Observations of Planet Earth

Okay, you have all heard of the woman in California who gave birth to eight babies right? I guess that was not a record, but we can hope the human body cannot hold many more than that.

Now, before I start, let me make this clear. I don’t object to multiple births, even those induced by fertility drugs. I understand the desire on the part of some to have children, and thus the use of drugs to help in that process when the old fashioned ways don’t work. I even understand the “moral” decision not to reduce the number of fertilized eggs that implant successfully.

But here, I draw the line! The lady in question, I learned today, has already given birth to SIX kids, she is single,  and lives with her parents. A photo of the family home suggests that they are not rich.

What is wrong with this picture? I don’t object certainly to single women deciding to have children. I don’t object as I said to fertility drugs in general.  But please!!!! This was not a decision made out of necessity, as the only means by which this woman could have children. She has them, a six pack in fact. She apparently refused, after being told she had a kazillion implanted in her uterus that she would not participate in removing any of them.

Who is paying for all this? There were some forty-six doctors and nurses involved, she was hospitalized for weeks beforehand. Of course she will no doubt depend on donations of time, money and product to get along for years to come. She will sell her story, documentaries, movie deals and so on to finance this litter. The kids will never get the  type of attention they deserve.

My question: are their absolutely no guidelines used by the participating doctors before such procedures are approved? This whole thing seems unnecessary and frankly self indulgent in the extreme. What do you think?

I actually sympathize with Ted Haggard. I didn’t at first, when it all came to light that he was strangling the banana while being “massaged” by the gay call guy and doing the drugs.

I was even less sympathetic when a few months later, he declared himself cured and was ready to resume the pulpit and and lucrative lifestyle.

Ted is again making the circuit of the talk-shows, promoting his documentary aired I believe on HBO. (tell me if you saw it) The guy does seem genuinely honest at last. While not wanting to be labeled as gay, he doesn’t even deny now that there may be more men coming forward to chat about his “indiscretions.” He says he doesn’t expect to return to preaching.

I can’t fault a guy who says he and his wife have patched up their 30-year marriage. I mean, among heteros, sex is of huge important to some, and almost none to others. Although I suspect Haggard is truly gay, sex may not be THE most important part of his life. He and his wife have every right to declare that on balance they wish to continue their marriage. And I can’t fault the guy for thinking this religion believes gay behavior wrong, although I most strenuously disagree.

It seems he has the right to make his life the best for him. He’s not required, as some suggest, to “come out” and admit his homosexuality. Perhaps he is predominately bisexual, or mostly hetero with “tendencies.”

Whatever, if he and his family are happy with the arrangement, who am I to complain. As long as he isn’t claiming he’s been “cured” and he doesn’t seem to be, it’s none of my business.

Sex is a complicated affair and we all have our unique arrangements with spouses, significant others, or partners however described. And as long as he don’t preach what he don’t practice, I’m okay with Ted. How bout you?

It appears our new President likes to work in his shirt sleeves in the Oval Office.

Now, this may come as seem like an “okay, so what, kind of thing” but oh no, the national press was absolutely captivated by this.

It was on every major news outlet yesterday. And not just the photograph, but commentary too. You’d have thought he showed up nude or something. They claimed he was being “casual” though with that strangled piece of tie around the neck, I’d hardly call it casual. All that is missing is the jacket, and don’t most men like to keep the back from getting all wrinkly from sitting in a chair?

Apparently, I was way off my noggin. This is important chit as they say. For you see, Mr. has been Prez, Dubya, ALWAYS wore his jacket and moreover, insisted that everyone else do likewise, even on Saturdays!

And we of course, all know how well that administration went! It seems that Bush and his commandos thought that Bill Clinton who appeared in the sacred location occasionally in t-shirt and baseball cap, was most unseemly in their considered elitist mentality. They insisted that a return to the proper bowing and scraping to the “office” was required.

Which all goes to say that the accouterments of office don’t make the man, and it is unwise to attribute worship qualities to a room or office.

Worse yet, I’m told, Mr. Obama has committed a worse faux pas. He actually said the following words after a meeting with his Joint Chiefs of Staff: “We kinda lost track of time.”  Yikes, the sticklers for protocol and schedules fairly fainted. The Prez must stay on schedule!!!!!

I’m fairly happy to see my chief exec without his jacket. Now if he would only get those sleeves rolled up, I can feel even more comfortable that he is on the right track. So how many of you are reading this all dressed in business ready? Huh? Opinionnate away readers!

