Priestly Celibacy

Sunday, August 28, 2005

To:     The Detroit News
Re:     “Priestly celibacy a joy”, Letter, August 28.


In the August 28th letter, “Priestly celibacy a joy”, the letter writer states that Jesus was celibate and priests accept celibacy in imitation of Jesus.

Religious scholars admit that there is no proof that Jesus was celibate. Some even admit that Jesus could have been married, as was the custom in those days.

Celibacy was imposed on priests as a way to stop Church property from being bequeathed to the priest’s children. I suppose the Church could have stopped the practice by less drastic means.

MY FIRST WEDDING

I have been to many wedding in my time but this is the first one involving one of my children.

My daughter married a gentleman from Scotland this Friday in a beautiful ceremony and reception at the Belle Isle Yacht Club.

It was a colorful wedding with the groom and his men all attired in traditional Scottish kilts. My son and I were the only ones in tuxedos.

The ceremony was conducted by an official of the humanist group. As the name of the group suggests, members believe in the best of our human nature and what that nature can achieve. Their philosophy relies on facts or knowledge that can be substantiated. In other words they are not religious and do not invoke supernatural beings.

I thought the ceremony was quite touching with all the right words and sentiments expressed.

Marriages bring together families and in this case one family with basically Polish / Ukrainian roots and the other Scottish. We will celebrate the union once again in October but this time in Scotland - which I am really looking forward to.

The wedding was not a traditional Polish wedding but then again the couple was not exactly young. Both in their early 30s, the couple planned their own wedding according to their own wishes and it was quite impressive.

They are off to Hawaii for the honeymoon. When they get back - married life begins in earnest.

Janusz

PETER JENNINGS

Just a quick note on the passing of Peter Jennings, the long time anchor of ABC World News Tonight.

I basically grew up listening to the man every evening and continued till the day he had to leave because of lung cancer. I really thought he would come back and was surprised when they announced his death.

He really went fast after announcing he will begin chemotherapy in April 2005. I should have known it would be fast because usually they perform surgery first to remove affected nodules. Chemotherapy meant that they could no longer localize the cancer and had to use a shotgun method that never really works.

Peter Jennings was cool, calm and collective in his reporting even when a glimmer of emotion broke through the cracks. I respected his knowledge (highschool dropout), caring and his oh so professional delivery.

I guess at my age (58), I start noticing the passing of people I knew for a long time. People I became accustomed to and people that became a part of my daily life.

Oh well, time marches on and after all we are just players on a stage ...

Janusz

BACK IN TOWN

I have spent the last two weeks in Florida. First, attending the annual AACC (American Association of Clinical Chemists) Convention in Orlando and then taking my dealer from Poland (two couples) to visit the Florida Keys.

It was hotter than hell but I had a good time and learned some things along the way - some topics to discuss on this blog.

I visited the Keys many years ago when my kids were young but many things remained the same and I had no trouble finding my way.

It never ceases to amaze me how large and beautiful our country is. My European business partners were definitely amazed.

The Florida Everglades are a sight to behold. Taking an airboat ride through them is quite amazing even though I was totally soaked. My friends could not get enough of the alligators.

The glass-bottom boat ride to the reef was great but the women got sick when they did not pay attention to me when I said keep your eyes on the horizon every so often and not only at the glass bottom - oh well.

Key West is a great little town even though very commercial. You should experience the town and its history and myths at least once.

Janusz

BUSH AND JOHN ROBERTS

Bush is a smart boy. He picks a young, white guy with no history for the Supreme Court. The Democrats cannot object to him because he has no history, i.e. no judicial decisions that would indicate how he feels about certain subjects like abortion and civil rights. He does not have to answer direct questions posed by Senate Democrats like "Would you repeal Roe vs. Wade?" therefore he will be confirmed in no time.

John Roberts is a devout Catholic and an admitted conservative. His wife is a lawyer and openly anti-choice and does pro bono work for anti-choice organizations. Chances are very good that he feels JUST like his wife does.

President Bush would not name a person to the Supreme Court unless he was sure that person would do his bidding and Roberts is his man. Bush knows about previous Republican appointees to the Supreme Court who turned out to vote with the liberals and he is not going to let that happen again. This man will ensure a conservative court for a good long time (he is only 50).

