Harry Back.

Words:

Well, no one saw this coming! The British government has announced that Prince Harry will not be going to Iraq. They explained that, since he would be such a high-priority target, it would be an unacceptable risk to him (and his platoon). This sounds logical on its surface because (yes, indeedy) the mustachioed enemy would be chomping at the bit to display the Prince's skull on a stake, an effective technique used by the Prince's own great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather when his marriages inevitably became a tad "rocky."



But upon further review (and a rudimentary grasp of basic mathematics), it is logical to conclude that an increased risk to Harry's group would, by definition, lessen the overall threat elsewhere. Given there are a fixed number of "enemy combatants" (i.e. bad guys who streamed into Iraq only after the country was occupied) it stands to reason that Harry, the red-headed scamp, would not pose an increased security concern to the fighting force as a whole. And that, math aficionados, completely negates the British government's entire silly premise.

Wouldn't the TRUTH be refreshing every once in a while? A politician revealing an unpopular TRUTH?! I'd be happier than a poo-flinging monkey if the stuffy British spokesman strode to the microphone, cleared his throat and instead explained:

Prince Harry will be going nowhere near the middle east because he comes from a very powerful family of unelected origin. We would no sooner send this freckled imp into a war zone than we would send our OWN sons and daughters. While we are perfectly comfortable sending other families' children into an un-winnable war of dubious origin, when it comes to personal risk of any sort, well....we really don't do that...because we don't have to. In conclusion, it is typically those with few other options who are forced to fight and die. But if the war becomes truly hopeless we are more than eager to let the debacle continue rather than admit any failure. Good day and God bless.

These political bastards might be a little more careful about sending youngsters to war if there was even a 5% chance that their own fighting-age sons and daughters would be forced to serve. How many U.S. Senators (listening, Hillary?) would have voted for the Iraq invasion four years ago if their comfortable children might have been yanked from Dartmouth or Princeton and been asked to serve in Iraq for even a month? It is a sad reality that the very people who decide whether to attack a country are those who have nothing to lose (other than political points). Yes, a few Senators (like Jim Webb, VA) have sons or daughters in Iraq but they all seem to want a quick withdrawal. What a surprise! Personal risk certainly compels folks to think things through.

Prince Harry pretends to be deeply disappointed by his government's decision. But of course he is still free to fight in Iraq. Roughly 40,000 of the combined British and American fighting force is made up of "soldiers of fortune," hired guns not directly affiliated with the military. Harry can simply explain, "This war is critical and I must fight. I am dismissing the long-irrelevant monarchy as well as this prejudicial decision by my government and heading to Iraq in June." This would certainly prove his commitment to fighting. But don't hold your breath.

Our fearless Commander in Chimp constantly reminds Americans that the terrorists will "follow us home" the moment we leave Iraq. Sagely, he explains that we cannot leave until the job is done. He insists that this is a war that must be won. Yet he's never suggested that one of his own daughters might hop off her bar stool and devote a month (not 15 months, like the others!) of her time to fighting the Iraqi insurgency. Bush has never suggested that any influential people sacrifice in order to help win this critical war. Until the "elite" are forced to share a tiny percentage of the "ultimate risk," they will continue to vote on the side of money and power. But...

"The wealthy take up arms only when the impoverished rebel against them." -G. Ehringer

The occupation of Iraq was nothing more than an attempt to make certain Americans more rich and powerful at a time when slack-jawed Americans were eager to support an attack on any country full of light-brown-skinned people. And if we had prevailed (we never will), virtually no one in this country would have the balls to declare, "WE STILL HAD NO RIGHT TO SEND OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO FIGHT AND DIE IN A COUNTRY THAT NEVER THREATENED US!" Cuz' everyone likes a winner.

Those Americans who are against the war (about 200,000,000 of us, all of whom financially support this war) and do absolutely nothing to help end it, are accessories to murder.

In conclusion, I urge each and every one of you to stay well hydrated.

-pcr

Why So Bitter?

Compatriots,

Some citizens have noted that my BLOG entries have been rather bitter and pessimistic of late. It was even suggested that, among other things, I should "lighten up," "get a life," or "shut the fuck up." Interesting notions all, and I shall carefully consider each and every one of them during an unrushed period of introspection and a well-honed dismissal of prayer. I think it's wise, as part of one's personal evolution, to consider any and all suggestions that may come your way. Even if your life is quite happy and your days generally consist of following your heart.

