Rush Limbaugh’s Mocking Chinese Leader’s Accent and Language Is Toxic Behavior


As someone who has taught celebrities accents and dialects for various film roles I am very much attuned to when and where an accent can be imitated. A film role where an actor is depicting the accent of a character  for a role or  a comedian imitating an accent for an act is appropriate. But what   inappropriate in my view is a political talk show host mocking a political leader’s language and accent.

Rush Limbaugh not only  imitated Chinese leader Hu Jintau’s  Chinese accent but  made fun of the Chinese language by saying the leader was just saying” ching chong, ching chong cha.” I believe this crosses to line and is totally unacceptable. To add insult to injury Limbaugh had the audacity to say on the radio that he  “did a remarkable job” of imitating China’s president for someone who doesn’t know a language spoken by more than 1 billion people.”

 He may be the only one that thinks he did a remarkable job as this is clearly a distorted way of  thinking.  In fact Asian American lawmakers nationally have denounced his actions. While  Limbaugh may have been entitled to  disagree with the content  of Hu’s speech and share his views on what the Chinese President said,  he was not entitled to mock and make fun of the Chinese language or speech pattern or how the Chinese leader spoke. This was offensive.


 In fact many Chinese American leaders  such as California  Senator Leland Yee views what Limbaugh did as racist and derogatory towards  the Chinese people.

People have been so upset about tit that they have called for a boycott of advertisers on Limbaugh radio show and rightfully so.

To justify his insensitive behavior Limbaugh  said “Back in the old days, Sid Caesar, for those of you old enough to remember, was called a comic genius for impersonating foreign languages that he couldn’t speak. “But today the left says that was racism; it was bigotry; it was insulting. And it wasn’t. It was a service.”

 Limbaugh’s crude and rude behavior is not a matter of left or right. It is a matter of what is wrong and what is right and this behavior was wrong. Back in the day this type of humor may have been tolerated but today comments about other people’s races would never fly.   


Old time comedians like the acrid and biting Don Rickles  who made a career making derogatory  comments about other’s races and religions under the guise of humor is not amusing  in today’s world and  would never fly.

On the other hand it seems to be  a different story if you want to poke humor at your own race or culture like Chris Rock does or Margaret Cho does when she imitates a Korean accent. But someone else who is not of that ethnic origin does it, suddenly they are on you are on touchy territory.  In that case it is no longer funny, it becomes hurtful.

Yee is not the only one who found what Limbaugh said to be upsetting. His protests are joined by Asian-American state and federal lawmakers who say Limbaugh’s comments are” inciting hate and intolerance amid a polarized atmosphere.”A number of civil rights groups, including Chinese for Affirmative Action, Japanese American Citizens League and the California National Organization for Women, have joined Yee in calling on sponsors to pull advertisements from Limbaugh’s program.

An online petition has been created on Yee’s website.

“I want an apology at the very least,” said New York Assemblywoman Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat. “Making fun of any country’s leader is just very disrespectful for someone who says he is a proud American.”

She added: “He was, in his own way, trying to attack the leader of another country, and that’s his prerogative as well, but at the same time he offended 13 percent of New York City’s population.”

Fourteen  million Asian-Americans live in the United States and their may even be more if one counts mixed races. California alone has more than 12 percent of the state’s 38 million population.

Right after Yee  and other Asian-American lawmakers demanded an apology from Limbaugh,Yee shared that he  received racist death threats and obscene phone messages.

This is unconscionable! Receiving death threats just for wanting an apology from a socially insensitive radio host and defending his ethnic heritage against racist attacks?

Thank goodness it has been reported that Yee’s staff has received additional security training to deal with this Toxic situation. But the bottom line is that in this day and age  it is very poor  judgement  to  poke fun an anyone;s language or their accent. Rush needs to step up and admit he made and error in judgement and apologize .



Does Obama’s Body Language Bow to Chinese Leader Hu Jintao Weaken His Image Among Americans and Worldwide?




 The way a person bows in Asian countries reflects what a person is communicating non verbally  to another person. While a bow is often a sign of respect, a bow can reflect the way a person is feeling – humble, sincere, remorse, or even deference.