Why did previous Republican appointees did not turn out as conservative as republicans had envisioned? I think people that finally make it to the court can truly be themselves. They cannot be fired and do not owe anything to any individual or group. This freedom and the realization that their decisions will influence, for better or worst, this country and its people, makes some of them see certain issues in a different light; a light different from their pre-Supreme Court days.

I also feel that Supreme Court Judges, rely on their values learned through their upbringing and their own life experiences - age brings wisdom through experience. When you appoint someone that is young (50) and had very little experience in life (law school to law firm to judge), you have someone that really does not have much background to draw wisdom from and I think Bush picked Roberts for that very reason - he will vote conservative like a robot.

Roberts will be confirmed and he will do some damage BUT there is always hope that as the years go by and he sees the results of his decisions that he will gain some wisdom and vote using that wisdom.

On the other hand, Bush can pack the Court with religious zealots, overturn Roe vs. Wade and bring on the "Big Brother" era. It can happen.

Janusz

THE "FLAG" QUESTION YET AGAIN?

I am as patriotic as any American. I spent four (4) years in the military during the Vietnam War and many more years in the ready reserves after that BUT this question CHANGING OUR CONSTITUTION to make burning our flag a crime, has me baffled.

First, I do not see how with all the shit going on in this country and the world, that Congress has to take the time to focus on a NON ISSUE. That's right - a non issue. I defy you to explain to me why this is a burning (no pun intended) issue. The total drivel that is emanating from Congress about why this is an important issue is plain insulting to any one with half a brain cell.

Let me tell you why.

Our flag is a symbol. It is one of our greatest symbols. It speaks volumes about who we are, where we have been and where we are going. It has been tarnished somewhat by Bush and his antics, but as a symbol, it is HUGE.

The flag is also a piece of cloth and has been burned and mutilated by many opposed to the United States and what it stands for. It has also been (rarely) used by Americans to protest our government's actions.

Notice that I mentioned the word "rarely" when it comes to Americans burning our flag in protest. It is not something that happens often - we need to remember that when we argue that this is such a hot issue needing to be addressed immediately.

Anyway, we as Americans are guaranteed our freedom of expression by the First Amendment and that includes using our flag as a protest vehicle. That is why men and women have died under this same flag; to guarantee our freedoms for ourselves and for our children. Why then would we pass a law taking away that freedom. It makes no sense to me on a logical level but I can see how people would get carried away with emotion on this issue.

BUT to change OUR CONSTITUTION for an emotional reason is just plain stupid and makes us look like a bunch on uneducated, emotional twits.

Janusz

IRAQ REVISITED

It is now quite apparent and History will show, that the neo-conservative group's plan to bring about a new world order was adopted by President Bush years ago. What this means is that the attack on Iraq was part of this plan and all Bush had to do was invent reasons to justify the attack and he did. The recent "British Memo" basically confirms what many knew all along.

Was lying to the nation and sacrificing American and European lives justified. It is if you look at the BIG picture.

The Middle East was and is getting out of control. Religious terrorists want to change the world according to their plans. This entails making the Middle East a militant theocracy which will, eventually, destroy the godless West.

The neo-conservative group believes that to thwart the terrorist's plan, they have to remake the Middle East into something similar to the West; a democratic, progressive society.

To do that, they need to introduce democracy into the Middle East. Saddam and Iraq gave them the perfect opportunity and so they took it.

Was the war on Iraq inevitable? Many will argue that it would have happened sooner or later. Many point to positives that have already occurred because of the war. Look at Libya which now wants to be buddy-buddy because Bush scared the shit out of them. How about Lebanon and the expulsion of Syrian forces. Egypt is moving, ever so slightly, in the direction of an eventual democracy. Iran is holding elections that will probably put it closer to the West. Did our attack of Iraq speed up the process to democratization? I think you cannot ignore the impact it has had and will continue to have on the thinking of people in the Middle east.

Can we win in Iraq? I don't think so. The country was artificially created by the British. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis were not meant to live in the same country. Only a dictator could accomplish that as Saddam did. Look what happened to Yugoslavia when Tito died - it split up along ethnic lines.

Should we create three (3) separate countries? That would be hard and impractical to do. One radical idea is to finally create a KURDISTAN. These people have been around since the beginning of time and have never had a country of their own. With a new Kurd country in existence, the parts of Iraq occupied by the Sunnis and the Shiites should be split and attached to IRAN and JORDAN along religious lines.