Yesterday, as I was selling comical stickers (which were disrespectful to Republicans) in Times Square, a nice man demanded that I "accept Jesus Christ" as my personal savior. I suppose he could tell by my distaste of certain politicians that I needed Jesus to make me complete. Perhaps I had something to gain by listening. I asked him to give me any proof whatsoever that Jesus Christ (not WMD's) existed and he smiled warmly at me, as though I were a retarded child playing with colorful yarn. He responded, "The Bible is the word of God and proof that Jesus existed" and seemed to consider patting me on the head. I queried, "But where's the proof, any proof, that the Bible is the word of God?" Moving on, the fellow crisply suggested that I "get right with the Lord or burn in Hell." Well that sounds unpleasant so I shall indeed look into this "Jesus tale" and see if this bearded fellow can make me happier. If only I could convince myself that he actually existed (like unicorns and angels). Sadly, I did not get a chance to ask the pedestrian how Jesus could possibly become my personal savior when he already seems to be the savior of millions of Christians worldwide. But I cannot discount the possibility that Jesus will eventually become my non-personal savior and indeed make me happier. After all, happiness is the key, not bitterness.

Another helpful gentleman in Times Square roared, "Go back to the Soviet Union, you communist!" Since I had never traveled to this land to begin with, I found the suggestion confusing. Also baffling was the man's implication that I was capable of traveling back in time fifteen years in order to visit this (now-democratic) land which now goes by another name(s). He also clamored "support the troops, asshole!" patiently teaching me that if one's nation is at war it is our patriotic duty to support said war regardless of reasons for engagement or likelihood of success. If I fully grasp this lesson, will I be a less bitter, more optimistic chap? If I simply accept, at all times, what our elected politicians suggest, will it bring me inner calm? By cracky, now that's worth exploring. More introspection without prayer lies ahead.

But some of my encounters have not been of a conflicted nature. A woman I met (I'll call her "Abbe") was, among others, supportive of my thoughts and I, in turn, enjoyed her wise views very much. Drawn to this free-thinking, dynamic, liberal woman, I was fortunate enough to speak with her again and again over a period of several weeks (with a remarkable "cordless phone"). It was quietly confirmed that our opinions, even the aggressive ones, are perfectly acceptable and "letting them out" can be a rich, rewarding experience. Indeed, such views can even serve to draw people closer and closer together! Yes, here's yet another potential path to happiness I would be wise to continue exploring while carefully avoiding prayer.

So there's plenty to think about. A spiritual retreat is surely in order this month. But where to go? Hmmmm. Seattle, I've heard, is a great place to visit in order to explore personal growth and happiness without prayer. Yes, I shall go to Seattle.

In conclusion, I was again recently reminded that embracing anger actually keeps one from becoming bitter. It has been written that rage and depression are nothing more than "anger turned inward." So true. In fact, if you just speak your mind, wonderful people like "Abbe" (real name "Abbe") may just take an interest in you. And that, that my friends, can make you happy. Even more so than pie. And without prayer.

hi.



I feel good,
pcr

A Letter From Karl Rove.

From: The Subconscious of Karl Rove
To: Fellow Republicans

"Christian" Gentlemen and Ladies,

Two words: "Fear Not." The Republican party is NOT in its last throes (ha, ha, remember that gem?) and our future is bright. Certainly not our near future (there will be no Republican President in 08') but our long-term future, beginning four years later. So relax.

Admittedly, the war in Iraq did not turn out at ALL like we planned. You must admit that four years ago it was brilliant that we claimed Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat, but not until after 9/11, when Americans were content to blame any people who had light-brown skin and names typically containing at least three "K's." Even though Iraq had as much to do with 9/11 as Peru, the morons actually fell for it. Ah, good memories.

But alas, it didn't work out and plenty of naysayers now claim we are in trouble. They say this Iraqi debacle will set back our agenda for decades. WRONG! Let me explain. In twenty months a Democrat will take over the White House (yawn). It will be that negro fellow, the lesbian Clinton, or that tree hugger, Al Gore. In order to become President, the eventual winner must guarantee a quick pull-out from Iraq as soon as he/she takes office. All we have to do is keep insisting that victory in Iraq must not come with a deadline and it will fall on the Democrats to end this war.

