OBAMA IS A FOOL President Obama: I am a gay activist and progressive, and voted for you. In good faith of course, that you would begin the desperately-sought resolution to include gay people at the table of equal rights along with other long-suffering minorities. My expectation was most reasonable for a democratic politician: that, in spite of being against gay marriage, you would denounce the unbridled homophobic vitriol from the fundamentalist faction, that has been plaguing our nation for at least two decades. You could have selected any person of the cloth to open your historic inauguration to represent the inclusive unity you so frequently espouse. Among these choices for the opening prayer number many ministers, preachers, reverends and priests who do not vociferate anti-gay vitriol from the pulpit. Instead, you chose a most divisive fundamentalist over a vast array of uniters...one who utters the most vulgar and hateful words against our sexual minority citizens. For a man of great intelligence (as you clearly are), I'm sure you fully realize the implications of your choice. Which belies your claim that you are a stalwart defender of gay equality. In fact, your unfortunate selection gives tacit approval for fag bashers to increase their attacks against sexual minorities in spite of our constitution's mandate to keep church and state separate, and to protect any minority from majority attack. I must conclude that you have deliberately chosen to violate one of America's most sanctified laws...for being so well informed and worldly, you could not have made this choice out of ignorance. It is tragic and shameful that you, America's first person of color to be elected to the highest office of our unfair land, have chosen to perpetrate the ignoble tradition of anti-gay persecution by African-Americans at large. In so doing, you have given the green light for furthering such bigotry, giving a thumbs up (as it were) towards increased violence against homosexuals. (How so many who've voted for you must now be dancing for joy that they'll also be rid of those goddamned faggots for once and for all!) President Obama: as one who is also well educated, intelligent and a progressive, I can only conclude that--in spite of your excessive IQ--you have failed to hold true reverance towards equal rights for all minorities. In choosing to make gay people an exception to this most American ideal, I have to conclude that, in spite of your obvious intelligence, you are nonetheless a fool. And, my enemy. MOST sincerely, Ezekiel J. Krahlin San Francisco -- http://www.gay-bible.org http://ezekielk.tblog.com

Jack, thanks for your considerate response yesterday at 4:42 PM. I totally understand your frustration. I get really frustrated but not at our leades, who I believe have the best of intentions, but at the big money that really runs this government. I don't know what the solution is either because if we do away with the big money, we would have to chop away at capitalism. It may be that we just have to build a cocoon around ourselves and our families and try to overlook all the mess. Afterall, this isn't Heaven. It will never be perfect.

Goood morning, Earl. I think you must be much more intelligent than me when it comes to foreign affairs. The only time I lived with the natives was in Italy for 3 years where our next door neighbor was head of the Communist party for that region (1964-1967). I can't quite reconcile what you said with the definition of Imperialism on dictionary.com. It all sounds good, and I agree that many empires in the past have been well run. But in a way, just being a group of united entities (called states) with such diverse histories and cultures makes us an empire itself. Thanks for the long post. I love discussing ideas in an intelligent way.

it is said that the basis to this whole meltdown are the 5 million plus illegal immigrant who got homeloans and then balked on them.

I sure am glad you could step above it all and be better than us, there Chris. Thanks.

Price of gas tonight: $3.10/gal. Price of milk: $3.29/gal. Bert and Jack arguing about Bert's conversions of the cost of living in 1965 vs. 2008: Priceless.

On the bail-out, some of the Congress was astute enough to vote as their constituents dictated, or they might lose their job. Their offices were flooded with e-mails and phone calls on how they should vote. Others could have or may have made their decision disregarding their constituents. Some of the blogs here on this matter could be really lucid if their brains weren't so flacid.

Your snow globe of numbers do not account for all other inflation on necessity products.

I have said it once and saying it for the last time. You have not won the debate. Just because you threw out some random numbers you think you are accurate. I am saying, your numbers may be accurate, but does not account for everything else. So, therefore, you are inaccurate.

I said that Bert. I am going to ask you again, read what I posted. You are not reading everything. I made a list of necessity products that have climbed at the same, or close to the same, rate of inflation as gas. You add up, let's just throw out there, 20% plus 20%, plus 20%, plus 20%, and our wages have only gone up 30% all of the sudden your little math problem holds no water.

