Why are gasoline prices going up so fast?

Finally going to head up north to our condo in Charlevoix, Michigan. It is Memorial Say weekend and we are just getting an early start. The weather promises to behave.

We will be driving my new Lincoln Navigator SUV and so gas mileage has been discussed. Actually, gas mileage is on everybody’s mind these days as prices here approach and are nearly at $4 / gallon. This is probably double what we paid the last time we went up to the condo.

Economists are watching this summer driving season to see what effect these prices will have on the tourist / vacation economy and believe me in Michigan, it is a huge industry.

When discussing gasoline pricing with my fiends and relatives, I sense that they don’t really know why these prices are going up and what determines them and/or controls them.

Most Americans blame the oil producing Arabs, our government, greedy American oil companies, etc.

Not knowing where to direct your anger is frustrating; we need somebody or something to blame!

That may not be all that easy to do since many factors play into why you pay the price pay to fill up your car that you do.

First, the oil producing nations (OPEC) do not actually set the price of a barrel of oil (42 gallons / 159 Liters); they just set how much oil is pumped on a daily basis. In setting how much is pumped, they set the price per barrel, how? Well, if they consider the price too low, they produce less; I don’t think the price has ever been too high for them but they will occasionally try to lower a very high price by producing more oil if they feel the exorbitant price is hurting the world economy. That means if countries are hurt economically to such an extent that they can no longer buy as much oil as they need; the oil producers will suffer lower sales – kapish?

In our day and age, two powerful economic powers have entered the world market for oil. These nations are new players: China and India. In the near past, they were barely making it with China’s closed Communist system and India’s non-system that produced nothing but plain, abject poverty. Things have changed and now they have a ravenous appetite for oil to power their factories, etc. and compete directly with us and the rest of the world for that limited supply of oil – and they can pay for it.

Are you starting to see the picture? OPEC could produce more oil, increasing inventories and therefore keeping prices reasonable but they won’t because they don’t have to and there are no overwhelming reasons for them to do anything at this point.

But who in the hell sets these ever increasing prices for a barrel of crude oil? It is the marketplace; the oil marketplace where buyers buy and sellers sell. This is too involved to explain in this place but investors buy oil futures promising to deliver oil for a specific price. Buyers can also buy oil on the “spot” market which means they buy oil cargo on ships for a specific price and deliver it to a buyer for a specific price.

The prices are set naturally by “supply” and “demand”; the price goes up when there is a great demand but a limited supply – common logic!

So you see the price of oil has nothing to do with the cost of producing the oil.

The oil that is made into the gasoline we use has a long road to travel from oil well to refinery to our gas station BUT the reason the gasoline costs more for us is because the crude oil is costing more; it just goes down the line.

Will the price go down as usual; don’t bet on it. China and India are not going away or getting less industrious. Hell maybe other countries are on the verge of an economic boom that will require them to buy more oil.

Now that you know why gas prices are on the rise, we will talk about what can be done about that and how the higher prices will impact our lives here, in a later blog…

Who has the "White" vote?

The primaries in Kentucky and Oregon just closed and Hillary won Kentucky and Obama won Oregon; both won handily.

The pundits, heard the next day, were debating if Obama can get the white vote or has Hillary sown up the white vote for herself.

In the early elections Obama did garner basically 100% of the black vote but had mixed results with other ethnic groups including “whites”. The debate then goes into, who has the best chance against McCain in the general election or who can carry the most whites who after all, represent the majority of the population, at least today.

You may not have known this but Kentucky is basically white and so is Oregon so if Obama won Oregon and Hillary won Kentucky, who won the white vote.

Well, I think we are talking about two classes of whites. Oregon is populated by white yuppies; Microsoft, Starbucks, educated, liberal, rich type of whites. They will most definitely vote for Obama in the general election even though as business people they may hold a fear of Democratic socialist philosophy which Obama espouses and may try to institute but they hold a greater fear of Republican social backwardness which may move the nation into the dark ages.

The whites in Kentucky are different from the whites in Oregon. They are about country music, middle class, hard work, conservative, horses, some education type of whites. In fact, these types of whites will probably vote for McCain and only voted in the Democratic primaries to show Obama that they prefer a white candidate even though she is a female.

Will the whites unite to support a Democratic candidate irregardless of whether it is Obama or Hillary? I think when everything is said and done, the majority will because to vote Republican is basically not an option.