Hey, I know it is radical but the way things look now, we will continue to lose American lives and billions of dollars on a daily basis ad infinitum - so think radical.

Janusz

THE CONFUSED DEMOCRATS

Recently I have been reading reports how the Democratic Party has been hiring a lot of consultants to tell them how to win back voters and therefore political power in Washington, D.C.

It was kind of pitiful to hear how they are thinking of maybe changing their stance on certain issues like abortion / anti-choice, so called values issues, religion, etc. For the democrats to even entertain changing their political philosophy means that they think ALL the voters went over to the Republicans.

May I remind the Democratic leadership, whoever the hell they may be at this time, that 50% of American voters voted AGAINST Bush and the Republicans. This was NO landslide by any stretch of the imagination. They do not have to panic and make really, really stupid decisions.

The Democrats have to understand that some of the voters that went with Bush will always vote for someone like Bush. These are the right wing religious fundamentalists that will always go backwards and they actually do prefer to live in the dark ages. They are scared of change and progress and any new thinking. Leave these people alone - they are doomed to vote Republican forever.

The Iraq war was the crucial question facing voters in the Bush / Kerry election. Kerry did not make a convincing enough argument for himself and Bush one. These voters vote on issues and therefore they vote either way - they are not committed to any one party. These are the voters you need to go after.

The passage of time revealed that indeed Bush was lying about basically everything. He had an agenda and he was going to stick to it no matter what he had to do. More on his agenda in a future blog - his agenda may actually have some merit to it no matter how conniving.

Anyway, the war in Iraq is going badly. There is no end in sight. Americans are dying on a daily basis. Iraq cannot sustain a unified political system. The country is basically split into three parts and there is no trust between them. A civil war is a given once the Americans leave. What do we do. Do we leave like in Vietnam and let the Communists take over?

In Iraq a civil war will bring in all the supporting powers; Sunni, Shia and Kurds (who supports them?). Could even start a larger war. So here is the Democrat's chance - come up with an answer / strategy that the voters will buy. Have a plan that brings our troops home in as short a time as possible.

Don't waste your time with this "VALUES" horse-shit. All Americans have basic values. The question is really about "RELIGION". Even Bush has been seen backtracking on this religion question. He knows it can bite him on his ass. People are not stupid and they can see when these religious zealots are starting to become absurd and more importantly, a danger to the rest of us.

The Democrats should stick to their basic religious philosophy: religion is a private matter, religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution and our Constitution dictates a strict separation between Church and State. This means oppose church based anything in the government.

Big issues like abortion / choice and gay marriage are not value or moral issues, they are RELIGION again. The law of the land is to give women a CHOICE about whether to have an abortion or not. Again, law of the land! If your religion prohibits abortion - DON'T DO IT! Otherwise, it is no one's business what people decide about their own lives. The Democrats should maintain their pro-choice stance and not waiver at all or they will lose the voters they have.

Gay marriage is again about RELIGION. We are very close to proving the fact that being gay is a biological / genetic predisposition and therefore NOT A PERSONAL CHOICE. As a heterosexual male, I have always found it down right ignorant to imagine a hetero male could EVER chose a homosexual lifestyle. Only total morons would think that.

Gays are people and American citizens and deserve all the rights of American citizens and the Democrats should continue to support strongly that position - or they will lose the voters they have.

What the Democrats MUST change is their socialist / communist position on finance. Americas are moderate when it comes to spending money ( I am conservative) and they do not like or want their money thrown about trying to solve social ills. Be like Bill Clinton was - a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

If the Democrats keep disintegrating, this country will need a third party. It may be high time for one anyway. Howard Dean may not be the answer the Democrats need right now. Keep looking maybe you will find another Bill Clinton.

Janusz

INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

In Kansas, the so called "hayseed state" by teachers and scientists, the State Board of Education is discussing the introduction of a concept called "intelligent design" to take the place of "creationism" in the battle of religion against the teaching of evolution.

Creationism has lost a lot of ground since the "Monkey Trial". It is not science but a religious belief based on the first book of the Bible - Genesis.

Finally people realized that "evolution" is not a theory but a proven fact with more evidenced discovered every day. The "theory" part comes into place when the discussion turns to how evolution took place or more importantly, how it all started. Darwin suggested "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest".