The amount the gas companies make sound large? I could care less what the percentage is. Record profits over and over for the past three years is not a "sound large" issue.

Jack Okay But give me your numbers. Combined inflation. is not only gas

Well, you still have not proven anything, Bert. James said it best by saying combined inflation has taken a bigger chuck out of our wages. In other words, gas is not the same as it was in the 60s. Good night Bert.

And what does compound interest have to do with this? Actually the price of gass does not bother me as much as the fact we putting all that money into countries that really do not like us. James said it best

Jack They have not, I just showed how wages increased 9 times over the years I mentioned and gas had increased 10 times. Take away the fed and state road tax and wages and gas have increased the same over the period fronm 1965 until tiday

Compound interest has gone up over 2000% for the past 100 years. I challenge you to prove to me how wages have gone up over 2000% in the past 100 years.

James said it perfectly, he stated what I have been saying and he did it in one sentence.

First, I never claimed to know what the cost of gas SHOULD be. Secondly, I do not have the numbers you do. I am saying we cannot come to an accurate number on your statement. Again, you have not touched down on combined inflation and what the affect that has. Since I am saying that an accurate number cannot be had because of floating wages and combined inflation. I am not looking up all the inflation numbers so I guess we can end it here.

Fixing to hit the hay. 6am comes way too early. Check with you tomorrow. Maybe I can roust the web geeks at DOK about getting our blogs going correctly again.

James You are absolutly correct

Let me put it to you this way, guys. It takes a heck of a lot bigger chunk out of my already streatched budget if gasoline is $3 or 4$ a gallon than it does if it is $2 a gallon less. And, since a tremendous amount of the oil we are using is from countries that don't exactly like us, we would all be a lot better off if we could find something to run our cars on other than gasoline.

Jack I guess what I am asking is what do you think the price of gas should be and how do you come up with your number

Jack You said the measurement I used was not valid . What or how would you measure the prices. The min wage in 1965 was 1.25 an hour and it is I believe 6.55 now

I do not understand your statement, Bert.

Jack I am open to see your measurement

Income is a floating number and cannot be compared to inflation of gas. Like I said, it is a number that cannot be measured. Sure, it sounds good in a news clip or soundbite, but simply not an accurate measurement.

You MUST include all inflation, Bert. Including food and car. Income has NOT kept up with combined inflation of necessities. Why gas now? Because it has inflated the quickest of all products. I feel the same about all the below mentioned.

Combined inflation of necessities is not factored in. Are you telling me that if you include the cost of health care inflation, insurance inflation, electricity inflation, vehicle inflation, clothing inflation, heating oil inflation, medication inflation, food inflation, housing inflation and education inflation, that gas is taking the same piece of the pie? Plus, you are using a simple number with a job you are assuming is going to go up. Your income increase is a fixed ratio, I challenge you to prove that most jobs have increased from $6 to $19 since then. Minimum wage has not increased with the percentage of gas prices.

Jack if what you say about not being able to accurately come to a number I guess the same can be true about the wages or the loaf of bread or the car. Why is gasoline any different?

Jack I amm sorry but I presented facts The power of the dollar may be less . That would help to explain the difference in wages thast I showed. And all things have increased in price from a loaf of bread to a car since 1965. And how is gas more inflated , You lost me on that one

I did not say your numbers were wrong, Bert. If you read what I said, which you didn't, I explained the factor that cannot be measured. Yes, you can simply do the math and come up with that figure. The purchasing power of the dollar is weaker than it was in the 60s. I am saying you cannot accurately come to a number, like you are simply doing. Life is not about numbers, it is about life. And gas is much more inflated than paychecks.

Jack Use your numbers to give me the price it should be

Jack What other factors? I presented facts

Your statement, Bert, sounds like a Rush statement. And even though I like and agree with Rush on many things, it is easy for a rich man to tell me gas is the same price as it was in the 60s.

I agree with you on the price raise. You did not touch down on my points of necessity. Like I said, those simple numbers do not add up. We are going to have to agree to disagree. There are many other factors involved to simply make that statement.