Who will have an easier time beating McCain? Well, I still think it is Obama because he has less political baggage dragging him down, is not a Washington insider, is a man (unfortunately the country is still sexist), is a better debater and is younger.

Will he make a better president? Only time will tell.

"Appeasement" my ass !

President Bush and later, John McCain dared to say the word “APPEASEMENT” with a wink at the Democrats.

For you that don’t know your history and especially your WWII history, appeasement is a word identified with Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who thought he “appeased” Adolf Hitler by giving him parts of Czechoslovakia so as to have “peace in our time”.

Well, we all know what happened next.

Bush and McCain inferred that the Democrats would rather “appease” our enemies than to crush them before they can harm us. This all stemmed from the fact that Obama said he would talk to the President of Iran as part of his foreign diplomacy efforts instead of just attacking the country.

Needless to say, my blood immediately started to boil at the chutzpah of an idiot that has caused so much damage to the world and his own country through his cowboy diplomacy (shoot and then talk). Bush has the nerve to defend his totally failed, disastrous foreign policy on the eve of his leaving the presidency with the facts of his debacles staring him right in the face; is he totally insane or just delusional – maybe both?

Once I calmed down I thought that this political ploy; equating Obama with Neville Chamberlain, could and would resonate with the conservative male sector of this country, the ones that feel that the sword is always mightier than mere words.

Bush and McCain are obviously implying that the Democrats are willing to sacrifice our safety for a false sense of peace. This is called fear-mongering and has worked in the past.

The Democrats, to their credit, did immediately respond but I think the response should not only be loud but prolonged!

I think the nation should be shown from all angles, what the Bush / McCain philosophy has wrought. The nation has to be shown how things would be so different today if a “sane” person was president and how things will not change if another republican is elected to the presidency.

McCain, who has been trying to distance himself from Bush on some sound advice, may have made a fatal error by endorsing and supporting Bush’s “appeasement” charge against the Democrats.

Lets make some noise about “appeasement”…

Relay For Life / Defeat Cancer !!!

Reverend Wright, Part 2

Let’s get back to talking about Reverend Wright, Black Liberation Theology and Barack Obama.

Black Liberation Theology (BLT) was born in the turbulent 60s when blacks were either following MLK to change things peacefully or Malcolm X to change things not so peacefully.

The theology combined Christianity with politics and preached activism against the oppressors (whites). Yes, it talked about personal salvation but combined with issues like political social justice.

On the Christianity side as I have mentioned before, they saw Jesus as coming to earth to liberate his people from oppression. They site New Testament passages like Luke 4:18, Mathew 25:31 and John 3:16; “…to release the oppressed…”, “…he will sit on his throne…”, “For God so loved the world…” These blacks see themselves as His (Jesus’ / God’s) people and are doing God’s work.

The preachers see themselves as Old Testament “prophets” whose mission is to warn the people about their sinning and the repercussions to come if they don’t change their ways BUT also as the Old Testament prophets who preached to “nations” to mend their ways. So when we heard him say “…damn America…” he was only doing what these prophets do; they damn people and nations when they are doing wrong. This really put things in perspective for me.

But back to Jeremiah Wright. He probably should have stayed quiet and out of the public’s eye. He was mad that people did not understand him and called him unpatriotic. His interview with Bill Moyers on Public TV gave him the opportunity to explain himself and he did BUT…

The idiots at the Detroit NAACP invited him to give a speech at their biggest gathering. His speech was OK, it was about being different but not deficient where some of his ideas and comments were, how should I put it, not very smart.

BUT then he went to Washington, DC in front of the National Press Club where he answered questions and where more “not too smart things” came out like the U.S. Government inventing AIDS to kill black people.

Rev. Wright has been a preacher / pastor for over 35 years and built up a very large congregation that did and does many great and charitable things. These people came for a reason and stayed and their reason was what Rev. Wright preached so we cannot condemn the man for a few unfortunate words and maybe a few totally stupid beliefs BUT…

In the end, he was not smart enough to just shut-up. He let the limelight get to him and he grew arrogant and yes, divisive.



His legacy after 35 years will be a historical footnote about how he became a negative issue in the presidential candidacy of the first African-American candidate with a realistic chance of attaining the office.

The great irony here is that through 35 years of trying to help blacks throw off their oppression and become equal participants in the American society, he compromises the chance for a black man to govern over that very society.