The religious right, desperate to keep God in evolution, has proposed the theory of intelligent design and is pushing to have that theory taught along side evolution in our public schools.

The intelligent design theory maintains that nature in general is just too complicated to have arisen through evolution. This especially applies to living creatures. They propose a deliberate and intelligent design and therefore an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! They do not say GOD but hey, we all know what they mean.

There is a simply fascinating article titled "Unintelligent Design" by Jim Holt in the New York Times Magazine that details many of the arguments against intelligent design.

I personally believe that until the time when we absolutely know who and how the world and everything in it came to be, we cannot discount a higher intelligence (God) having something to do with it. The point is that whether God had something to do with evolution or not, you cannot deny that we (humans) have evolved from earlier beings.

Jim Holt, in his Times Magazine article takes on intelligent design by pointing out how many things in nature, including ourselves, are not designed well. In fact, some things are downright stupid - male nipples.

He points out that 99 percent of the species that have ever existed on this earth are now extinct. That means they have died out because they were too flawed to survive in our environment.

Some scientists maintain that God was just involved in the very beginning - providing the spark that created the first cell - after that evolution took place without the guidance of God.

Hey, you can come up with all sorts of scenarios BUT they would all be just speculations - theories. Jim Holt reminds us that Pope John Paul II said that evolution has been "proven true" and that "truth cannot contradict truth" and he was no slouch when it came to Christian theology.

So why are some people so totally clueless? You tell me.

Janusz

BUSH: U.S. MISTAKE POST WWII

I was downright shocked when I first read that Bush admitted, out loud, that the U.S. made a huge mistake after WWII by allowing Stalin to enslave millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe for over 50 years.

In case you don't remember, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill met Joseph Stalin of the USSR in Yalta, Crimea on the Black Sea. Stalin demanded Europe after the war and basically Roosevelt and Churchill gave it to him. The meeting was called the "sell-out at Yalta".

Historians have argued why this happened. Some say the Allies just wanted peace at any cost, some say they were scared of Stalin's military might and some say Stalin just lied and the Allies were too gullible. Many think Roosevelt felt that the about to be formed United Nations would control Stalin. Boy, was he wrong! Anyway, no U.S. president has ever mentioned the royal screw-up until Bush.

Maybe Bush is the only president that actually had a reason to mention the decision that led to "one of the greatest wrongs of history" - wow!

Bush has actually two reasons to mention this historic blunder. One, he wants to let Putin know that the U.S. will not stand idly by as Russia tries to retain control over its former USSR member countries - like Georgia. Bush is basically saying, we will not make the same mistake Roosevelt did in Yalta.

Bush is also justifying his invasion of Iraq and his policy to bring freedom to the Middle East. Roosevelt agreed to sell millions into Communist slavery just to keep stability in the world after WWII. Bush's rationale is, in his own words, "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny and sacrificing freedom, in the vain pursuit of stability".

I have to admire President Bush and his handlers, for having the balls to bring up unpleasant history, even if only to serve their political purpose.

It is time to allow facts of history to come to the surface and not just smile and gloss over them.
The USSR made a deal with Hitler to invade Poland and who knows what else. Once Hitler turned on the USSR, Stalin joined the Allies. Does that make him a friend oe ally or just a smart guy doing what he has to do to win. Putin had the audacity to say that the USSR liberated Europe after WWII. Now that is total bullshit that needed to be addressed by all countries - but they remained silent.

People in China are protesting because Japan denies they did anything "bad" during WWII. The Germans are the only ones that know the fucked up really bad in starting WWII.

Right now, I am giving President Bush a thumbs up for what he did and I agree that it is smart foreign policy.

Janusz

BUSH'S JUDGES

The Democrats are preventing President Bush's nominees for Federal Judgeships from getting confirmed - oh my!

Are we so stupid that we have forgotten how the Republicans blocked President Clinton's nominees for judicial openings? Or are we selectively stupid - only if it hurts OUR nominees.

My suggestion is real simple - Republicans should allow some Clinton nominees in and Democrats should allow some Bush nominees (actually the Democrats have allowed many Bush nominees already).

Allow the Democrats to question, filibuster and try to block appointment of Republican nominees who's knuckles drag on the ground.

Janusz

DRUNK DRIVING!

Recently, we had a horrific accident in Farmington Hills, a community in the Metro Detroit area.