The degree of the bow also means something. The lower the bow, the more formal and the more it says. So does how long you hold the position when you bow. For instance if you are apologizing to someone the bow is longer and lower.

 Where bowing really gets disturbing is here. Someone who is in an inferior position will address the person in a superior position with a bow while the person in the superior position may will not bow at all.

That is why the photo above of Obama publicly bowing to Chinese leader Hu Jintao has been so disturbing to many.  While the economic power of China is certainly increasing, many believe that Obama’s bowing to him is a public acknowledgement that he is aware of this and accepting of this. If you look at President Obama he  is looking down  as a signal of defence as his body s leaning towards the Chinese leader.

The Chinese leader’s body language is in marked contrast to Obamas’ where  Hu is  leaning away from Obama and looking directly at him as a visible sign of personal power as Obama bows and gazes downward in a subservient gesture.

  While many believe that one needs to “do in Rome as the Roman’s do” and join the culture when a person is visiting another country, the problem here is that the Chinese leader was visiting  OUR country, the USA. It was not the reverse. That is what has concerned others who believe that by Obama bowing to the leader he was exhibiting a weaker position to the world and abroad.


 Even though there was controversy about Obama’s bowing when he was in Japan, it seemed a lot more appropriate than this recent bow to the Chinese leader. In the first place he was on foreign soil. In the second place he was with the Emperor of Japan Akihito. In the third place the Emperor was much older than Obama, perhaps old enough to be his grandfather.

Perhaps these factors was why his bow was so low. In any case, Obama’s bowing to Emperor Akihito  can certainly be justified, even though it was very controversial at the time.


 While we have seen bowing in Asia, we have certainly not seen it among Middle Easterners. So what most controversial was when Obama publicly bowed to the Saudi Arabian King Abdullah. The bow was extremely low ,  with Obama’s knees bent. When knees are  bent it is considered the ultimate  signal in subservience, with only kneeling on the ground to follow in terms of degree of subservience and deference .  It also signifies an apology as when anyone usually bows that low they are usually apologizing for something. 

 Thus, many felt  that  Obama’s low and subservient  the bow to the Saudi King  was extremely inappropriate for an American President under any circumstances.

Even though  Obama’s bow was not  as low as it was with  the Saudi Leader, the  subservient bow to yet another world leader is not a signal of self-confidence to Westerners or to non Westerners for that matter.

As you can see the  Chinese leader  who does not return the bow. In fact the leader looks very superior to Obama as he doesn’t bow back, unlike the Japanese Emperor Akihito who’s head is slightly bowed during Obama’s bow. The Chinese leader does not bow back in the least as his posture is ramrod straight and head and instead and appears in a completely upright body position.

 It clearly shows that the Chinese leader is the one in the power position.

 Obama also  bowed to the Queen of England, which may be protocol if you are a British subject. But if you are the  President of the USA you may not have to it. Nevertheless he gave her a little bow as you can see above.

He even gave a deferential bow to the Queen’s husband  Prince Philip which many felt was uncalled for. Many believed that a President of one of the most powerful nations in the world should not have been bowing to a powerless husband who was only of any significance because he married the Queen.

Obama also bowed in Feb 2010 to Ukrainian leader Viktor Yushchenko who has the identical superior ramrod straight head and body posture as Chinese leader Jintaoe Hu.  The Ukrainian leader gazes down upon Obama as did Chinese leader as like Hu he has a ramrod straight posture and does not exhibit  a mutual bow or anything deferential towards Obama.


The bow with Yushchenko took place in February of 2010. That month Obama was doing even more bowing as he bowed a low head down to  Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio, who looked at him a bit surprised.


 Obama even bowed to no-nonsense Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie with a very low and humble bow. While there  must have been a good joke as  shared during the circumstances, it is clear that  body language wise Gov. Christie , he is in the top dog position. He turns his head to the side and doesn’t even look at  The President who bows  too low for comfort.

Like it or not,  the botom line ,  perception wise,  is that when a  President of a powerful country bows to other heads of state or those in a lesser political position like the husband of a Queen, a governor of a state  or the Mayor of a city, it  makes him appear weak as a leader.