Understanding Reverend Wright, #1

Well I guess I should say a few words about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This is the minister that Barack Obama called pastor and mentor for twenty (20) years while he attended the Trinity Church of Christ near Chicago.

When I first heard or actually “saw” snippets of Wright’s sermons on TV I recognized a political hatchet job as professional as they come. Out of context, vitriolic blasts against white America are what people heard and that was enough for some.

At the time, I called these remarks absolutely racist and was happy to see Obama start distancing himself from his pastor and his remarks BUT he did not disown him. After all, he attended his church and listened to his sermons for 20 years, was married by him and had his kids baptized by him.

I wanted to know more about the man and not just what the political manipulators wanted me to know. I learned that he was a medical corpsman in the United States like I was. He spent six (6) years in the military and eventually advanced to the position of “cardiology technician”.

He was not uneducated; getting degrees all over the place. He is very articulate, notwithstanding the screaming sermons in “black talk”. I wanted to know more.

He did an interview with Bill Moyers (great guy) on PBS and sounded really good defending himself, his church and his people. He mentioned that a big problem is that whites do not understand “Black Christian Liberation Theology” – interesting!

I have heard of “Catholic Central & South American Liberation Theology” in my studies but never the black brand. The priests in South America basically espoused Marxist philosophy in a Christian covering. This was the only way they could see to help the hopelessly poor and downtrodden in their parishes.

Jesus wanted to overturn the reigning order and bring in a new kingdom where justice and fairness would prevail and so they preached revolution and overthrow of the oppressors and bringing in a new kingdom albeit Communistic – wasn’t Jesus the first Communist? The Vatican told them to shut up!

I have never, though, heard of a black variety of this theology. You probably will not believe me but one of my white colleagues; who is very smart and very religious, attends a black religious seminary with mainly black ministers to be, women and men, so he is in a perfect position to learn more about this black type Christianity. Do not ask me why a white ministerial student is attending a black seminary – maybe its really close to his house?

So, as you may have guessed, we have some pretty good discussions (on company time no less).

The black theology works in the same fashion as the South American one; Jesus (Christianity) tries to lift people out of oppression and into a kingdom where there is no oppression. The blacks as slaves were most definitely oppressed big time and even after slavery was outlawed, racist whites kept up the oppression, some say, to this very day.

So what is the premise of this theology as it applies to the black Christian church? Well, let me first state that this theology does not apply or is practiced by ALL black Christian churches. Actually the Trinity Church of Christ belongs to the national, mainly white and oh so liberal and progressive “United Church of Christ” (UCC) Protestant denomination as opposed to, lets say, the “Baptist” Protestant denomination.

More to come…

Time to grow up and legalize "drugs"!

Another story of interest in the news that struck a chord with me involved a woman that escaped a prison that happens to be very near to where I live (Scott Correctional Facility) in 1976.

I drive by this facility every so often and see groups of women surrounded by barbed wire and then surrounded again by suburbia; must be disconcerting for the women to watch normal life go on right outside their prison. In 1976 this place was in the boonies with only fields and woods around.

Anyway, Susan LeFavre was convicted of selling drugs to an undercover narc when she was a young woman (19) and sentenced to 10-20 years under then current Michigan Drug Laws.

After one year, she walked away from the prison (easy to escape I guess) and just recently has been arrested and is on her way back to Michigan from San Diego where she has been living a privileged life as Marie Walsh. She became a mother and a wife, stayed out of trouble and contributed to the welfare of her community.

As you may imagine, opinions on what top do with her are flying all around.

In my case, just as my views on prostitution, I feel very strongly that “drugs” should be legalized and controlled. We obviously will never win the “war on drugs” but we can control them and minimize their detrimental affects on people and the community by de-criminalizing them.

I have already addressed the issue in detail as to how this would be carried out but let me just remind you that drug lords, drug gangs, killing for drug money, etc. would be eliminated so think of a world without all that if you can.

I am saying this up-front because I feel laws criminalizing the use and sale of drugs and, especially in Michigan, instituting totally absurd penalties for their use and sale as a societal aberration that is absolutely improper and without any redeeming purpose.

Yes, you say, but these are our laws and should be obeyed and I would have to agree with you but in this specific case of Marie Walsh who was given an absurd sentence for a dubious crime (my opinion), and leading an exemplary life, free of any crime for thirty two (32) years – I think she should be left alone and allowed to return to her family. Punishing her at this point would serve absolutely no purpose.