A really drunk man (0.45% alcohol) in a very large SUV hit a mother taking her two sons to the dentist; she was making a left turn, he was going 75mph, he did not even hit his breaks. All were killed.

In Michigan, we do not seem to punish drunk driving in such a way that people would think twice before they got behind the wheel of a car after drinking.

I am no angel, in my younger years I did drive after drinking. I am thankful for never hurting any innocent people. Now with age and hopefully a little more wisdom, I feel our laws need to change.

In the recent case, the man should be charged with second degree murder not driving under the influence. He should spend most of the time left in his life behind bars - period.

More importantly, Michigan laws should be much stricter for early offenders in the hope of teaching them never to drink and drive.

First offence, take their license away for a few months. Have them pay a hefty fine and have them visit a counselor. Second offence, take their license away for a few years, huge fine, time behind bars, alcoholism treatment. Third offence, throw the book at them.

I have seen strict laws work in Europe where people take taxis to parties and take the designated driver policy VERY seriously. It can work here.

Janusz

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER?

Recently, a city within the metro Detroit area, Troy, had to deal with a dilemma involving the National Day of Prayer. This day was designated by Congress sometime in the 1950s as a special day set aside for all Americans to pray for the United States.

In the city of Troy, a VERY diverse community, a Christian group asked the City Council for permission to hold a prayer meeting at the Veteran's Plaza. The same group has been supposedly doing this for the last 10 years.

This year, a interfaith group of Hindus, Muslims and other non-Christians asked to join the group in celebrating the NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER observance.

The Christian group said no. They were not going to pray to someone else's stinkin God.

The City Council thought about it and decided to let the Christians have their way - by a slight majority. Many letters to the editor were written and the NEWS even wrote an editorial which I feel did not go far enough in addressing the real issue.

Our Constitution specifically mandates a separation of Church and State; government will not endorse any specific religion - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The Troy City Council, by allowing ONLY the Christians to have a special session on PUBLIC PROPERTY, basically endorsed THAT religion as special and lumped all other religions into an interfaith group. To me, that is ENDORSING a specific religion over others by giving that religion preferential treatment and therefore in violation of the U.S. Constitution. I assumed the Troy City Council knew better but I was wrong.

Even if the Council did not know any better they should have respected the DIVERSITY of the Troy population; the people that vote for them.

Obviously, the Christians have no sense of NATIONAL as in we are all Americans. They are arrogant and plain stupid. They don't even follow what Jesus has taught. Jesus rebuked a Pharisee as a hypocrite for praying in public so others could see him. Jesus said you should pray to the Father in secret...".

So why do these so called Christians demand to pray on public property and in public? Can't they pray in their homes, their Churches, in the park, etc. Does their God hear their prayers only when they are said on public property?

These so called Christians want power. They want to tell us what is right and what is wrong, how we should behave, what clothes we should wear, what TV shows we can watch and what music we can listen to. Is this a free country or what!

Remember that our Founding Fathers foresaw this very danger of a theocracy (government by religion like Iran) and that is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. Do not let these so called Christians defile our Constitution.

Janusz

BUSH'S SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN

President Bush had a very long press conference recently where he again pushed his plan for allowing private retirement savings accounts within the Social Security System. In a nut shell, a wage earner can elect to divert part of his Social Security wage deduction into a private fund that the wage earner could control, i.e. invest in his choice of investment products.

What would the Bush plan do for the Social Security System. Bush says the system is in trouble. How would his proposal get the Social Security System out of trouble. Well, by his own admission, it would do nothing to save the SS System. In fact, it would actually hurt it by diverting funds out of the system. So why is he pushing it? I can only speculate because no one has come up with a valid reason.

If we look at the Chile plan which included private retirement accounts, we now know that the system failed because the workers opting for the plan did not realize the great amount of retirement money that would go to plan brokers as commissions. The UK had a similar experience. So is that what Bush wants - make Wall Street billions in commissions? Maybe.

Workers today can join a 401(k) plan at work which takes pre-tax money and invests it according to the worker's wishes. Workers can also contribute to IRA (Individual Retirement Accounts) if they have no pension plans at work. The money contributed to these IRA accounts can then be deducted from one's taxes. Even if you have a 401(k) at work, you still can contribute to an IRA account. You cannot deduct the contribution from your taxes but the interest that investment makes is tax free until you start using it at retirement.