 If he must bow to n Asian leader, make sure it is on Asian soil and make sure there are no cameras present for the  photo opt.  In politics that now plays out on a  world wide stage in moments,  the  image which the  political leader is essential and important in terms of repect and   how they will be regarded.


Just ask Russian leader Vladamir Putin who carefully manicures and manages his public image. The only image of him you will ever see is  where he is swimming the deepest sea, skiing the highest mountains, or riding the fastest stallion as he shows off hs buff arms. He isn’t bowing to anyone. Perhaps President Obama may want to follow suit if he values how he is perceived especially in the next election.

While many around the world  may think that this animated  Taiwanese cartoon of the President kow-towing to Hu is funny, there is absolutely nothing funny about it to any American. There is nothing humorous about a President of one of the most powerful countries in the world being perceived  as weak, under any circumstances .

Sara Palin’s Disconnected Body Language During Video Message – Lack of Appology for Crosshairs , Inappropriate Use of Term “ Blood Libel” Inflames Public

Unlike  body language experts who have a political bias, I do not. Instead, I  always try to maintain my objectivity . Thus, I have no agenda when it comes to Sara Palin. I am merely reporting what I observed  on her latest video message that she posted on Facebook.  W hat I observed was very disturbing as there were too many moments where I believe she continued to exercise poor judgment.


Watching Sara Palin’s recent speech on  video was like watching a very bad actress perform. Her words and her body language were out of synch and completely disconnected in so many instances.

Her monotone and incongruent body language .where she shook her head  NO when she should have been shaking it YES and vice versa was also disturbing.  It seemed very insincere and contrived.

Absent was any apology for her use of violent imagery. Using inappropriate terms such as blood liable were as  disturbing as her imagery of our founding fathers whom she described as  using  dueling pistols to settle their differences.

In light of the circumstancesm this inappropriate  talk once again reflected  very poor judgment on Sara Palin’s part in my view.



When she said in her speech I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims, she disturbingly shook her head NO when she needed to shake it in the affirmative.

Body language wise she was saying I don’t agree with the beautiful Catholic mass. When people’s body language does not match their words they are usually thinking about their own agenda and what they want to say next, instead of being in the moment and being genuine about what they are saying.

She continues to shake her head NO as she says The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

It is clear through her body language that she does not believe what she is saying here . Her words about Catholic mass does not ring true to her based on her body actions.


As she says the following,  she appears overly dramatic  like a very bad or beginning actress. She clearly does not believe what she is saying about people exercising their rights to have differences  of  opinions. In the first place, that day was a meet and greet for Gifford’s constituents, not a form for debate. This clearly shows her ignorance and what is foremost on her mind- debating the issues ands getting her points across.  She says:

“Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government.”


Then she does the absurd as she shakes her head in the affirmative YES as she said It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

In nmy view, t is also  inexcusable and incomprehensible why a politician  would put cross hairs on a map- crosshairs to target someone for death  while using a gun.


As she says the following you don’t feel the sadness or compassion in her tones. It is read off the teleprompter and comes across as being very insincere.

She reads:

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

This passionate statement needed to be said with much more conviction t have sounded  believable.


Out of the blue, Palin  invokes the name  of President Regan. In doing so it  shows  obvious manipulation. It is no doubt used to  get Regan fans on her side in her quest to get people to subliminally associated her with Regan.  She reads:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

As you can see from this statement, here was absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring up Regan, as this crime had absolutely nothing to so with him or what he ever said in the past. And if society is guilty as he is quoted as saying, then they are guilty of not getting a deranged man the help he desperately needed.

If what Sara Palin  said was true and she was being sincere,   she needed to say that  even though she had nothing to do with the tragedy that occurred, she was still holding herself accountable, as a  member of society  for upsetting people by putting crosshairs on a map of the US. In my viwe she would have gained a lot more public  respect of she would have openly admitted her error in judgement at this point in her speech.



The following was perhaps the only truth she said. But she ruined it by politicizing it by  talking about  those who voted in the last election. It was clearly a dig in my view. She reads:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

She continues to be political in talking about the last election and reminding us that she was a part of it. She is lets us know  politically that Obama’s party won  two years ago,  but that last November the other party one.

She sounded petty by not mentioning the names of the parties- Democrat and Republican and even pettier for bringing this up in the first place in my viwe.