Well, my wealthy friends, at THIS point we can blame them for any terrorism that may follow (for decades!) by simply shrugging and saying, "The Democrats were the ones who insisted on cutting and running." And you know what?! A large percentage of the country (the same folks who actually believed the entire "uranium from Africa" fantasy) will actually believe it! Remember, they quickly forgot that 9/11 happened on our watch, months after we were told that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil and we did nothing. So for now, even though it has been clear for three years that America has no chance of prevailing in Iraq, we will allow Americans to continue dying in a country that never threatened us. It's for the greater good. But remember, before mourning these thousands of dead Americans, that none of OUR sons and daughters need to sacrifice in any way. And the sacrifice of those who are fighting for the U.S.? Consider it as their opportunity to assure the success of the Republican party once again in 2012. A noble sacrifice, indeed.

Also, as far as "losing in Iraq," let's not be so hasty with our assessments. American contractors in Iraq (usually supporting Republican politicians) have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars on (ha, ha) no-bid contracts. You have no idea how much money Dick Cheney has made over the past four years through Halliburton! Do you think he might share that loot with Republicans in the future? Does a liberal serve valiantly in Vietnam and get effectively smeared by those who had 7 deferments or went AWOL from the National Guard? Man, I love that one. Hard to declare a war a loss when you profit like this, am I RIGHT?!

So we lay low for four years, blame the Democrats for not having the stomach for war and prepare for the next election. But we will not be docile on conservative issues. After all, the Supreme Court just passed a law forbidding third-trimester abortions (watch out Roe -v- Wade!). Most Americans actually believed us when we implied that these abortions are essentially demanded by slutty hippie women who decide, after eight months of pregnancy, to yank out the squirming, perfectly healthy babies from their wombs. Ha, ha. So few people realize that the vast, vast majority of these babies are horrifically damaged. Brains growing outside of skulls, massive skeletal disorders, and future lives of unimaginable suffering. I imagine if America knew that third-trimester abortions are performed almost exclusively after gut-wrenching personal decisions by anguished parents who want to end immense suffering, they would NEVER support our agenda. But thankfully they are not educated.

And remember, Republicans, education is our worst enemy. Keep pushing that Bible stuff (and other fairy tales) on the kids. The younger the better. The earth is 6,000 years old? You betcha!' Homosexuality is a sin? Oh yeah, but don't mention gluttony! Seventy percent of the Earth is going to hell because they don't accept Jesus? Sure, why not? People in red states will believe anything! After all, they actually believe in ANGELS!

So chin up, Republicans. We may have lost the (Iraq) battle but we will win the war. The Dems will once again be labeled cowards whenever they pull the troops out, women's bodies will (more and more) be regulated by Republican men, and the cash (the sweet, sweet cash) will continue to roll in.

Life is still good.



-K. Rove

Selective Prejudice.

People reading my formed words (with a special shout-out to "Abbe"),

Well, it's been a couple of weeks since the VA Tech massacre and I've heard plenty of blame to go around. I've heard NRA-types and pacifists shrieking at each other. I've heard psychologists (aka "crazy hippies") preaching the importance of inclusion. And I've seen meat-eaters and vegans engaged in ultimate fighting while Metallica blares from the speakers. Admittedly, this one confuses me.

Surprisingly, I have come to (essentially) agree with the NRA when they say, "Guns don't kill people, insane NRA members kill people." As Michael Moore pointed out in his brilliant documentary "Bowling For Columbine," Canada has far more guns per capita than we do but far, far fewer murders per capita. A more civilized, empathetic culture? Yep. Guns are illegal in Japan and there are virtually zero murders. But is it really so hard for a determined Japanese citizen to get a gun? Doubt it. Canada (many guns) and Japan (few guns) both have a tiny fraction of the murders we endure in the U.S. because, well, they CHOOSE not to kill each other when they get grouchy. It is American society, not guns, that causes this nightmare. I am not particularly knowledgeable on WHY we are such a violent people but I think it has something to do with the "We're number one, greatest country on earth" bullshit we stuff into our kids' heads at an early age. The same age as Kim Jong Il convinces the North Korean kids that he is God. I would welcome any thoughts from readers.