And a Word From Our Sponsor

A couple of days ago, I posted a writing called Sweeping out the Cobwebs. It generated a number of excellent comments, and I thought it was worth another post to explore some of them, as well as answer a couple of criticisms.

Rick Allan writes:

Sherry, I guess I understand where you are coming from regarding Benedict because of the way the press has headlined this story, i.e., “Pope revokes excommunication after bishop denies holocaust.” It’s encouraged every “Ratzi is a Nazi” extremist on the web.

But surely you know that the SSPX schism was the largest that came out of Vatican II, and I don’t know why it’s scandalous that the Church continues to try to reconcile those who left or who were excommunicated.

The great irony, of course, is that, while none of those reconciled will be able to exercise any authority in the Church without acknowledging the legitimacy of Vatican II, Benedict keeps getting reviled for somehow trying to reverse it.

For years I have asked for any particular in which Benedict (or JPII) reversed or set aside any provision of the council decisions, and no one has been able to answer the question. It’s not as if the documents of the council are hard to come by; I still have my old 700-page Crossroads “Document of Vatican II” that it seems like, at one time, every Catholic had on the shelf. But it doesn’t take much reading to see that substantially all of the last two pope’s “controversial” positions on abortion, sexual mores, ecumenicism, marriage, and church and state, are all pretty much in accord with what the Council taught.

So, I understand that you disagree with most of what the Church teaches on many of those subjects, and, in that regard, I think you plainly stand with the majority. But this idea that there’s been some sort of “conservative coup” in the Church, or some sort of Vatican II roll back, seems unsupported by the facts.

Whenever I speak about the Roman Catholic Church, I run the risk of looking like someone who is simply bashing her. Let me set the record straight. As a practicing Roman Catholic, I often criticized the Church, mostly on the issue of women’s ordination, and contraception. As time went on, the list of things I disagreed about grew.

I became aware that contrary to what I had been taught by Catholic religious as well as clergy, contraception was not a matter of personal conscience, at least to those who took the extreme right position. I was told in effect, that “correct formation of personal conscience, could not in effect be correct unless in perfect conformity with church teaching.”

Now that of course means that there is no such thing as personal conscientiousness at all. Be that as it may, I learned of this and any number of other extreme right wing views at Catholic Answers, but increasingly at websites and blogs around the web. Increasingly I found Roman Catholic clergy who were of the same opinion also on the web, and they were stating as fact, things that were to put it mildly, against the great majority of Catholic thinking from theologians and other biblical experts.

All of this led me in the end to reject the Church as proper teacher of truth AS TO ME. I have never rejected the Church itself, nor do I reject a good deal of her teaching.

It goes without saying that Benedict’s elevation to the Chair of Saint Peter was met with dismay by most progressive, liberal, and a good many middle of the road Catholics. He was not referred as the “Rottweiler” for nothing. We had experienced a very clear conservative finger wagging when it came from JPII and we expected nothing better from Benedict, and I think it is fair to say, that he is just as conservative in his outlook as JPII was.

I am no expert on Vatican affairs. I have no quarrel with the Rick’s claim that neither JPII nor Benedict has actually reversed in any manner any of the Vatican II holdings. I’m not sure that either could do so unilaterally anyway, but that is not the issue.

What I claim is that there is an atmosphere around both recent popes that says, those of you who thought Vatican II introduced a breath of fresh air into the Magisterium, are pretty much wrong. They, it seems to me, go to lengths to claim that in reality Vatican II made no such great changes in the first place. Those on the left who think it did, are patently wrong.

Where once the Latin mass was allowed in few places, today, permission is being given freely as I understand it. I have no quarrel with this, since I have always thought the Latin mass beautiful and mysterious and I enjoyed them. But the trend is obvious.

I have no quarrel with Benedict’s desire to bring the SSPX group back into the flock per se. I don’t believe generally that excommunication is a good thing. What I object to, is that the fact that it has been withdrawn to a group which is in clear opposition to Magisterial teaching, yet excommunication is being used as a hammer against priests and others who speak in favor of women’s ordination and homosexual rights. Their “sin” seems to me certainly no greater than the SSPX’s.

I do believe that JPII added a great number of new cardinals to the college. I do believe he raised those who were conservative in the same manner than he was. I believe that is why Benedict was elevated. I believe that there is little hope that the progressive, liberal element of the Church will be heard in the near future, and this is by design.