It was clear that her agenda leaked out here. She was letting everyone know that her party was victorious last November and that if she runs, she will be part of that Victory in the next election. In my viwe this was not the time or place for such rhetoric.


Here is the only passage of the speech where she did seem connected and sincere and passionate about what she was saying:

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions.  And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.



But then she blows it when she ignorantly uses the terms  blood libel. This once again shows her ignorance. The words blood libel are not for this instance.  The definition of  Blood libel according to Wikipedia refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

This was not the situation to invoke such words and Rabbi Marvin Heir of the Museum of Tolerance called her on it all over the airwaves. Her let her know that her words incited further angst and alienation as she said

But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”



Once again her poor judgment is revealed when she brings up something that is in very poor taste in light of the circumstances, that   political figures settled their differences with dueling pistols back in the day..

This was the last thing she needed to bring up as there was no need to bring this up at this point.  It once again showed her ignorance and complete lack of good judgment as she reads:

“There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.”

If we must condemn violence  as she said, then she did not have to bring up such acts of violence and tell us that there is no need for government  if men and women were angels.

Even if they were angels there would always be need for a set of rules that people needed to follow to make a society function. To me that is very negative thinking.   If  we are to condemn violence then she needs to condemn herself for putting up a map with crosshairs which indicates  the ultimate in mental violence.

Now she reminds us why she is really doing this. With  the American flag in the background , she reminds us of her campaign. Discussing this is  irrelevant and completely out of line under the circumstances. Once again it shows very poor judgment on her part as she says:

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.



Then she inappropriately   throws in 911 as she says  :

Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security.

911 is the last thing one needs to be throwing into the equation. This massacre was not done by religious extremist but by a home  grown deranged American. Mentioning the  two in the same breath is manipulative and a ploy to  pull at emotions and enrage, in my view.

In her next statement we see hypocrisy in her speech when she says

We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

It is not about stifling debate. Instead,  it is about debating without the mental  violence of showing crosshairs . Using crosshairs as a symbol of violence is what needs to be stifled inmy view.  She continues with :

We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner”

As soon as she said this she needed to  apologize a for the crosshairs instead of ignoring it as though it never happened , There was no peaceful engagement when showing crosshairs.

And finally her contrived God Bless America was shaky and  out of synch as her entire speech. It sounded insincere and passionless as though it was just tagged on as an afterthought in order  to sound patriotic.

Once again these observations are not flecting any political opinion on my part or any bias, I am just reporting what I see betrween the spoken words.

Lone Wolf Terrorist Jerod Loughner’s Odd Body Language Shows How Employing Homeland Security’s Campaign “ If You See Something Say Something” Campaign May Have Prevented Massacre


Tuscon’s  lone wolf  terrorist’s  massacre brings to light the importance of Homeland Security’s latest campaign ”  If You See Something Say Something. ” If people would not only have reported what they saw  in terms of Jerod Loughner’s  “off” behaviors  to proper authorities  and those authorities would have done something about it, perhaps this tragedy could have been avoided.

A lot of people saw something very strange and odd about Jerold Loughner and did nothing about it. While his junior college administrators told him not to return to college until he had a written  letter from a mental health professional, it obviously was not good enough.




Arizona is one of the few states where someone can be taken  for psychiatric observation  if their behavior seems disturbing.  

One of Loughner’s  math professors thought he was frightening after her wrote  “Mayhem Fest” all over his algebra papers.  A fellow math student who was in his algebra class at the  community college though he was freaky after he shouted out ”How can you deny math!”

In fact, according to press reports, one of the students in his class wrote an email to a friend where she said”  We have a mentally unstable person in class who scares the crap out of me. He is the one you see on the news who comes to class with an automatic weapon.”Hopefully he will  be out of class soon and not come back with an automatic weapon.”

Then there was the neighbor who said to his own mother that  that his hair stood up in the back of his neck  as he  thought Jerod was serial killer.

When your hair on the back of your neck stands up, it means that your body is telling you that  something is terribly wrong.  It is the body’s primitive response to letting us know that we are in danger around a particular person.

If you have  ever  have feelings like that,  never ignore them. Say something  and say it to the right people who can do something about it.

