone will tell you what it’s not.

Second, Michelle had no prior experience or training as a first lady.  Unlike Hilary Clinton, Laura Bush, and Rosalyn Carter, Michelle’s husband was never a state governor.  Running a governor’s mansion is the closest thing to First Lady boot camp available, but Michelle missed this valuable apprenticeship.

Third, First Ladies have no identity independent of their husbands. They have their job by pure nepotism—they have close ties to the president. Heaven help her if she wants to use her own name. President Bill Clinton’s spouse was blasted for using her maiden name, and in trying to find an acceptable alternative, moved from “Hilary Rodham,” to “Hilary Rodham Clinton,” to “Hilary Clinton,” and Mrs. Clinton. She didn’t make a name for herself—so to speak—until she left the White House for Congress and Foggy Bottom.

Michelle had a highly successful career as a vice president for community and external affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center, with a $315,000 annual salary. She put this aside to follow Barack to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As First Lady, her activities are sharply constrained to issues that do not contradict White House policy.  Staff complained when, Betty Ford, for example, seemed to differ with the president. “I believe the equal rights amendment is a necessity of life for all citizens,” she remarked. “The cabinet sometimes felt that I shouldn’t be so outspoken.”  Hilary’s health care debacle should prevent subsequent first ladies from tackling potentially controversial issues.

As far back as Abigail Adams, dubbed “Mrs. President” by her detractors, first ladies have been valuable sounding boards for presidents. Abigail spent much of early 1798 writing friends and family about the dangers France posed to the United States, doing little to conceal her strong opinions. As her views became known, the press taunted John and called Abigail the “excellent wife of the excellent president.”

But even seemingly non-partisan issues, such as childhood obesity, can come under fire. Photos of Michelle eating the occasional French fry become front-page news, and opponents make backsided back-handed comments about her figure.

Fourth, First Ladies are judged on superficial matters, such as clothing, physique, and China patterns. Mary Todd Lincoln complained, “The people scrutinize every article that I wear with critical curiosity.” Jacqueline Kennedy had U.S. designers copy her favorite French styles rather than be criticized for not buying American. Tongues wagged when Michelle wore a British-designed dress to the state dinner for China and a dowdy sweater to Buckingham Palace.  (And, horror of horrors, she TOUCHED Queen Elizabeth.  Off to the Tower!)  Former White House pastry chef Roland Meisner made news last week by revealing first family favorite recipes, including a “nasty” dish favored by the Carters and an “atrocious concoction” during the Clinton years. He has few good words for any of his former employers.

Kantor also revived the tired story that Michelle allegedly told her French counterpart, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, (why do the French always play a role in these episodes?) that living in the White House was “hell.” Both women and both governments insist the remark was never made, but the story persists.

Fifth, First Ladies must tend to the needs of their children before those of the county. Presidential children are as scrutinized as the president himself. The Clintons were hardly settled in the White House when “Saturday Night Live” broadcast a cruel skit making fun of 13-year old Chelsea’s appearance.

From the outset, Michelle announced that her primary role was mother to Sasha and Malia. Although the Clintons were called hypocrites for enrolling Chelsea in an expensive private school, the Obamas sent their girls to Sidwell Friends as well, citing security concerns. Putting education policy ahead of student needs, the Carters relegated Amy to the dismal DC public school system.  Critics then complained when 10-year-old Amy pulled out a book to read during a state dinner.

Kantor claims Michelle considered staying in Chicago, at least until the end of the 2008-2009 school year:

“[S]he didn’t understand or care what sort of message it would send to a public enthralled by the new first family, and she had trepidations about life in the spotlight, let alone the prospect of residing in a monument-museum-office-military-compound-terrorist-target-home.”

This complaint indirectly suggests Michelle is a good mother for putting her girls first. It also neglects the detail that one reason she might have wanted to delay a move was that there was no place in Washington for them to stay in the days leading up the inauguration. Blair House, the traditional holding tank, was already booked.  The future first family had to relocate to the nearby Hay-Adams hotel instead. Incidentally—Michelle and the girls actually arrived a day before the president-elect.

The time has come to end the outdated notion that a first lady’s place is in the house, safely cosseted away in the family quarters writing books about her pets or knitting socks for soldiers.  Generally speaking, U.S. presidents have not married air-headed bimbos (their girl friends are another matter….).  These are intelligent, accomplished women, whose talents should be front and center, not repressed.  Bill and Hilary Clinton were criticized for saying that in voting for Bill, American would get “two for the price of one.” In terms of Michelle Obama, we got quite a bargain.