I really like your statement about not being run by the government, but by industry, Earl. I think you forgot a key aspect, or I overlooked it. I think many nations look at our freedom and admire us for that. I do not think many nations look at our movies and media and admire us for that. Movies and the media is what is destroying this country from within. Also, the bilderberg group is mostly in charge of the world.

Jack as for the large difference in price between areas let me make a comment. On the Thursday before the hurricane I drove to Virginia. Gas was 3,59 to 3.79 a gallon in Tennessee. On my return the next day some stations were charging over 4 dollars a gallon and they had not received a load of gas . So who raised the price And when I returned home gas was the same price it was when I left

Jack In 1965 i was making 2.15 an hour without any benifits with gas at 32 cents a gallon. Today gas here is 3.40 and the same job pays 19 dollars an hour with benifits such as 401k , insurance and some companies have a pension plan . So in 1965 I could buy 6.7 gallons with an hours pay. Today they can buy 5.6 with an hours work. Not including benifits. I am sorry but I do not know what the state and fed road tax was in 1965 but today it is 35 cents a gallon in Oklahoma. As far as the amount the oil companies make sounds large. But it is less than 10% So if you take the 3.40 a gallon and subtract 35 cents for the tax and 10 cents for the local retailer profits. You then have 2.95 a gallon Subtract the 10 % profit margin which is 30 cents and you end up with 2 .65 a gallon add back in the 35 cents and 10 cents and you end up with a price at the pump of 3.10 a gallon if the oil company gives up their entire profit margin Actually these numbers do not take into account the transportation cost to the retailer or the distributors profit. In 1965 a car if you were lucky got 16 MPG today it is closer to 22 MPG on average

Good post, Earl the pearl.

And when I say supply and demand is a gimmick, I mean S&D only determines the extremes of the spectrum. It rarely determines price and when it does, it is the extreme on both sides. S&D only determines, in most cases, when a product is going to market and how long it will stay. If you flood and nobody wants it, it dies. If you sprinkle it and everybody wants it, then it is in high demand. But in most cases, that does not determine price. Wall Street is what determines price. Because in both flood and sprinkle scenerios, prices are dynamic and means nothing to the product except profit.

Many things HAVE somewhat stayed in conjunction with pay. I do not dispute that. But can you really say gas at $3 a gallon is the same? Gas has went from $2 a gallon to over $5 a gallon in some areas, within a handful of years. At my job, my pay has not increased or fluxuated like that. So, whose pay are you basing that off of? Who's pay raises?

Cost of living is a gimmick also. It does not include the value of the dollar when factoring in cost of living. It also does not value in necessity, which is not measurable. Necessity MUST be factored in and since you cannot do that, since you cannot place a number on necessity, then you cannot properly equate your statement. You can say it off the cuff and say, our income has went up since the 60s, and so gas has gone up since the 60s so we are paying the same. But it holds no merit in facts.

First, Bert, there is no way of determining your point. But even if you were right, I am not disputing inflation. My point is that gas prices are being controlled by powers bigger than politicians and other countries. Gas is fluctuating and everybody is pointing at supply and demand. Supply and demand is a gimmick. Having said that, for one thing, gas was not a necessity back in the 60s. You MUST factor in necessity. Necessity does not equal demand. Necessity equals the impact on the economy. When factoring in necessity into your budget, there is a higher weight to the gas factor when compared to your monthly income. The amount of the disposable income pie has decreased based on higher gas prices that is a necessity. Without being an economist and searching on the net for hours, I disagree that the rate of inflation on gas has maintained equal with the rate of inflation in monthly income AND monthly disposable income. Plus, when you factor in the falling dollar, plus the huge gap between the haves and the have nots, plus the variation in income between the users of gas, you simply cannot say it is the same cost. Who's monthly income are you comparing your statement to? Are you saying somebody making $6 an hour is paying the same for gas as somebody who was making $6 an hour in the 60s? That math simply does not pan out.