Some say we need to teach a lesson here so people will not think that it is OK to do what she did. I will agree with part of that but when the crime is about drugs and not a “real” crime; for me this negates normal rules of jurisprudence.

DC MADAM WAS KILLED BY OUR STUPID SOCIETY!

There are many issues I have to catch up with so let’s get going.

The suicide of the DC Madam was a minor story on the world stage but it hit something in me. As long as I can remember, I have been railing at the utter stupidity and waste of human and monetary resources, at policing prostitution, which in my opinion should be legalized and controlled.

I have written countless letters to the editor and blogs about how the “oldest profession” has been around since day one because it serves a valid need.

If the “need” will NEVER go away, which it won’t, why not make the profession healthy and safe as well as tax producing. It is common sense at its most basic level so why don’t we get it?

We are a nation of American Christians (not any other form of Christian) and that makes us Neanderthals when it comes to social issues and we will not allow a progressive social thought into our lives even if not doing so causes us and our country, pain and suffering.

The DC Madam (Deborah J. Palfrey) recently committed suicide by hanging in a shed at her mother’s Florida retirement home; her mother found her. She vowed not to spend the rest of her life in jail and intimated that death would be preferable and why the hell did she have to make that choice?

Her clients, Washington, D.C. big shots that today are sitting alive and well with their wives, the ones that could not or would not service them properly, while the madam that arranged for their sexual servicing is cold, dead and buried before her time; do you see a problem here?

If she offered those same services for free she would be alive today.

For the life of me I don’t see why we are so blind to reality and so, oh so stupid when it comes to our own sexual needs and behavior that we so fervently try to deny. Maybe the myriad sexual crimes that occur in this country every day could be minimized by a legal, healthy and safe prostitution industry – did you ever think of that?

SORRY HILLARY, YOU NEED TO GO!

My goodness, I sure haven’t written in these here pages in a long while! Blasted work has kept me busy but good news, I finally have decided to semi-retire. That only means I will “attempt” to take every Monday and Friday off; let’s see if this works. If it does, it will give me some time to do what I feel like doing.

Anyway, I want back into the fray and there is so much going on that does need comment!

The day after the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic Primaries, it is time to ask Hillary to step down.

She barely won Indiana (working class whites) and drowned in North Carolina. She came out with a smile after the primary debacle and promised to fight on. She even borrowed her campaign another bunch of millions of her own (and Bill’s) dollars in an expensive gesture to show that she “really” thinks she has a chance.

I have been watching this on the sidelines for some time with really no overriding liking for either Hillary or Obama; just watching…

Lately though, she has started to grate on me. That “gasoline federal tax exemption” for the summer driving season that she proposed, made me see her as a stupid, populist politician that would stoop to any level to get the popular vote. Obama said the proposal was stupid and would not bring any sizeable relief to the common man; a long term energy plan would make more sense.

I saw a leader on one hand and a political hack on the other and I knew she cannot be our next president. I should have known that ever since she tried to introduce “socialized medicine” into the United State; she is a flaming populist socialist.

Barack is still a Democrat and has a socialist streak in him but I detect ability at independent thought; a willingness to look at all sides and come out with the best possible plan instead of the most popular.

His stance against Hillary’s (and McCain’s) plan to halt the gas tax was nothing short of brilliant. Ninety (90%) percent of people polled on the subject agreed that temporarily halting the federal tax on gasoline was a political ploy with no serious benefit for anyone. The voters saw right through Hillary and I think this one issue may have finally done her in.

She does not have to quit and probably will not but the longer she stays in the race, the more clownish she will appear until she will be nothing more than someone to be pitied.

Is she harming the Democratic Party? Well, the longer Obama fights her and she keeps attacking him; the less either candidate will appeal to the electorate. The constant in-fighting, with each candidate finding new ways to portray each other in a worsening light; exposing more and more negatives about each other will create the impression that McCain is the only sensible choice.

There are voters that will not allow another Republican, no matter who he is, into the White House but there are those that do not feel that way and are waiting to feel that something that will help them decide on the candidate to be their next president.

Hillary should resign but if she does not, Obama must begin campaigning against McCain and totally ignore Hillary; I see no other way out.

Court rejects lethal injection challenge - USATODAY.com

Court rejects lethal injection challenge - USATODAY.com

As I suspected, the Court really did not absolutely clear up anything and more challenges are expected.