I find the some of Benedicts faux pas regarding Muslims and Jews lately to reflect this more conservative element. I find it unhelpful and counterproductive to the work so many are doing to find ways of compromise and cooperation. I determined, in my decision to leave, that I would not live to see a modernizing of the Church, which I believe she very much needs.

I agree that the issue of a particular priest holding anti-Semitic views is hardly controlling in the decision by Benedict to withdraw the interdict of excommunication. I expect that the priest in question and others who have so defiantly opposed the Church will not be placed in positions of power. But I place this against the fact that the Church is upholding and supporting the decisions of various “rogue” bishops and archbishops in the US and around the world who in fact are about the business of denying communion to others for their views.  On balance, I find that conservativism is winning.

What is most troubling to me, is that I find a definite viciousness, unchristian in nature, occurring throughout the US among a significant minority of extreme right wing Catholics. And they are most encouraged in their crusade by what Benedict and others are doing. They see that Benedict is patting them on the head and telling them they are right in their vicious assaults on people and organizations, political parties, and ideologies they don’t personally agree with.

Even so innocuous a thing as evolution is taking it’s toll. How does one argue with young earth creationists when they simply say,  show me where the  Magisterium says we may not believe these things and be in good stead with the Church. And of course, one can’t for the Church permits it, even though any sensible person who uses any modicum of logic, knows this to be utter falsehood of the most egregious kind.

Allowing the right wing to hold on to their various archaic beliefs only serves to make all Catholics look ridiculous in my opinion. I was admitted ashamed to learn that such views were held by what was at that time, my fellow Catholic brethren. I am not claiming that Catholics who cling to such notions be excommunicated or held in sin, I am simply saying that it is long past time for the Vatican to speak clearly on the subject. Have we not had enough of Galileo type issues?

Rick, I just want to say, that I value your opinions, and hope I have fairly answered you. It is seldom that people bother to visit blogs they don’t agree with, and thus comments end up being little more than simple “I agree” statements.  You make us all think and thus sharpen our arguments.

To all the rest who commented, I found your thoughts most enlightening. As to remarks about inconsistency in life issues, I agree. It is difficult to reconcile even my own views at times. I am pulled in many directions. My remarks that there is racism in some of this is true I believe. I am sure it is not for many others, who sincerely believe in what they say. However I stand by the fact that when your ONLY issue is abortion, I find it hard to vilify Mr. Obama across the board, which some people do. This gives rise, in my mind at least, that there is a more subtle evil at work here.

Death of a Virtue

Once upon a time there was a thing called honesty. You remember it I’m sure. Millions of times as a child, mother shook a finger at you and said, “don’t lie to me. If I find out you’re lying it will go much worse for you.”

Somehow that lesson has been lost. Yes, lost. Perhaps forever. No one remembers the day it died, no one attended the funeral or gave a eulogy as I recall. One day it was part of life, and then, poof, it was gone. It’s hard to recall it even now, we are so used to the alternative.

Yesterday we pondered the infamy of lying in a couple respects. We are all too aware that the economic mess we find ourselves in as a country is the result of greed and over reaching, of me first, and you second, or heck not at all. I don’t care. As long as I get mine. And I am no longer content just to live comfortably, I want to live extravagantly, like the kings and emperors of old. I want to cruise the Mediterranean, play high roller craps, feast on exotic gold leafed chocolate at Spagos. I want a Rolls Royce, a Cartier diamond to choke a mule. I want, I want, I want.

For some inexplicable reason, corporate boards find it logical to pay ginormous salaries and bonuses to those who lose money, under I guess the theory that someone else would have lost more?  Today they fire X and hire Y and another company hires X, paying him/her a bonus, and dad gum, we got lucky, he only cost us 100 million!

We, the ants of the planet, look on in wonder and well, we wonder. It’s all so above us, poor creatures that we are. We don’t recall how utterly abominable management became the standard and is rewarded. It didn’t work that way for us as receptionists and clerks and floor sweepers at Walmart. They expected us to do a job competently. Stupid us.

I keep thinking we should sue. But I wonder who? Then it came to me. The universities and colleges! Usually I am a huge supporter, but not on this. They have failed to teach students how to actual run businesses. They have failed to teach them common ethics. They have failed period. And they should be sued.

As I sat last night watching the daily rendition of how much more of the economy is headed into the crapper, I was brought up short once again. It’s nothing new, mind you. We’ve heard it all before actually. Sadly we heard it only a few days ago.