With these retirement options, why is Bush pushing another option; one that can hurt the Social Security System for millions of retirees.

Our Social Security System means one thing to our workers: a guaranteed retirement plan. They can count on that money when they retire come hell or high water. It is automatic. It is not a lot but it comes every month.

This plan cannot just go on forever. Adjustments have to be made. Retirees are healthier and living longer therefore collecting benefits longer. As baby boomers retire, there will be less younger workers to support the retirees. What this means is that more money will be going out than coming in. Once that starts happening it is only a matter of time before the money runs out.

One thing to remember; Social Security is NOT in any imminent danger of collapse. Economists say we can keep going without any changes till about the year 2052. That is a long time from now.

Adjustments made today can extend that trouble free period much longer. One adjustment has already been implemented - raising the retirement age. Since we are healthier and live longer, this makes a lot of sense.

Another adjustment is to raise the cap on wages that can be taxed. Right now the limit is $90,000. Why not increase that gradually to say $120,000 or more. I would not increase the actual tax rate since I feel it is high enough right now.

Bush is starting to favor a plan where SS benefits will be determined based on a person's wealth - the richer, the less SS benefits you are going to get. Well I think that is a bunch of bullshit. A person pays into the system all his or her life only to see their contributions go to someone else? No way. I want what is rightfully mine and that is not greed, it is fairness.

I urge all voters to contact their elected representatives to tell them to make sure Bush does not tamper with the Social Security System. His motives are very suspect. He needs money for his IRAQ war and he is willing to do basically anything to get it.

Janusz

Blaming the "UNINSURED"

My local Sunday paper contained more columns by people blaming the medically uninsured for all our healthcare problems.

I agree that these so called uninsured do use the emergency room (very expensive) for all their aches and pains and leave without paying. The hospitals / clinics are forced by law to offer treatment, even at no charge.

Patients with health insurance are billed excessively just to cover the costs of treating the uninsured. Insurance premiums just keep going up and up.

So who are these dastardly uninsured that are causing all these problems in our health care system?

Well, we know that they are too wealthy to apply for MEDICAID and too young to be on MEDICARE. They obviously do not receive health insurance from their employer and obviously do not purchase health insurance on their own.

A recent study by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan found that out of 1.1 million uninsured in Michigan, 176,000 lived in households with an income of over $75,000 and 187,000 live in households with annual incomes over $50,000.

Many of the uninsured are 19-25 year olds that are no longer covered by their parent's health policies but cannot afford to buy their own coverage and feel that they are young and healthy enough not to need any health coverage (which age group has the most accidents).

I feel one reason why the uninsured do not purchase health insurance is that the only insurance policies available are VERY EXPENSIVE. This is because our State government has some stupid law that forced insurance companies to offer only policies that covered basically everything thus expensive!

An uninsured person would be more apt to purchase a insurance policy if it was affordable and offered options from basic coverage to super deluxe. Also policies for healthy 19-25 year olds that reflected the fact that they ARE young and healthy and were cheap, cheap.

Even with affordable, smart policies some if not more of the uninsured would still say, hey, I can get health care for free by just going to the ER.

Well, here is where we need some balls - MAKE HEALTH COVERAGE MANDATORY. Yes, just like you need auto insurance to get a license plate, you will need health insurance to see a doctor or you will be directed to a special clinic where you will be treated and then arrested - or something -don't have that part quite figured out yet.

Janusz

GM's HEALTH PROBLEM

GM has just confirmed that the cost of health care is a real crisis for them. Costs are expected to increase 7-8% to 5.6 BILLION. They just posted a HUGE loss for the quarter.

Excuse me if I don't cry but they did create this crisis with their eyes wide open and now they want help. GM and the unions want the federal government to step in and make the problem go away by instituting a national health plan - not so fast. That is a subject for another blog. Lets see what can be done.

The UAW said that they are unwilling to re-open their contract; as expected. GM has historically given the unions everything they desired just to keep them from striking. They are now paying for that corporate idiocy. I hope the hundreds of lawyers on the GM payroll are going over that contract with a fine-tooth comb to see if they can spot any holes in it.

1. Health coverage for retired GM workers needs to be brought into reality. Currently they are covered by Medicare as well as private insurance. They need to be switched to a "Medicare Plus" plan offered by local HMOs. In this plan, Medicare covers most of the costs with the "Plus" coverage kicking in to cover the rest. Drugs and office visits should have at least a $10 deductible.