Interestingly, Justice John Paul Stevens raised the question that HE THINKS that a Constitutional challenge to the "death penalty" itself will and should be raised EVEN THOUGH he voted, this time, with the majority on this "narrow" issue about the death penalty.

I have never argued with the validity of the death penalty applied to cases and people that indicated justification for such an extreme penalty BUT...

I am now totally disenchanted with our justice system especially the office of the prosecutor. I am totally convinced by past and present examples, that many prosecutors are devoid of the notion of justice and fairness and only want to win and close cases in a bid for higher office.

Just the vast amount of inmates that have been released after many years in jail on DNA evidence proving that they did not commit the crime they were accused, tried and sentenced to jail for, proves our system is far from perfect and we cannot risk executing an innocent person until the system IS perfect!

Does that mean we should stop all executions? No but I would demand "absolute" proof of guilt including DNA evidence; I would never agree to the death penalty in cases where the evidence was only "circumstantial". Even "eye witnesses have been proven unreliable.

As far as the death penalty itself being unconstitutional because it is "cruel and unusual" punishment; that argument fails because in our history it was the "usual" and not "unusual" punishment for certain crimes and as far as "cruelty" is concerned; that has been defined differently throughout our history as to method of execution culminating today in the most genteel of executions.

If your argument is that causing "death" is "cruel" then I would agree and that is why the person that caused innocent death is suffering the same cruelty he or she caused.

Jan's Stinkin Blog: LETHAL INJECTION - too uncomfortable?

Jan's Stinkin Blog: LETHAL INJECTION - too uncomfortable?

SUPREMES VOTE LETHAL INJECTION OK!

I originally wrote about this issue when it was first filed with the Supreme Court (November 12, 2007) - click on link above for text of blog.

The vote was 7-2 with Ruth Ginsburg and David Souter dissenting.

I will have to read the formal opinion to see the basis for the Court's decision but I remembered arguing in my initial comment that there ARE better methods of lethal injection than the 3-drug current method that appears to be hard to administer and may cause unintended "suffering".

The original case brought by two inmates from Kentucky was NOT to stop execution by lethal injection but to USE ANOTHER METHOD like the one-shot Barbiturate Overdose Method.

I am not sure the Supreme Court addressed that specific complaint and herein lies the problem; they don't want to judge what IS "cruel & unusual punishment" and so this issue will keep dragging on - a bullet in the back of the head causes death so fast that the inmate has no time to feel pain - so is it painless for the inmate but painful for us?

Send Iraq Supporters to Iraq / Bring troops home!

Just a quick note to all of you Iraq War supporter nutcases; the Iraq government fired 1,300 government soldiers and police because they deserted rather than obey orders to subdue the Shiite militia under the cleric al-Sadr.

This again shows you that an Iraqi government does not really exist and can never really exist. It is not even Shiite against Sunni; it’s Shiite against Shiite, secular vs. cleric and a civil war will happen whether we leave today or in a 100 years.

Bush just said that he will do nothing for now which means the asshole will leave HIS problem for the next president.

Bush started the war, killed over 4,000 U.S. troops and leaves his mess to the next president. I think all those that supported Bush in his Iraq adventure should be sent to Iraq (and you know who you are) and all the troops there now, allowed to come home for good – deal?

Pope: 'Ashamed' of clergy abuse scandal - Yahoo! News

Pope: 'Ashamed' of clergy abuse scandal - Yahoo! News

Well so far the Pope is doing the "right" thing by addressing the priestly sex scandal head on, apologizing for it and vowing to prevent it from happening again. He is getting good advice or just maybe he is following his own advice. So far, so good - read all about it!

The Pope's Sex Abuse Challenge - TIME

Well I guess the Vatican listened to some of what has been talked about in the U.S. prior to the Pope's visit and now the Vatican has decided that the Pope WILL address the priestly sex scandal at least once during his visit - that's a positive sign!


The Pope's Sex Abuse Challenge - TIME

Hey, Lets Hear What The Pope Has to Say!

Hey Pope Benedict IVI is coming to the U.S. this Wednesday and much has already been written about him and he has not said a word yet.

The New York Times had one of their Catholic reporters write an article about what the Pope’s visit means to him and his Catholic family and he basically said that it means nothing to him and his seriously Catholic family.

He was more or less saying what many if not most American Catholics feel about THIS pope; nothing. Maybe they don’t know him and maybe this visit will change that.

One underlying sentiment about American Catholics that I am hearing is that they basically do what they feel is right despite what the Vatican thinks or even demands from them. I think the Pope knows this.