And again last night, they added another way that corporations have managed to hoodwink and cheat and lie to us once again.

A few days ago, we found out that one way companies are saving money is to water down their products. Maple syrup comes to mind. Some companies water down, what used to be 100% maple syrup. You know, the premium, expensive stuff, not the Mrs. Butterworth/Log Cabin crap, but real maple syrup.

They water down the liquid detergent you use. Goodness knows how many other things are being degraded all in the name of staying in business.

Last night the media reminded us of the other way. Reduce the amount in the package! This can be done in a number of ways. Simply reduce the size of  the package. Or, put less in the package. Best yet, slyly reconstruct the package to accept less product but retain the same size. It all means I pay more for less. And they don’t bother to tell me.

Now, I do understand the motivation. Agriprocessors and others of that ilk are paying more for ingredients and shipping and all that stuff. To avoid losses which might require more layoffs, they need to cut something. So they cut my portion. I get that.

What I don’t get is why the lying has to occur. Can’t you tell me of your problem? Can’t you offer me a choice? Perhaps I find your portions too large as is, and would actually prefer less so I wouldn’t waste as much. Some might prefer to pay a bit more for the same amount they used to get. We are not dumb beasts. We have brains. We can understand. You don’t have to lie.

But you do lie, because that’s the culture you live in. You swagger around in your designer offices and laugh at the masses, the scrabble that fixes your cars and mows your lawns and waits on you at the bank. We are the rabble that inhabit the world, a world made, you think for you alone. We are nothing but the grubby animals who sweat and stink, and populate Walmart in t-shirts and jeans, buying boxes of Cheerios and Doritos, things you don’t ingest for sure.

But you in your $500 oxfords, beware. We are also the people who donate at the local bar for the family down the road whose kid has leukemia and they have no insurance. We drop our pennies into the Salvation Army buckets. We gather at the river and fill sandbags in the spring. We give of our want to the collection plate each Sunday.

And we are as numerous as the vermin you so relate us to. And you are as rare as the Hope diamond, worldwide. And we will win, and you will lose. Because honesty still means something to us, though it means nothing to you. We can do without your KFC and MickeyD’s. We can. So take care.

We know, you see your Achilles heel. You’re damn stupid when it all comes to the end. You can’t run a company except into the ground. You have shown us that any auto mechanic can do as well. We are on to you. And you will someday be but a memory of a dark and dank day in the life of planet Earth.

Remember? The dinosaurs went extinct. It was those verminous little mammals that survived. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass you jerks!

Sweeping out the Cobwebs

As I listen to news and read, I am struck by things that, much as I wish I could, I cannot explain or understand. I thought I would set down a couple, in the hopes that somebody might give me an answer. They trouble me and make me wonder if I am somehow just organically different, or in a subset of humanity that is organically different somehow than others? It seems impossible to believe, but I find some of these things impossible to believe as well.

I read the other day that Pope Benedict XVI has seen fit to rescind the excommunication of four bishops of the Separatist group the SSPX. They generally consider Vatican II to be somehow illegal, and call themselves “traditionalists.” They continue to claim that they are the true Church, and not the one led by the Pope.

That on it’s face is most extraordinary, since ultra conservative Catholics often point at all non RCC denominations as illegal formulations of man. Many non RCC folks would of course argue that, like the SSPX, they are merely claiming to be the true repository of the faith, abandoned long ago by the Vatican and it’s practices. But no matter.

The point is not that the have been allowed back into the Church in some fashion. I find excommunication a practice that is wrong period. Exclusion is not an option, in my very humble opinion. It is not the Church’s right to deny table hospitality to anyone. And moreover, if you feel someone is in error, how do you hope to change attitudes when you keep people at arm’s length?

More to the point, the SSPX has flagrantly denied the truth of the teachings of the Church. Worse, one of the four bishops, is an active Holocaust denier. Benedict’s move seriously jeopardizes relations with the Jewish church from which we as Christians all spring.

This is in line it seems with recent Vatican moves. I have read, and don’t know the truth of the assertion, that Benedict is not well respected within the Vatican setting. In any case, he has in recent years, moved to adopt the ultra conservative position on issues. He has approved the Mexican determination to excommunicate or remove table fellowship to parliamentarians who support abortion. He has, as I’m told, supported the efforts of a few bishops and archbishops in this country who attempt to do the same.