Many people have argued that we need to make campuses safer. That certainly is worth exploring. But how much safer is debatable. Nobody supports the idea of huge walls around campuses and iris scans at every door. Society as a whole agrees that risk, safety, and freedom must be balanced. Some would say (and conservatives supporting Bush have suggested it) that greater safety is what's most important. Worried about phone taps? Why, if you have nothing to hide? Opposed to subway searches? Don't pack a bomb! Of course both sides have valid arguments. For instance, few liberals argue against the legality of suitcase searches at airports. It's an invasion of privacy, sure, but acceptable to (almost) all. When Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither," he probably didn't consider the emegence of Al Qaeda but he very well may have envisioned the actions of our current administration. Gray areas, my friends. By the way, is that the way you spell "gray?" "Grey?" Who cares.

But those who ALWAYS argue on the side of safety are ALWAYS fools. "If it makes us safer, do it!" is just nonsense. I ask these mouth-breathers why we then simply don't reduce the national speed limit to 22 miles per hour and save tens of thousands of lives. They then seem to be in a hurry to get somewhere and the discussion abruptly ends. Compromise, compromise. Safety and freedom. So most people (probably most at VA Tech) would prefer that college campuses remain open and accessible and everyone (just like interstate drivers) will TAKE THEIR CHANCES! It's part of a free society, an acceptable risk if you will.

Changing gears. Many people have been blaming rappers for promoting violence and disrespect for authority. Guys like Bill ("Peabody Award") O'Reilly routinely blame rap artists like 50 Cent and Ludacris for fomenting violence. Yet they never blame (white) folks like Martin Scorcese, Brian DePalma, and Vin Diesel. "What the HELL are you talking about?!" you may roar, Jumbo Snickers bar in hand. Well Scorcese and DePalma routinely direct vicious movies and Vin Diesel (often) portrays violent characters. But most of us (correctly) absolve them of any blame for society's ills because they are just portraying characters. It's art, good or bad. And yet when a guy like Ludacris leads a crime-free life and only portrays a vicious character to sell CD's, racists like O'Reilly are quick to assign blame. Inconsistent, faulty logic (from the bloated phone pervert).

But blaming any rappers, directors, actors or producers of violent video games is ludicrous (tee hee!) in itself. In Asian cultures (remember, no gun violence) their citizens absorb far more violence and pornography than we do and (voila!) there's no corresponding criminal impact on the streets to speak of. It's so easy to lay blame and lump others together in groups, but where's the supporting evidence? I encounter countless Americans who support this (illegal) Iraq war because of what "they" did to us on 9/11. When I ask who "they" are, conservatives (consistently) answer "the Muslims." And yet nobody blamed "Christians" for what Timothy McVeigh or David Koresh did. Scream all you will about Janet Reno but SHE did not ignite the Branch Davidian house. Crazy Christians did. We never seem to lump ourselves together in a "negative group" if part of our group does wrong.

Being too lazy to edit, I look back at this stream-of-consciousness blog entry and realize I was all over the map. But on another map, several hundred Iraqi citizens died on the same day as 32 students at VA Tech. And I did not hear the President say one word about this tragic loss of life beyond our borders. Clearly it's because "those people" don't count as much as "our people." Because they're not part of "our group." Inexcusable.


American Asshole.

-pcr

Disgraceful.

Americans,

In case you're living in a cable-free cave, by now you've learned of the stunning tragedy at Virginia Tech University. Thirty-three people were slaughtered by a student (Cho Seung-Hui) who apparently did not foresee a bright future for himself and decided to eliminate that possibility for as many others as made possible by semi-automatic weaponry and a lust for blood. This young man was responsible for one of the worst acts of mass murder in U.S. history.

Unless of course you include George Bush and his mischievous pack of scamps. "HOW DARE YOU!!!" you may thunder. Oh, I dare, I dare. You may bristle, "This was enough of a tragedy without it being made into a wider argument against the important war on terror!" Perhaps we should concentrate on one topic at a time, out of respect for the families of the victims in Blacksburg, VA? I disagree strongly. In fact, I believe what I am now writing shows the utmost respect for the grieving families of the lost students and teachers.