Earl, Let me disagree with you on one point, There could possibly be some other points but I will talk about only one. For several years I managed a country for an american company and i found just the ooposite then what you say. I found that when you put a latin over other latins the latin in charge abuses the latins under him

Judie, I'm putting this in order, and it's so long that probably no one else will read it. Fine, it's in response to your question, not anyone else's. I. An imperialist believes in the empire. I suppose I'm a progressive imperialist because I believe in an empire that is run right. Contrary to what Republicans imply, the United States is not the first great nation NOT to have an empire. And contrary to what many Democrats indicate, an empire is not necessarily something of which we should be ashamed. Some empires have been well run, some have not. The Romans and the Victorians did well, the Greeks and the French did not. At this time, ours is not well run -- primarily because it is NOT run by the United States government, but by international corporations headquartered in the U.S. ..... Nike, Halliburton and so forth. But it could be the most effective way of promoting, by example, the political ideals for which America is so admired. I'm not talking about "hearts and minds" propaganda, or some look-we-built-a-schoolhouse-for-you program that lasts 90 days, or until the troops go home, but about real freedom and individual worth. II. Most of the rest of the world believes that American people are admirable, and that the United States would be a good place to live. They have learned of this through a variety of sources -- movies, hearsay, magazines, contact with the occasional tourist who is not affiliated with some large organization -- but the representatives of the American empire with which they come in contact are usually not the primary source of positive ideas about the U.S.A. Military personnel are usually pretty well isolated from ordinary local folk in foreign posts. For example, my nephew visits a town in Russia once a year, while doing business for his company, a local pump manufacturer -- Russian teenagers are eager to practice their English when they realize he is an American, they ask about the things American teenagers like to do, they give him their impressions of our customs, they try to tell jokes they think an American would laugh at. My nephew is not a government man, or an anthropologist, or particularly political, but he enjoys these encounters. He says the Russians may be crazy, but they are smart and helpful. He believes they think American people are the same, but he is certain they don't think our government is any more reflective of us than the Russian government is reflective of them. He also visits Venezuela once a year, and has the same opinion of Venezuelans, and how they feel about Americans in general. III. I think the reason the Romans and the Victorians could successfully maintain their empire by using primarily military personnel and military force is they thought of themselves as better than other people. We do not. We are happy to consider ourselves as the equals of other people. So, in the matter of maintaining an empire, our military personnel send a mixed message, which is ultimately counterproductive: We are no better than, but you'd better do what we say because we have more guns. IV. So, we can either change our view of ourselves, or we (that is, our government) can begin to use something other than the military as the chief means for maintaining our empire. Our military is used to make foreign countries safe for Halliburton to do business, for Nike to do business, and so forth -- and the leaflets and radio broadcasts which talk about "freedom and democracy" ring hollow, even to people who admire Americans and would like to live here. V. An old friend, deceased for 20 years, once was (as an individual) in partners with the representatives of some small American corporations. Together they owned a business in Guatamala. They hired local workers, and in the beginning had an American supervisor, who had never been to Guatamala before. Things did not go well. At my friend's suggestion a Guatamalan supervisor was appointed. Things went much better. That, in a nutshell, is how the American empire can and should be run. Conquering people, and forcing your ways on them doesn't work ..... for people who believe in human equality, as do Americans and as did the French and the Greeks. Conquest and force -- which is what you say you think of when you hear the word, "Imperialist" -- is effective only if you believe you are better than everyone else, as did the Romans and the Victorians. VI. But if the U.S. government controlled the international corporations (which account for most of the empire), and operated them in a manner similar to my old patron's business in Guatamala, it'd be better for everyone. As things stand now, the corporations operate the U.S. government, and foreign workers know full well they are considered inferior creatures despite what the legends about America say.

Jack I said once that I did not think that gas prices were much higher to day than they were in 1965 when you factor in wages. You said you disagreed Can you tell me why you disagree? As for a 45 gallon bbl of oil if got 45 gal of gas out of the barrel you the oil price alone is 2.22 a gallon add 35 cents state and fed road tax and 10 cents for the local retailer you have 2.67 a gallon be fore any refining or transportation cost are figured in

But, James. All the pinheads said gas was high because we were using too much. We had this huge influx of drivers. That supply and demand and yada yada. When in fact, it is predetermined, as I stated, by forces bigger than users and wall street.

Is it just me, or is everybody tired of seeing Ed Kelly's illustrious mug on the front page of Opinion every stinking time we come here?

It is a conspiatorial effort to gouge the public.