Given that JPII went to some lengths to install new Cardinals who were favorable to his way of seeing the world, I don’t hold out much hope for the immediate future. No, I see more of the same for the RCC during my lifetime.

Things seem not to be a good deal better in my neck of the woods. The Episcopal Church seems to be on the way to losing it’s way as well. I was taught that TEC argues about everything from Monday through Saturday, and then goes to Church on Sunday and worships together. That too seems to be falling apart, as various parishes sever ties with the American Church and join others, and then squabble about who owns the property.

A quick trip around the religious forums leads to no further comfort. The ultra right wing of many churches ask some of the following questions:

• How are you surviving in an Obama world? (Mostly by claiming to withdraw their kids from public schools to keep them from learning all that socialist evil. )
• Why does God allow Protestantism? (Because Roman Catholicism is too hard for all but the best so God relented and allowed the rest of us various Protestant churches.)

That’s but a sampling, it’s just too awful to add others. My question is simple: How do you call yourself a Christian? What does it mean to you to be one? You are against the concept of global warming, why I can’t answer. You are against the idea of over-population. You are for wars of choice and the death penalty. You are against universal health care, fair wages, unions and the like.

Worse, you vilify Obama largely because of his stance on abortion. This seems to be your only real objection to the man. The average person balances good and bad and comes out in favor of that which has the most good. Yet you don’t. Why do you continue to support big business, trickle down economics, and a continuation of the growing chasm between the tiny very wealthy (of which you are not a part and never will be) and the growing underclass (of which you are most definitely a part)?

It’s no doubt politically incorrect to say this but, I don’t have to be here. I think it’s racism plain and simple. All the abortion rhetoric is just a mask for the fact that at heart you are still a racist. It’s the same when it comes to everything else that you don’t like for no good reason. You prop up yourself by telling yourself that poor people are poor because they are lazy and want handouts.

You make yourself feel worthwhile by wagging your finger at gays and lesbians calling them perverted and their orientation distorted. You of course are not asked to give up sex for life, yet you claim that God asks them to.

On the business front, more evidence that apparently our colleges and universities do not make ethics a course required of its business students.

John Thain, previous CEO of Merrill Lynch and now fired executive of Bank of America, who bought it, recently has been discovered to have paid out millions in bonuses to ML executives from bailout money. Further, he took the opportunity to fix up his corporate digs to the tune of 1.2 million.

Talk about your lack of government oversight! I mean these bozos have proven beyond any doubt that they are incompetent at their jobs,  yet we continue to hand them billions, with no strings attached.

But what gets me, is just where or where are parents, teachers, professors, a good aunt, anybody at all in all this? Did these people grow up in test tubes without a modicum of social learning? Does it take a IQ of more than 85 to get that when you have followed policies that have bankrupted and lost billions, you might not be entitled to a BONUS?????? And perhaps you can get by with the desk and chair you already have? You, sir are lucky not to be sweeping streets for a living.

Have you no honor? Have you no sense at all of common and I do mean common decency? Are you so swollen with wealth and self entitlement that you can’t understand basic concepts of right and wrong? If this is the best you can do, then buddy, I can run the company better than you can.

Has the world gone mad? Is it just me? Does anyone have an answer that makes sense? Perhaps we are in need of a smart bomb, you know, one that just kills asshats. If anyone has a spare one, I have the list!!!! The world needs a new start.  I’m ready to storm the ramparts!

I Can’t Wait for the Answers!

The question for the day: Submitted by the Contrarian, as I was innocently sipping my morning coffee.

Why is it that when it’s cold, women’s nipples get hard and men’s penises shrink?
Welcome to my world!

Amazing Grace

I guess the right thing comes along at just the right time. God is like that, popping up when you least expect him. Mired in my own black creation of life, I have been scratching frantically at habit and ritual to pull me back from the abyss that is depression. How little did I know. A movie made all the difference in the world.

We have basic cable and I’m not complaining. We find that most of the premiere movie channels rotate the same three movies all month anyway. The upside is that, in order to entice us to order, they periodically have a free weekend.  The Contrarian scours the channels and arranges to tape every movie we might enjoy. Sometimes there are a couple, sometimes a bonanza. We watched one of those captures last night, and I would like to tell you about it, and encourage you to watch it.

Made in 2006, it stars Ioan Gruffudd as William Wilberforce, known as Wilber to his friends. And his friends were powerful indeed. William Pitt, the youngest Prime Minister in British history was one of his closest friends.

