Well, like most predictions, my prediction that Hussein and/or bin Laden would be captured in July or August proved wrong. I had figured that capturing one of them around July or August would provide a late boost for Bush in his quest to become a real elected President. Instead Hussein's recent capture provides so much more.

It takes the wind out of Howard Dean's sail. Too much newsprint was devoted to Dean. Now it'll focus back on Bush. And it will focus on Bush and not on the illegalities of our invasion of Iraq, not on the illegalities of the post-war no-bid contracts, and certainly not on the destruction of our environment and economy. Back to how heroic our troops are and were in a war so...unnecessary. C, mon, if it were a necessary war against terrorism why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia? Oh yeah, money. Iraq was relatively easy pickin's compared to going against Saudi Arabia.

Instead it's back to the wartime - Rah! Rah! Aren't we a great country - Love it or leave it! - If you don't support the "President" you must be a terrorist! - mentality that people of intelligence find so repulsive. Back to looking at Bush trying desperately not to look smug, while strutting around as if he'd caught Hussein himself. Back to listening to the warmongers, mostly Republican, crow about how this is all a good thing. That we got rid of an evil person, all the while there are plenty more evil people running countries that we don't seem to be doing much about. Many of these countries don't have oil either. Draw your own conclusion.

In any case, as Hussein faces some sort of trial, consider these questions:

If Hussein proved such a dangerous threat to the U.S. and perhaps the world shouldn't he go on trial at an International Court? We went into Iraq because of, according to the U.S. Government, Hussein posed as a real threat with his "Weapons of Mass Destruction". In that case, put him on trial for such. Or does "lack of evidence" mean something?

The U.S. Government talks about justice for Hussein. Are we going to try him according to our judicial system or the one in Iraq? If we allow the Iraqis to try him, will we stand by as they pretty much take one look at him, say "Guilty!", and take him out to the football field to be shot in public? Or will we demand a long trial before a more private shooting? Will we do justice by the Iraqis or what's best for the U.S Governments image?

Will we now move the 125,000 troops to Afghanistan so that we can really search for bin Laden? After all, there is stronger evidence that bin Laden did something directly against the U.S. people, so he should get the greater focus - right? Or will we stay in Iraq to protect the oil, I mean, continue the fight against terrorism? Maybe we could bring the troops back here so they can search for the killer of Nicole Simpson...

Bush for Blair

Can we please swap Bush for Tony Blair? They're both fairly reprehensible as far as politicians go but, at least, I don't mind listening to Blair. He speaks English eloquently. Bush strangles English brutally. I'm tired of Bush and his 3-word sentences, no word over 2 syllables. And his - pause - reading of - pause - speeches at - pause - a pace appropriate - pause - for a Kindergartener. I expect Bush to read with his finger pointing to each word while a cabinet member stand behind him to help with some of the more difficult pronunciations.

That's why we get such great sayings like:

"Go get them!" or "We got him!" coming out of the Bush administration. Because he's such a simple person they assume the rest of the country is as well.

Next election, any candidate lacking grey matter betwixt the ears gets knocked off the ballot automatically. That leaves....ummmm....

Handle This!

I like Ebay, perhaps a little too much. I like the convenience and the excitement of getting a great deal on something. I hate getting outbid in the final 20 seconds of an auction but I've done that to other people and fair is fair.

One thing really irks me beyond all reasonable measure and that is those sellers who charge a little (or a lot) too much for shipping and then ship as cheaply as possible, pocketing the difference. I've had that happen to me twice. Both times I sent emails to the sellers asking about the shipping - I mean, hell, if I pay enough for something to be shipped Priority then the expectation is that the item will be shipped Priority - and both times I got replies that the costs were to cover handling. What the hell? How can you ship an item and not handle it? What excessive handling is involved with putting a book or game in a (free from the Post Office) Priority box and mailing it? Hell, you can order FREE priority mail boxes online and get them delivered to your house or business.

"Handling" is nothing more than a ripoff.

Arguably I should have contacted the seller during the auction to find out exactly how the item will be shipped so some blame does go to me. But a ripoff is still a ripoff.

SUV Warning

I drive a Suburban - yep, a big old, gas guzzling, urban tank. But I can justify it - I have a large family. But the point of this rant is actually a warning to all the drivers of small zippy and/or nice, expensive automobiles.

When you see a nice car length gap in front of an SUV or urban tank like my 'Burb curb your need to zoom in and take it. Unlike your BMW, Lexus, or Mercedes, my Suburban can't stop on a dime. If you cut in front of me and hit the brakes, you will be a smear on my front bumper. That gap in front of me is my braking space. I need the room. You take that space at your own risk.

Oh yeah, that toggle on the left hand side of your steering wheel is called a turn signal. You use to signal your intention when switching lanes. Considering how expensive a BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus car can get I'd assume that they include working turn signals. Use them.

Lastly, the far LEFT lane usually has drivers who go a bit ABOVE the speed limit. If you must drive well below the speed limit, do so in the other lanes. I promise we will "Ooooh!" and "Aaaah!" at whatever you are driving.

A Sexual Jesus

After I finished reading Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code I got into a consipiracy mood and started snooping online for all things Leonardo Da Vinci. Eventually I cam across:

Leonardo and Mary which led me to

Magdalene and the Fourth Gospel

After reading Mr. Jusino's essay I got to thinking about Jesus and sexuality. Simply: Did Jesus have sex?

Why wouldn't he? If Jesus was Jewish and a Rabbi he certainly would have been married and likely pursuing a family. Families are central and sacred to Judaism. In addition, he may have had "divine" intercourse at the Temple.

Consider Mary Magdalene, the favored and beloved disciple. She is a constant companion. Why couldn't she be a lover of Jesus without having to be a prostitute?

Was Jesus bisexual? Hearing that Peter was jealous of Jesus loving Mary more sounds like a lovers spat.

Gay Jesus?

That Jesus had sex is probable - he *was* human. He ate, he slept, he lived, he died. He prayed, he taught, he contemplated. He fornicated, he pissed, he shitted - blunt but truthful. Amazing how someone human can be recreated into something they were likely not.