Perhaps the authorities at the school needed to have contacted Jerod’s family to let them know that they felt their son was in a mental crisis of sorts. Perhaps they could have helped  his parents  arrange  for help for Jerod.




Most recently a friend who knew him from his poetry class  said that he always seemed to walk around with clenched fists. Body language wise that means he was walking around angry. He also said that he would inappropriately laugh to himself. That may have been due to the drugs he was reported to have been taking.

Some of the neighbors reported that Jerod was a strange child and was kept isolated for most of his childhood. A neighbor reported that he would never come out to play and would only gaze out the window as a child.

Another neighbor reported that he would never look at anyone when anyone passed him in the street. He would just keep his head down and look down and never gestured.

Perhaps his parents kept him isolated because they felt there was something wrong with him and wee ashamed of him or afraid of what he might so to other children.

Perhaps there was something wrong with them as well.  One neighbor reported that the father seemed to be an angry and contentious person.

Where was the community in terms of assistance to this family? What was going on at school? Did Jerod’s teachers ever contact his family when he was younger?

If he wasn’t socializing with children in the neighborhood as was reported, what was going on at school? Did socializ with other children or  he fall through the cracks?



The terrorist’s parents said they did not understand what this happened. Perhaps they were in  denial about their son all of his life.





How could they not see the  skull alter shine  they created in their backyard on too of shriveled oranges next to some candles?

To  Dr. Dennis Embry a mental health experts it says that their son may have been suffering from schizophrenia and had thoughts of death and violence .

It was also reported by friends who knew Jared  that Loughner had used marijuana extensively and has used  hallucinogenic such as psyillisybum mushrooms and salvia . Jared confirmed that he smoked pot  when he tried to sign up for military duty.

 Did his parents not know that their son was smoking marijuana which may have exacerbated his already fragile mental condition? Did they not have a clue he was using other mind altering drugs?




They lived in the same house as their son and obviously had no idea what he was up to until  they got a reality check several days ago.

A neighbor  who visited  the parents said that they father is devastated and can’t get out three words without crying  as he is not only upset about his son but is devastated about what happened to the people who were  hurt and killed.

His mother is reported to be  so devastated that she has broken down and is a nervous wreck  she has taken to bed.




When salespeople at the gun store where Jerod purchased his weapons were interviewed they said that they thought Jerod was strange and that  reluctantly sold him the ammunition and guns. They sold him a Glock pistol.




That is unacceptable! If they had any inkling that there was an odd person in their presence with odd behavior, they never should have sold him the weapons in the first place.  



When you look at the mug shot you can see and feel something is not right. He  has a Joker- like smirk that is inappropriate based on the situation at hand. 

Eyewitnesses even reported   that during the court proceedings he smirked when the judge read the counts against him.

No doubt in his mentally disturbed mind, he is most pleased with himself. He is most pleased that he has accomplished his terror laden  mission.




Besides Loughner’s disturbing  behavior  what is equally disturbing is all the name calling and finger pointing and political positioning and news media hosts and politicians using this tragedy to get their 15 minutes of fame  This needs to STOP  RIGHT NOW!!!!  It is ridiculous!  the only one to blame is the person who shot Gabriel Giffords  and maimed and killed so many others- Jerod Loughner.

If anyone needs to be blamed it is those who observed this mental mess and said nothing  or did nothing. If that is the case we  can spread blame to the junior. college administrators,  his math instructor, to his parents, his fellow students, his neighbors.

I am certain that mentally sick Jerod was not spending his time listeningto Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or anyone for that matter. He has his own opinions  and  very disturbed  ideas as you can clearly  see from his youtoube ramblings. They make no sense.

So to hold him up as the poster boy for the Tea Party politics, Republican politics, or Democratic politics is ridiculous!  It is giving this extremely mentally sick and disturbed terrorist way too much credit.



How ridiculous of  columnist Howard Fineman  to blame  Palin for what happened.  While may have been poor judgment for Sara Palin to put out a map with cross hairs she is NOT the one who is directly responsible for the killings and  for Gabriel Gifford’s becoming a potential vegetable and perhaps never being able to speak coherent sentences again.