2. Move UAW workers into the white-collar health plans. Currently, what UAW workers receive as health care coverage is downright obscene, wasteful and in no way realistic. Their plan is unsustainable in today's economy. UAW workers basically contribute 7% towards their health coverage; that is a joke. White-collar workers contribute 27%. Both groups of workers should be placed into the 30% contributing rate. Co-pays, deductibles and premium contributions should be instituted at once.

The above are not really sacrifices; they are a dose of reality the rest of us in the country are dealing with.

GM also needs to stop quarterly stock dividend payments. If this is a real crisis lets behave accordingly.

GM is responsible, first, to its stockholders (owners) and they must not forget that. The UAW needs to protect its members and their futures and therefore needs to work hand in hand with GM to guarantee the health of the corporation.

Asian companies are kicking our asses. They have the luxury of avoiding all the historical mistakes we have made in this auto industry but we are Americans and we need to show the world that we invented the modern auto industry and we can re-invent it if need be and the need is REAL.

Janusz

Janusz 

Kilpatrick - Worst Mayor!

Time Magazine has recently designated Kwami Kilpatrick, Detroit's Mayor, as one of the worst mayors in the country.

Kilpatrick was on the fast track. Young and hip-hop, family in politics, brash and arrogant, articulate and really, really full of himself. Mayor to Governor to Senator to President?

All Kwami had to do was handle this mayor gig and solidify his reputation as a can-do politician. Well, he blew it.

He appointed his cronies from the hood to important positions and was surprised when they turned out to be real hoods and quite incompetent.

He surrounded himself with an elaborate security force and fired anyone that suggested after hours improprieties.

He purchased a luxury vehicle for his wife with city money but denied it until he could not deny it any more. This at the time the city is laying people off because of lack of funds.

Our daily newspapers document the millions of dollars lost by the city because of plain ole' incompetence; forgetting to file something on time, forgetting to spend allocated money on time, etc.

The big picture reveals a city in shambles, no one really in charge and no real future. Another election will bring in new faces but will that save the city? I don't think so. The bureaucracy that has been embedded in the city since Coleman Young's days will not leave and politicians do not have any political balls to throw them out.

No, Detroit needs a dictator or at least be placed into receivership under the guidance of a professional.

This professional would outsource all city work to private contractors. All administrative posts would be filled by competent professionals not political cronies.

The City Council would be dissolved. A new advisory City Council would be elected on a "ward system" basis and not "at-large". It would not have any powers accept advisory. It would have a bare-bones budget.

The city budget would be balanced and remain so as a legal requirement.

In time, city dwellers would reap the rewards of such a drastic move; they would actually have dependable services and lower taxes.

In time, an elected official could be re-introduced into city government but with restrictions - you do not want to go back to the ole' days again.

Is this scenario realistic? NO. Our Governor doers not have the political balls to place the city into recievership even if it is the right thing to do and for the benefit of the people. Detroiters would call this a racist move trying to deprive them of their freedoms. So there is no hope?
Probably.

I was raised in Detroit and still say I am from Detroit when I travel BUT I am disgusted with the city and more and more look on it as a joke. If the citizens re-elect Kilpatrick, the joke gets sicker.

Janusz

Why Ratzinger?

I was surprised at the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany as the next Pope but I should not have been.

A key feeling among the Cardinals, I think, was to give the legacy of Pope John Paul II a chance to continue to work its magic without jumping into a young Pope eager to also make his mark on the world. I guess they wanted a rest period of sorts.

The new Benedict XVI is 78 and definitely a staunch conservative. He will not rock the boat and at 78, he probably will not reign for a very long time - they hope. He looks pretty fit to me and very mobile.

Pope John XXIII was 77 when he came to the Papacy and he instituted Vatican II in his short time in Office but Benedict XVI is not John XXIII and would prefer to leave things the way they are, in fact, maybe tighten the screws a little more.

Catholic liberals are disappointed as they should be but hey, when things start falling apart maybe even these aging conservatives will agree that things need to change.

Janusz

The Polish Pope is Dead.

As a Polish-American, I was very proud to hear that a Polish cardinal was named Pope; the first non-Italian in some 400 years.

The fact that he was fluent in many languages, athletic, good looking and willing to travel all over the world, made me even prouder.