The day after the tragedy, on April 17, George Bush flew to VA to preside over the healing "convocation" at the university. He expressed the powerful words written (in their entirety) by his skilled writers and scrunched up his face in a variety of ways indicating sorrow, concern, and (of course) closure & hope. It was a moving presentation, one that no doubt brought comfort to thousands (millions!) of citizens watching. Our President was "there" for the nation when it needed him most. Kudos, Commander in Chief!

But was anyone else troubled that the very man leading the ceremony (G.W. Bush) is responsible for far more unnecessary murders than the grumpy Mr. Seung-Hui? Is anyone else deeply concerned with this ghastly irony?! Let's recall the old adage, "The buck stops here." It is consistently used (in business and politics alike) to suggest that the "boss" is ultimately responsible for the activities of those "beneath him." Yep, that sounds pretty fair, pretty "American," pretty groovy. Deep breath now...

George Bush (along with Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, Jon Edwards, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and a host of others) pursued a war in a country that never threatened us! No evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of any link to terrorists (who threatened America), no evidence at all that Iraq was more of a threat than Finland, New Zealand, or the skeletal remains of famed racehorse Secretariat. No threat. They lied. But ultimately it was Bush's decision to go to war. "The buck stops here."

You may counter, "But at least they wanted to bring democracy to a country that was being tormented by a vicious dictator!" Um-hum. It is always the goal of America to bring freedom to any country inhabited by repressed, anguished citizens. We can all recall with great pride the bang-up job America has done bringing freedom to Rwanda and The Sudan. Such happy, free people, leading lives of joy in their (oil-free) lands! Darfur is now dreamy. God bless America.

Four years after the start of the war we have 3,300 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi citizens. All unnecessary, each and every death. "But Saddam was murdering his citizens!" you may squeal as I prepare to give you yet another smackdown.....More Iraqis have been killed by George Bush's lethal foolishness in the past four years than in the previous 30 years (under Saddam) combined! You may slice it and dice it any way you wish, but George Bush ("buck stops here") has murdered more innocents than anyone in the history of our country (with the possible exceptions of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon). George W. Bush. Mass murderer.

.....And after the tragedy at VA Tech HE was the keynote speaker at the convocation there on April 17, 2007. He noted how tragic it was that thirty-three innocents died. Let the healing begin.

Fuck that.



-pcr

Free(ish) Speech

Hey, Americans!

Rosie O'Donnell speaks her mind. Don Imus does too. Ditto for Rush Limbaugh. All of them have said some pretty explosive things. Rosie implied 9/11 was an inside job. Bold assertion. Imus called some black women "nappy-headed hos." Pretty aggressive stuff. Rush suggested Michael J. Fox was faking Parkinson's symptoms. Rather strong words.

Many people want them to be fired for what they said. These people, all of them, are unpatriotic, plain and simple. Free speech means we can say anything we want and each and every one of us should celebrate and defend this right. We need not celebrate any of the words we disagree with but it is our responsibility as Americans to protect the rights of others to use them. Why is this not yet clear?

If we do not like what people in the media say we can simply turn the channel. Condemn their positions, sure, but when you imply they should not be allowed a platform to voice their views then you are against free speech. Plain and simple. The above "offenders" are paid to generate revenue. They are huge earners. Thus, they do their job. If you want to punish the employers who employ them, that is your right and, again, you may change the channel. If enough people do that the "offenders" will be fired. Okay? But do NOT imply that people are "out of line" who disagree with (or outrage) you. The whole value of free speech is that there ARE NO LINES! Zero. Once any lines are drawn we are instantly on a slippery slope away from freedom. For this reason, many Americans (including me) are outraged at the legal domestic spying instituted by George Bush. Lines drawn where there were none before. Freedom compromised, America compromised. To hell with the lines!

Now, let's study some of the fine citizens calling for the dismissal of Don Imus. Reverend Jesse Jackson claims there is no room for a racist on the radio and Imus should therefore lose his job. A bold, moral assertion from a man of God? Well, in 1984 the good Reverend, in a Washington Post interview, referred to New York City as "Hymietown." Anti-Semitic. In the 1990's he was exposed as an adulterer. He's a REVEREND! A moral beacon! Plenty of folks, for good reason, condemned his actions and words at the time but I did not hear many claims that Jackson should no longer be allowed to work! And that's the way it should be.