Wilberforce lost his father at age 9 and inherited great wealth. He enjoyed himself for many years, and was generally an unbeliever, at least in Christ. Traveling Europe with a friend, twice, he finally came to believe. For a time, he felt that he should follow the religious life, but Pitt talked him out of it, as did his good friend and parson, John Newton.  He became an MP and looked for a cause.

Slavery became that cause. The movie is the history of how he and  a band of committed Englishmen over a long period of time finally rid Britain of that awful practice.

A couple of important facts I learned. One was that William Pitt was very much on his side in this, and eventually found a way for the anti-slavery group to prevail. The second, was that John Newton, Wilberforce’s great friend, was an ex-sailor and slave trader. He would do penance for his sin the rest of his life. Among his accomplishments was the penning of some 300 hymns, among them the famous “Amazing Grace.”

Watching the efforts of these men and women to rid their part of the world of this infamous practice really puts one’s own troubles in prospective. If you are unfamiliar with Ioan Gruffudd, you may remember him from Black Hawk Down or the mini series Horatio Hornblower which we very much enjoyed a couple of years ago. Albert Finney is also in the cast.

It’s a great movie, one worth watching. I’m sure you can find it at your neighborhood movie rental or Netflix.
If you would like to learn more about the extraordinary people represented in this film, please check out “Brits at their Best” a terrific site which has a marvelous essay on the entire fight to abolish slavery in the British Isles. It looks to be a terrific resource site on British history period, so do take a look.

It’s pretty easy to know how things are going in the new Obama Administration these days. One only has to watch Foxy Noise and other such wingnuttery media and see how much they are squealing.

They seem to be squealing like the proverbial stuck pig these days, so things must be looking exceedingly good.

Last night we were watching our usual evening dose of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He was kind enough to show us footage of some of our favorite douche bags.

First on the list was that scion of all things knee-jerk logical, Rush Limbaugh. Old Rush is mighty pissed that a good many Republicans are talking about how they consider President Obama their president too, and wish him  well.

Now Rush doesn’t care for that type of traitorous talk! According to him, Mr. Obama is hell bent to turn this fine country into a socialist haven. Any respectable American must, therefore pray and hope that he fails. Yes folks, you heard that right.

Let’s examine the logic. If my Obama succeeds, might that suggest that his policies are actually good? Isn’t that the definition of success–that which works? Soooo, Limbaugh tells us that he is against any policy, even if it is a good one, if it means sacrificing his ideology of ????? I guess that would the that the country be devoted to keeping the rich rich, and the poor poor, and never the twain should meet.

Not to be outdone in wingnuttery, our very own Sean Hannity weighs in with his delightfully warped sense of history. We needed support the President at all he claims, since we already know that socialism is a failure. And of course, Obama is turning this country into a socialist regime just as fast as his pen can sign executive orders.

No quarter is being given at all. Of course Sean said he would be fair, and give the man a chance. That lasted all of 24 hours. He’s moving toward policies that Hannity doesn’t like, ipso facto, they are socialist, therefore they are doomed. Again the logic is just so there.

And what nut fest would be complete without the indomitable Billo the Clown? Billo some years ago, after the re-election of one Dubya Bush, said we were all required to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. This meant that we mustn’t criticize him until his policies had had a fair opportunity to be put in place.

It seems the Foxy Dunce has come up with a new theory now. It seems we are to be raising Cain against Mr. Obama. Why? Oh, just cuz he is shutting down Gitmo, and thus imperiling all of the US of A. The theory goes thusly.

Those prisoners have to go somewhere. Not all will be turned over to their respective countries. Those that are not, and are not so obviously innocent as to be released, must be lodged in various penal institutions within the US.

That’s it. I guess we are to conclude that the US is incapable of housing really dangerous people, which should come as a huge shock to America, who leads the world in incarcerating folks. There are of course a few escapees every year, but for the most part their are lodged in minimal security situations. I guess Billo things that the military is incapable of keeping them locked in military prisons.

Apparently the same concerns for the Cuban population is non-existent.

Isn’t it fun to visit the crazy logic world of Billo, Sean, and Rush? Scrambles your brains and makes you a moron.  Or it may just save you a lot of reading about what’s going on in the Obama administration. If they say bad, well, it means, logically speaking of course, that things are good.

Stay tuned for tomorrow. Obama is giving our aid groups the ability to offer abortion and contraception  to those who are the recipients of our aid initiatives worldwide again. That will get them riled up for sure. Oh you darned liberal heathens!