To me, his crowning achievement was being instrumental in the eventual demise of Communism. He not only freed his own people but also the countless millions suffering under the control of the USSR regime.

His willingness to visit Catholics all over the world changed how people perceived the Pope and the Papacy. The Papacy was no longer just a "European" institution. He became known as a Pope of and for, the people, especially the young who treated him like a Rock Star.

Pope John Paul II reached out to other religions, especially Judaism. Coming from Poland, he knew, first hand, what happened to the Jews in Poland under the Nazis; he lived in the Auschwitz vicinity near Krakow. He was painfully aware of the prevailing view of Poles, Catholics, Christians - that the Jews were Christ Killers and therefore somehow deserved the holocaust.

During WWII under Pope Pius XII, the Papacy came under extreme criticism for appearing to side with the Nazis against the Jews by not condemning the wholesale slaughter of the Jews. Even the city of Rome, the actual Vatican sector, is accused of not providing shelter to the Jews living within its confines.

Pope John Paul II tried to repair the damage between the Catholics and the Jews. In his last will and testament, the Pope mentions only two men; one, his personal secretary and the other, the Rabbi of Rome who welcomed him into the Roman Synagogue, early into his Papacy.

Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) was no John XXIII; he was conservative to the core. He believed in tradition and felt his main job was to maintain that tradition. He believed that deviating from tradition, rocking the boat in any way, only weakened the Church. He appointed like-minded individuals to positions of power in the Church.

He had a long reign (26 years) and therefore had some impact on the Church, Catholics and on our society in general. His impact will be debated but definite positives and negatives are quickly emerging.

To me, one very large negative was his lackadaisical handling of the priestly sex scandal. The scandal was mostly an American problem but only in that the crimes of priests in other countries have not yet been exposed.

The Pope, at first seem to doubt the validity of the accusations. Later, when forced to address the problems, he mumbled something about the need to protect the children. He flat out dropped the ball on this one and as the leader of the Church, dropping the ball was not permissible. To me he was out of touch. Maybe too full of tradition and not enough of reality.

His second negative, according to me, was his refusal to address the realities of contraception. We are not talking about abortion, we are talking planned parenthood as opposed to having all the children God intended you to have until you finally die in childbirth or you and your children starve to death because you cannot support all the kids God is blessing you with.

He banned the use of condoms as means of contraception, helping to spread AIDS and ironically, increase the number of abortions performed in the world. A majority of American Catholics just smile at this official stance of the Church on contraception and do what they feel is only sensible and rational. I don't see how they can suffer the hypocrisy.

Not allowing priests to marry is again the result of his blind devotion to tradition even though priests did marry in the past according to Church history. Priestly marriage was banned to prevent leaving Church money and property to the priest's heirs. The Church could have simply banned the heirs from inheriting Church property. Other religions, including Christian Orthodox , have allowed priestly marriage from the beginning without any problems.

The official Church position against priestly marriage is that the priest has to devote his entire being to the service of God, Church and his flock; there is no room for a family because that would detract him from his mission. I am afraid that argument does not hold any water; the Church already allows married priests with families (converts from other religions) so it can not be a critical factor.

Allowing priests to marry may have helped keep the Catholic Church from being a favorite destination of pedophiles. Some may scoff at this rationale but statistics do not lie and please remember we are only hitting the tip of the iceberg and what about the centuries we will never know anything about.

Women as priests? This was true in the early history of the Church. In fact, women bishops were very important to the growth of the early Church. It did not take long for men to get the upper hand and put women in their place.

The fact that Jesus had twelve male apostles means absolutely nothing in the tradition of having priests be only of the male gender. The male dominated Church made the rules and created the traditions. Who was present when Jesus died on the cross - only his female followers. Who did the resurrected Jesus appear to first - not to no stinkin males.

Most Biblical scholars agree that Paul's letters Timothy 1&2 as well as Titus were not written by Paul but by some later author of one of the churches. The author used Paul's name to grant "authority" to his own views about Church organization. The author insisted that women be silenced and brought under control.

Tradition yes but with modern scholarship debunking that tradition, change could be scripturally justified. Yet the Pope chose to keep the false pretense alive and he was reported to be quite a Biblical scholar himself.

Let us see what the new Pope will bring to the table. He needs to bring something because the Church is running out of priests and it is running out of credibility.

Janusz