How ridiculous of TV host  Chris Matthews to  blamed radio host  Mark Levin . I doubt Loughner was even in his car long enough during the day to even hear Mark Levin’s  radio broadcat.

How ridiculous that  Sherriff  Dupnik said it was Rush Limbaughs fault. If Loughlin is in his room getting high all day, I dount he is getting up early on the morning to listen to Rush’s boradcasts and savor every word Rush says. He probably can’t even process what is going on.

 Joe Scarborough was also ridiculous as he  blamed it on FOX and said they need to be toned down. Once again I am almost certain mentally sick Jared wasn’t organizing his day so he could listen to Rush, Mark Levin, FOX,  or even Keith Olberman who  said that  left wing rhetoric is not equivalent to right wing rhetoric. Al Shapton was also ridiculous when he  blamed the media and said they need standards on the airwaves.




Most likely terrorist Jerod was getting high and listening to music and not talk radio over  the airwaves. No doubt he wasn’t even in contact with the airwaves as he was listening to the music  he downloaded on his ipod all day

Chances are this terrorist didn’t even listen to the media pundits or spend time in his car listening to conservative radio show hosts or liberal radio show hosts for that matter.

Jerod Lo9ghner  is  a  very mentally sick and disturbed person .

There is no evidence that t he was influenced in anyway by Sarah Palin, by the Tea party, opposition to health care or Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin,”  




An incident like this makes us all see the importance of learning how to  spot a potential terrorist  well  ahead of time before it is too late.

It is essential to recognize when a person’s body language is so off that it makes you feel sick to your stomach or makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end.

It is important to observe and report what you observe to someone who can do actually something about it. In Jerod’s case with Arizona being one of the few states you can have a person sent to a mental health facility to be checked out, he needed to be reported as soon as he wrote  the word “mahem” on his math paper.

Perhaps  this incident will encourage people to do what Homeland security said to do in their recent campaign  “If you see something say something!

Apparently so many people observed the terrorist’s  off behavior and body language and didn’t say or do anything about it.

Selling arms to a person you feel reluctant about selling it to is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Apparently Arizona Sherrif Dupnik observed that Jared made death threats against others in the past  and that that those threats  had been investigated by police. So why was’nt there an eagle eye on Jerod at all times?  Why didn’t Jerod have to suffer some consequences for making those death threats?

If  school officials suspended Jared after they  found a rambling incoherent youtube posting he made, why didn’t they contact his parents or send him to a mental health facility?


For anyone who is upset about the If You see something say something concept violating anyone;s freedoms of First Amendment Rights, I will ask you where are  Rep. Gabriel Griffith’s rights are or where are the rights of a Federal Court judge and a precious 9 year old girl who are now dead at the hands of this terrorist.

Marsha Petrie Sue, Professional Speaker, Found Guilty of Willful Copyright Infringement by US Federal Court, Also Accused of “Plagiarism” By Stanford Professor

 Stanford  University Robert I. Sutton accused Marsha Petrie Sue, an Arizona professional speaker of  “plagiarism” . Marsha Petrie Sue is a now known “copyright infringer” after  a unanimous jury in a  US Federal Court jury in  Los Angeles found her liable of willful  copyright infringement on December 9, 2010.  

Marsha Petrie Sue unlawfully copied  Dr. Lillian Glass’ materials and  placed them  in her 2007 Toxic People book, which by the way was the same title as Dr. Glass 1995 best -selling  Toxic People book.


The Stanford University professor openly accused Marsha Petrie Sue  of  plagiarism.

 In  a  post on  Marsha Petrie Sue’s  amazon blog (which has hence been removed)  which Professor Robert Sutton wrote in  2008, he tells Petrie Sue that she took nearly word for word from an article “ that  Professor Sutton published  in the McKinsey Quarterly ,where he  provided a quote from Lars Dalgaard, CEO of one of the  one of the  most successful and fastest-growing software companies. Apparently  Marsha Petrie Sue used Dalagaard’s quote without attributing it to him, thereby claiming it as her own.  

 Professor  Sutton is quoted as saying  “There are some words omitted, but there is no attribution to original source and note below how you have pretty much simply removed some of the words from the opening of the original article. Note that I am a professor at Stanford, and directly taking text from a source with providing any attribution fits our definition of plagiarism.”  