The other item or issue that I am hearing about is the lack of care by the Vatican about the “American” priestly sex scandals that have bankrupted a number of large parishes in this country. It appears that the Vatican thinks that by ignoring the problem people will soon forget about it. Or making it into an ONLY AMERICAN problem, world Catholics will just say “those crazy Americans, here they go again…”

I personally think the problem is worldwide and has been in existence from the beginning and the Vatican has done a great job hiding it through the centuries but is having problems in continuing to hide the problem of pedophile priests and I think the Catholics in the U.S. want the Vatican to take some responsibility, acknowledge that the problem exists and describe steps it has taken to address the problem.

I think the Pope has no plans to address the priestly sexual abuse scandal while in the States because the Vatican considers the matter “closed”. I think we may see some organized protests on the matter and why not.

Time Magazine also talked a lot about Benedict and the Americans. The magazine thought Benedict actually likes Americans and America and remembers all the good deeds we did for Europe after WWII.

The Wall Street Journal had a big piece about the President of Notre Dame and what he thought about the Pope’s visit. He is looking forward to it especially the speech the Pope will make to leaders of Catholic education. Notre Dame is not known for sticking to official Vatican teaching instructions.

Benedict is a smart man – I am looking forward to hear what the man has to say.

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!

More thoughts on the “2nd Amendment” issue before the Supreme Court; that’s the one that allows us to “bear arms”?

As I mentioned before, if you are going to interpret our Constitution in a constructionist way (as it was written and intended originally) you will have to know something about the issues back when it was being written.

The second amendment as written grants the right to bear arms to citizens ONLY as a regulated militia. I argued that since each state has a NATIONAL GUARD that takes the place of a State Militia, the amendment does not have any validity because it addresses something that DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

In cases where the Constitution does not address a specific issue, the matter is turned over to the States since it is now NOT a federal matter but a STATE matter.

BUT when I carefully studied the debate between the Federalists (pro-Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (against the Constitution) a big concern was the ability of the states to protect themselves from a too aggressive central government – yes that was a valid concern.

This issue was such a concern that for the Constitution to be ratified, the states demanded the inclusion of a BILL of RIGHTS into the Constitution to address those very issues.

So the 2nd Amendment’s purpose was to grant the states a means of protecting themselves from an overbearing central government. Yes, they meant to “fight” the central government if they did not like what they were imposing on the individual states – hard to believe in today’s U.S.

In those days, the citizens of each state would comprise the state militia and could be called upon to serve in times of crisis – fair enough?

But here is the problem, the Constitution granted power to the central government to “nationalize” the state militia if the need arose – see a conflict?

Our state national guards who took the place of state militias have been nationalized by the central government in the past. Remember Alabama and the school segregation stand-off with Wallace, et.al? Well the state national guard that was blocking entrance to the school was nationalized and told to stand down and desist, in effect, over-ruling the state.

So the writers at that time were obviously aware of the fact that the central government can always “trump” the state government by just “nationalizing” their militia so what did they really mean for the 2nd Amendment to do?

It specifically grants the bearing of arms to individuals ONLY as members of a militia and for the protection of the state NOT individual property or person.

As much as I try to see what others want me to see (individual’s right to bear arms); it’s just not in the Amendment – sorry!

That does NOT mean (and I again repeat) that individuals DO NOT have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The 2nd Amendment does NOT give them that right and the SUPREME COURT should say just that, excuse themselves and send the matter back to the STATE COURT who should decide the case based on the specific STATE CONSTITUTION.

Amen to that!

And the beat goes on and on and on...

How sad was it to watch general Petraeus come before Congress ONCE AGAIN with his hat in his hand, saying the same damn thing; we cannot pull out of Iraq right now because things are kind of fragile and it would be irresponsible and dangerous to do that right now. I suggest we wait another few months and see…

But sir, you have said the same thing every time you have come here and we have asked you – when is the war going to be over, when are we pulling our troops out, when will the Iraqis take care of themselves…

President Bush, predictably once again states that he will listen to the advice of the good general because the general is the one who knows the best course of action in Iraq at the present time…

The Wall Street Journal nods agreement and criticizes Democratic critics of the war as irresponsible politicos who don’t give a shit about anything except their own political future – what a crock of shit.

