Obama: Illegal President?

Generally, the main reason that a conspiracy theory exists is that it's difficult to disprove. So you may think it strange that this year's big one has been able to survive. I'm talking about the notion that Barack Obama was not really born in the United States and that there has been a conspiracy to cover that up. Obviously, if he wasn't born in this country, then he couldn't legally be President. Even though this has been disproved over and over again, that hasn't stopped a small but vocal minority from passionately buying into it. This week, Congress took time out from avoiding the health care issue, and declared that Obama was, indeed, born in the United States. I'm sure this won't be enough to satisfy the birth doubters. These people are out there. They probably don't just believe that there was a conspiracy to kill Michael Jackson so that his music would sell more CDs; they believe there was a conspiracy to kill Walter Cronkite so his music would sell more CDs.

The President has provided a copy of his birth certificate indicating that he was born in Hawaii. The conspiracy folks responded, "Yeah, but it's just a copy." Well, who has the original of their birth certificate? Almost a year ago, Hawaii's state health director, Dr.Chiyome Fukino, and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, personally verified that Hawaii's health department has Obama's original birth certificate as it should.

Remember the acrimonious Democratic primary? If the Clintons thought this story had been even the least bit credible, don't you think they would have brought it up? And then there was the general election. Are we to believe that John McCain and Sarah Palin were also part of the grand conspiracy to conceal where Obama was really born?

And yet, some TV and radio talkers, along with a handful of Republican officials have kept this thing alive. So finally, when Congress passed a resolution ostensibly celebrating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii becoming the 50th state, there was a clause in there that read, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." It was passed unanimously, but that doesn't mean this thing is over.

It probably won't be over until everyone in the world believes that we really sent astronauts to the moon, and the whole thing was not staged on a movie lot. It will be over when nobody believes that people met with extraterrestrials in Roswell, New Mexico. It may not even be over until nobody believes that John Dillinger's penis is in the Smithsonian, but they aren't allowed to show it to anyone.

In other words, this ridiculous story has become part of urban legend. However, there is an ugly side to it. There has been so much anger, so much venom behind this contention that I can't help thinking that hatred and intolerance are involved. It seems that those who just cannot accept that an African American is their President have to find reasons to reject his legitimate right to have that position. They can't believe that someone other than a white guy was elected President, so they conclude that he must have cheated.

It would have been nice if more Republicans hadn't been just passive about this. It would have served them – and us – well if they had stepped up and said, "Let's end this nonsense now. We have more important things to deal with. Of course, Obama was born in the United States." It's like during the campaign when John McCain famously told that woman at the town meeting that Barack Obama was not a Muslim. Maybe it wasn't the best thing for him to do politically, but it was the right thing to do.

While we're on the subject of conspiracy theories and Obama, here's a message to those who see a plot wherever they look: the "beer summit" involving Henry Louis Gates, Police Sergeant James Crowley, and the President was not secretly put together by Budweiser to increase beer sales. Of course, I can't prove that.

Air Travel, Gone To The Dogs

It had to happen. In the last several years, Americans have spent more and more money on luxuries – for pets. We've seen the arrival of gourmet foods for pets, hotels for pets, and even bikinis for pets. So I shouldn't have been s0urprised the other day when I learned that there is now an airline for pets. That's right, all of Pet Airways' passengers are animals – and not the kind that sit next to you and snore or spill their drinks on you. I'm talking about the kind that you feed and take for walks.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to put their pets in a crate that goes with cargo or luggage. I wouldn't want our dog to travel like that. But somehow, we've all gotten along for many years without asking our pets if they want a window or an aisle seat.

Americans will spend an estimated $45.4 billion on their pets this year. That's more than the gross domestic product of all but 64 countries in the world. That's more than we spend on movies, video games, and music combined. I don't think we're going to hear about the pet industry asking for a bailout.

Of course, in these tough economic times, there are people who can't afford to have pets. But there are still others who will pay over $900 for their dogs to have testicular implants so they can still look "macho" after they've been neutered.

We spend more than twice as much on our pets as we did a decade ago. There are probably all kinds of reasons why this is so. More people work at home, so maybe they want the company of a pet. Maybe more single people have decided they don't need to be alone. And maybe as our world gets more mechanized, there's a desire to have something that's actually alive – something that you don't have to plug in 0or reboot.

For whatever reason, pets have increasingly become part of the family. More than half of all dog owners say they consider their pet's comfort when they buy a car. (I wonder what percentage considers their in-laws' comfort when they buy a car). People buy clothing for their pets, celebrate their birthdays, and put braces on their teeth. That's a bit over the top, don't you think? Sure, I leave the TV on for our dog, but I can't help it if he likes sports.

Having your pet fly as a passenger on Pet Airways isn't any more expensive than putting him or her on a regular airline. It falls into the coddling "let's have him be more comfortable category" like the car a pet owner might buy. The seats have been removed from the plane's cabin, and pets travel in air-conditioned comfort in their own private kennel crates. A veterinary technician checks on them throughout the flight. When the plane lands on an in-between location, a flight attendant takes them for a walk, looking for the most convenient patch of grass. For their in-flight entertainment, they probably get to watch something like "Milo and Otis" or "Old Yeller." It all sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

But I worry about what problems might develop, and I wonder if the owners of Pet Airways have thought this whole thing through. Of course, there is no first class and coach distinction on these flights. But how long will it take for some ritzy pet owners to request that their fancy cats or dogs fly up front, away from those that came from the pound?

I'm also concerned about the possibility of "ethnic profiling." With concerns about security so high, will an American spaniel or an Irish setter be waved right onto the plane, while people in uniform stop and search a Russian wolfhound or an Afghan? And you know they're going to be suspicious of a cat who happens to be a Persian.

There are bound to be some civil rights, anti-discrimination lawsuits brought against this pets-only airline. They'll be brought by people who want to get on that plane along with the pets. Here's why: the passengers travel comfortably, there's no line for the bathroom, and every 15 minutes, the airline's president walks down the aisle with kind words and snacks. When was the last time you were treated like that on a regular airline?