He provides her with the original source and says to  Marsha Petrie Sue:Note the identical sentences” which you can read below as Professor Sutton  points out the specifics of  Marsha Petrie Sue’s plagiarism.

He then as concludes  his admonishment of  Marsha Petrie Sue by writing” Perhaps Amazon blogs don’t need to follow the Stanford  honor code, but I would never use so much text from another source without attribution, and I think that nearly  all other universities –and authors –would agree that acknowledgment of the source is appropriate.”

Professor Sutton is correct in his statement that he believes that all authors would agree that acknowledgement of a source is appropriate.

 Not attributing someone’s work to them and claiming it as their own is copyright infringement as a US Federal Court unanimous jury confirmed in a  trial against Marsha Petrie Sue where she was found liable for willful  copyright infringement. 



Robert I Suton says:



The quote about Lars Dalgaard is taken nearly word for word from an article that I published in the McKinsey Quarterly earlier in the year called “Building the Civilized Workplace.” There are some words omitted, but there is no attribution to original source and note below how you have pretty much simply removed some of the words from the opening of the original article. Note that I am a professor at Stanford, and directly taking text from a source with providing any attribution fits our definition of plagiarism.

Here is the original source. Note the identical sentences:
Lars Dalgaard is CEO and cofounder of SuccessFactors, one of the world’s fastest-growing software companies-and the fastest with revenues over $30 million. Dalgaard recently listed some milestones that his California-based company passed in its first seven years:
the use of its software by more than two million employees at over 1,200 companies around the world
the use of its software by employees speaking 18 languages in 156 countries
growth three times that of the company’s nearest competitor
enthusiastic recommendations of the product by nearly all customers
dramatically low employee turnover
employing no jerks That’s right-no jerks-although the word SuccessFactors really uses (except on its Web site) is a mild obscenity that starts with the letter A and sort of rhymes with “castle.” All the employees SuccessFactors hires
agree in writing to 14 “rules of engagement.” Rule 14 starts
“I will be a good person to work with-not territorial, not be a jerk.” One of Dalgaard’s founding principles is that “our organization will consist only of people who absolutely love what we do, with a white-hot passion. We will have utmost respect for the individual in a collaborative, egalitarian, and meritocratic environment-no blind copying, no politics, no parochialism, no silos, no games, -just being good!”

Perhaps Amazon blogs don’t need to follow the Stanford  honor code, but I would never use so much text from
another source without attribution, and I think that nearly  all other universities –and authors –would agree that
acknowledgment of the source is appropriate



What Marsha Petrie Sue did concerning  her word for word copying of Lars Dalgaard’s work  without attribution and claiming it as her own, she to Dr. Glass as well.

Petrie Sue  not only wrongfully copying Dr. Glass’ materials from Dr. Glass’  1992 “He Says, She Says.” book and placed those materials in Petrie Sue’s 2007 Toxic People book,(the same name as Dr. Lillian Glass Toxic People book written in 1995)  Petrie Sue took Glass’ material and openly placed it on her website.

On  Marsha Petrie Sue’s website  she  had the audacity to give written  permission to others to freely use Dr. Glass’ work only  if they included  Petrie Sue’s website address in order to promote  Petrie Sue’s Professional Speaking business.

Casey Anthony Continues Flirting, Grooming, and Smiling in the Courtroom

I have repeatedly said that the body does not lie! I have also said that no matter how hard a person tries to conceal their thoughts and feelings,  the truth eventually leaks out from one’s body language and facial expression . It doesn’t matter how hard the person tries to hide it.  That was the case with Casey Anthonys last appearance in the courtroom.

While Casey Anthony may have been coached  to sit up straight or be given an image makeover  with a unique hairdo the truth always prevails as far as body language is concerned. The truth is that Casey is still flirting with attorney Jose Baez in the courtroom and it is clearly not endearing . It is   definitely not charming. In fact it is incongruent with why she is in court in the first place.

Anyone accused of murdering a child, especially their own child has absolutely  nothing to smile about whatsoever. The last time we  saw Casey beaming with smiles and laughter in the courtroom was when a  law clerk on her legal team was ambushed by Jose Baez  and was unexpectedly sworn in as an attorney.