I read the Journal because I am a businessman but I have to question the sanity of its editorial board; any jackass, even Petraeus sees that the Iraqi factions are just playing us for more money and more time; rebuild everything, make us all rich and powerful and then get the fuck out.

This whole affair is beyond sad and pitiful; it is embarrassing. Even the soldiers in Iraq say get us the hell out of here – we are being used and abused for absolutely NOTHING (they are saying this on camera, on major networks).

AND the administration is asking for more BILLIONS to rebuild their police stations, etc. the same ones that they will blow up a few days after we build them…

Why are we as a people putting up with this? Are we just waiting for the elections – why, McCain is actually predicted to win and he WILL continue the war for another 100 years?

Our representatives in Congress have abandoned us and are trying to outdo each other in how much money will they give to each jackass that bought a home they could not afford – we are truly in a Twilight Zone!

Cardinal's Response Enlightened!

Thanks to Tom for sending a link to the Vienna Cardinal’s explanation as to why he approved the Hrdlicka exhibit at the Vienna Cathedral Museum with such “objectionable” material.

It is obvious that Cardinal Schonborn had no idea about any individual works to be displayed but generally, knew that Alfred Hrdlicka (80) was a well respected artist with some well known and praised pieces of art. The museum director was directly responsible for the pieces on display and I think, was responsible for selecting them in the first place as he was the curator of the show.

In any case, I found the Cardinal’s explanation, or if you prefer, his justification for the exhibit quite refreshing and oh so “enlightened”! Quite frankly, I was stunned.

He obviously rejected as inappropriate any works that “committed Christians” clearly viewed as blasphemous or pornographic but he held out his hand of encouragement to those artists that are not committed Christians but still feel the need to express themselves in their art on biblical issues. It’s as if the Cardinal welcomed a religious dialog with an unbeliever or a searcher, no matter how the subject was raised.

Number one, the Cardinal’s response was a huge antithesis to the response the Muslim clerics had to the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The Islamic clerics called for death and torture to the infidels that perpetrated this crime against Allah and his prophet, etc, etc……………..ad nauseam!

I swear it is like the clash of the Age of Enlightenment with the Dark Ages. On the one hand you have a cleric comfortable with his faith and his god and on the other, clerics that still treat their god as a puppet that needs to be dressed and fed daily and protected against people that may say bad things against him.

I hope my praise at the way this whole situation was handled is not premature. I am not sure if the same situation would have been handled with such civility in the United States. Remember the “Crucifix in a glass of Urine” debacle some years back; even some U.S. Congressmen threatened to remove all federal funding for the museum that displayed that piece of “art”.

I still have to examine my initial and probably lasting revulsion to the little I saw of the pieces. I can blame natural heterosexual revulsion instincts to homoerotic art even though I am in no way anti-gay. I can also blame no understanding for the artist’s message; maybe that will be explained to me.

Telling me that some of Hrdlicka’s works represent the “carnality of religion” does not really do much for my understanding of his message, if there is one but obviously, I will defend his right to express it – every time!

A Catholic Art Exhibit Gives Pause!

There was news of an art exhibit in Vienna, Austria at a museum attached to the Roman Catholic Cathedral there. The art works were by renowned Austrian artist Alfred Hrdlicka who was celebrating his 80th birthday with his show entitled “Religion, Flesh & Power”.

I saw a brief video of the pieces on exhibit and I read descriptions of the art works and I will tell you; I was a bit stunned.

Mind you, this exhibit was put on and therefore sanctioned by the Catholic Church in Austria and the museum curator is amazed at having to defend the exhibit.

I will hasten to say that one piece “The Last Supper” is basically a homosexual orgy of the Apostles – graphic to say the least. Another piece showed the crucifixion with a Roman soldier basically holding Jesus’ privates while whipping him. These are just short glimpses that I had. The video was done by GLORIA TV which is a Catholic web site.

There are a lot of themes playing here. Obviously, some Catholics cried “blasphemy” and were very confused how this exhibit came to be supported by the Church.

Others mentioned the Mohammed Cartoons in Denmark and how this was similar in the outrage it provoked – BUT NO ONE WAS RIOTING – YET – and we shall see if Austrians can show the Muslims what freedom of speech really means in Europe.

An Austrian Cardinal did yank the “Last Supper” off the wall but was quick to add that it was NOT CENCORSHIP but, in his words, “reverence for the sacred” – interesting!

I will follow this story a bit because it so intrigued me but also my own initial negative reaction to the exhibit intrigued me – why?