Jack, three guesses and the first two don't count. I have always noticed that someone could sneeze in the gulf or middle east and the price would go up 30cents a gallon, but no matter what, it takes weeks to go back down. I don't think it is the gas stations, buy the suppliers and distributors. In any event, we need to do CNG, nitrogen, or something. Paalesse don't tell me that we can put a man on the moon with the computer power of a calculator and we can't find a better way to power cars. That's ridiculous.

You are awesome Stephen.

Why is oil below 100 dollars a barrel and yet gas stays above 3 dollars a gallon?

I don't know Judie. I am just tired of every politician up there failing us. At the core, I believe in Conservative values, but cannot say I am a conversative compared to what we have up there. I have no answers on how to start over. Just tired of the same garbage, from both Obama and McCain. (order by first letter last name)

Earl, I used to be very liberal but have mellowed with age (I'm 67). I no longer consider myself a liberal or a conservative. I am definitely moderate, but I'm not sure what Libertarians are. And I would like to know why you consider yourself an Imperialist. I always thought imperialism meant going after other countries and forcing them to adopt our form of government. If that is the case, then I am not that either. I also am not an isolationist since I have spent many years living overseas as a military wife. I really see myself as more a citizen of the world than just a citizen of America. As for who I am supporting, I still haven't made up my mind. The fact that McCain is advertising more than Obama turns me off. It makes it seem as if he's desperate. I really like Palin, but I have serious doubts that she could handle the Presidency if something happened to McCain and if I am to be labeled anything it's as a realist. So much for labels. Have a nice evening.

haha, pearls of wisdom from earl the pearl. what a shinny soul he has.

I think it is funny that Obama does all he can to make people poor and yet he comes out and says for us poor people to support the rich people.

Wow, James. We are close.

Bert, I agree. That would be a much better investment that this boondoggle that the dems and repubs are trying to get passed.

Stephen If you were joking then I was joking

James I agree, One problem which I think could be solved is the refueling stations. Of course there would be the cost of the change over but this in one thing I feel the gov should help with costs instead of sending all the money to foreign countries for oil.As much as I feel the gov should not pay for a lot of things I feel at least the money would stay here.

Bert, cars, buses, motorcycles, boats, atv's, you name it, we should be using CNG. Then we could tell Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to use their oil for anal lubricant.

Bert, re your 1:02 p.m. post: You did realize I was joking around, didn't you?

I guess I needed to read the Lindsey letter better as he did bring up school buses

Jeff If they are that is very good. But I feel it needs to be expanded to all schools

Bert, I think the okc school buses are already on cng or some anyway.

Judie it's actually 3 parties Liberals, moderates, and conserv's. We had 3 parties at one time the libertarian,democrats, and republicans. I would like for everyone to reason together and do it my way!!

As for the letter today from Bill Lindsey about converting the city buses to CNG. I say why not go further and convert our school bus fleets also. There would be an upfront cost but the shool would only have to install one fueling station at the school. They would probably have to leave 1 or 2 buses on diesel for school functions in different poparts of the states. However if every school converted and installed a fueling station they could refuel buses from the visiting schools

Thanks, Judy. Where I differ from Bert's conservatism and your (seeming) liberalism is that, although I appreciate the dignity of individual persons and understand the necessity of having effective impersonal systems which guide Americans as a society, I don't trust either popular will or the policies implemented by those in power ..... instead I pay attention to those people who have neither popular standing nor official position, but who know what they're talking about because they've done it all their lives, and done it well -- genuine authorities. They have no axe to grind. I respect your passion for human dignity, and for Bert's sorrow that too many good customs have expired, but my main political concern is limiting the bad effects international conflicts have on us. To me, the conservatives are only nationalists (ours is better because it's ours), and the liberals are too trusting when they devise international policy. As far as I know, I'm the only publicly-declared imperialist in Oklahoma.

Chris All the above had to see the red flags. But also the leaders in Washington should have known. Bush and his staff, Frank as chairman of the House banking committee, Dodd as the chaiman of the Senate banking committee. And Dodd received the sweetheart deal which I believe makes him very guilty. But now we have those that should have known and I believe did Know writting the bill to bail out whoever they want to say they are bailing out. It is pretty pathetic seeing any of the above pointing fingers at anyone other than themselves