But now there is clearly nothing to smile about. Her latest appearance in court dealt with some very serious matters on which her life hinges. They involve  very major issues in her cases that her  in terms of what would or would not  be admissible.

The second Casey is seen walking into  he courtroom there is a smirk on her face. No doubt, after being locked up in her jail cell with little or no human contact all this time. she is trilled to be out among people. But the fact that she enters the courtroom with a smirk on her face is disconcerting. It does not matter that she has a form fitting blue sweater  which showcase her  curvy figure to make her look  sexy and appealing. It does not  matter that she has  new hairdo. It does not  matter how good she looks if her behavior and actions are inappropriate.

While it is true that studies have shown that if a person looks good, they are perceived more favorably by a jury, that theory  is null and void  when behavior is inappropriate. Casey Anthony’s recent  courtroom behavior is inappropriate in my view, especially as it pertains to Jose Baez. Perhaps the photo above reflects her anticipation that she will shortly be seeing the object of her falsities Jose Baez.

While she always seems to have her ritualistic behavior going on where she grooms  herself , she is doing even  more  self grooming than usual.  Note the double handed hair groom . It may have been done  in anticipation of seeing Jose.

Now we see her facial expression change as she begins an anticipatory smile.  That means that she is getting excited that she will be having  an upcoming interaction with Jose. Like a school girl she readies  and  vigorously grooms  herself  so the  man she finds attractive Jose, will  in turn find her mutually attractive.

Jose sits  down next to her and Casey  does an initial eye flash of excited recognition.  But she  then does a body language behavior that clearly indicates flirtation and coquettishness. She immediately breaks eye contact and gazes downward, all the while trying to suppress a smile. But  he cannot do it for long. The truth always leaks out  body language wise.

She  beams a huge toothy smile as she is beyond thrilled to see Jose < She immediately  notices a change in Jose’s appearance  namely his new hair cut.  She lasers in on his hair change.  She obviously likes what she see as she can’t stop smiling. We  even hear her saying  to Jose  that he cut his hair.  No doubt  Jose’s  new closely cropped do makes him look hipper and younger in her eyes and  she lets him know it . Her shoulder is rotated forward indicates a  flirtations action.  She has an open-mouthed tooth showing smile which indicates that she can’t hide that  she  genuinely likes what she sees.

There is no doubt that Jose is flattered . Both Casey and Jose are now laughing at something the see in the  monitor in front of them. It must really be amusing because Jose’s cheeks are raised an his eyes are crinkeling. We have rarely seen Jose with this type of expression. Instead,   we usually see him with a very serious facial demeanor.   Casey continues to self groom as  subconscious flirtation with Jose.

No matter what they are looking at, it looks bad to others who are watching them.  It would be one thing is Jose was looking at something  in the monitor and it amused him  or that it was something he found funny.  But the fact  Casey is joining in  and being equally amused is very disconcerting.

What in the world could be funny two both of them at a time like this? I guess that Casey needs to find joy and laughter where she can because when she is sentenced to a lethal needle there will be nothing to laugh about.

And yes- that is a very real possibility especially if a jury sees her laughing and smiling and flirting and carrying on like she doesn’t have a care in the world. To a jury it will be sickening.  That is what happened to Amanda Knox who  now sits in an Italian jail cell accused  of murdering her roommate.

Like Amanda’s jury who saw her laughing and acting as though she did not have a care in the world. If Casey acts similarly,  her actions will anger a jury as well.

It will no longer matter is there is a male juror who finds her sexy or attractive or if a female juror identifies with her or takes pity on her. It will all be  negated when she leaks out her true self.  When she shows that  she  amused and laughs and flirts jurors will take that as a signal that she has little or no feeling about what happened to her own daughter Caylee.

Afterwords we see Casey begin to  rigorously groom herself even more . At one point she even turned away so that we could see the back of her hair  which she creatively coiffed into  in a very unusual looking  do. It looked like a combo if thee different styles she  flung over her shoulder  to one side.

The bottom line in all of this is that  while  Casey’s looks may indeed be  a factor  in how she is perceived on a jury, it won’t  matter if she leaks out her lustful feelings towards Jose and her uncaring non feelings towards Caylee.