In 1987, Reverend Al Sharpton (who also wants Imus fired) insisted that teenager Tawana Brawley was raped by then-New York District Attorney Steven Pagones. The entire assertion by Ms. Brawley turned out to be a lie. Sharpton chose to never apologize for attacking Pagones. Morally bankrupt? You bet! Calls for his retirement? Virtually nil. As it should be. He has the RIGHT to say what he wishes and others have the right to contradict him. America. Rockets red glare and all that goofy bullshit.....

I have neither the endurance nor the stomach to detail the many lies spewed forth by Bill O'Reilly. Read Al Franken's nifty book, "Lies & The Lying Liars Who Tell Them" to explore this topic. As O'Reilly's executive producer, Andrea Mackis claimed (in 2004) that she was subjected to repeated instances of sexual harassment and explicit talk of phone sex, vibrators, and threesomes. Did O'Reilly really do that? Well, FOX paid Mackey millions so she would not expose her taped conversations with O'Reilly. And that was the end of that. Recently, O'Reilly has aggressively pushed for the firing of Rosie O'Donnell calling her a "wack job" who should not have a public forum. Okay then, Bill.

Another example of hypocritical nonsense: Several years ago, Christian Wal-Mart customers were offended that the stores carried a George Carlin book titled "When Will Jesus Pass The Pork Chops?" Everyone has a right to be offended. In fact, we have little control over our emotional reactions. But customers by the thousands in effect insisted that NO ONE should have the right to buy the book at Wal-Mart. Huh? And Wal-Mart pulled the (hysterical) books from each and every store. Mission accomplished by the Christians. It became clear to Wal-Mart that it was more profitable to limit free speech in this case than embrace it. Shame on those corporate pricks. And shame on the unpatriotic Christians who succeeded in suppressing the free speech of someone they disagreed with. They will be horrified to learn one day that George Carlin is in fact God and he will exact his fiendish revenge. Why do so many Americans claim they value freedom ("Greatest country on earth," "They hate us because we're free," etc.) but then demand that the voices of those they disagree with be silenced?

I wrote in an earlier post about The Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith. I was angered that southerners claimed that the women should "shut up and sing" while Toby's words (he is for the war) were embraced. Hollywood should apparently "shut up" unless it is Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, etc. Come on now, red states, are you for free speech or not? If you're for it then simply walk away from those you disagree with. And don't buy their CDs.

Many are outraged that rappers in this country sing about violence, easy money, and material wealth but even those who condemn them do not claim that they have no right to sing about what they wish. As it should be. Since when does saying something "horrible" translate into not being allowed to say it?!

Feel free to condemn the words of those you disagree with but, for the love of God, defend their right to say it! Now, feel free to delete this piece.



-Paul "Paul" Rosa

Pope on a Rope

Happy Easter. Now please allow me to ruin it.

Well, Pope John Paul II is currently on the fast track to sainthood. The soft-spoken "Polish Pontiff" was an inspiration to millions and his strength while fighting Parkinson's Disease and numerous other ailments was truly inspirational.



In order to become a saint ("beatified"), the Catholic church requires proof that he caused a "medically unexplainable" healing. No doubt the church will indeed be convinced of his mysterious, special powers and we'll soon smile and say "Saint John Paul" as casually as we say "tuna melt" or "John McCain is a liar." And all will be well across the quickly-warming planet. But hold your horses, Johnny Rocket....

While the Pope certainly seemed like an all-around sweet guy (after all, he often kissed children and old folks on the forehead!), would it not be prudent to nevertheless look at his overall record in determining the measure of the man? Of course it would. Any reasonable person would retort, "Yes, Paul, it is fair to look at a fellow's overall life before deciding if he was a good man, let alone a saint." So, let's graduate to the meat-n-potatoes section of my essay. Lent me your ear, har-har-har-chortle!!

Pope John Paul II, over and over again, refused to grant Catholics the right to use birth control. Starving, destitute citizens in third-world countries would NEVER defy the Pope so they could not realize the "benefits" of birth control while enjoying one of life's great (free) pleasures. It is not uncommon to find Catholic women all over the globe with six or more children, none of which they can afford. Living in unimaginable squalor, their desperation can be traced directly to a stone-age belief system, a system that refuses to adjust to the realities of modern life in any way. And let's not forget that countless people died agonizing deaths from AIDS because the Pope proclaimed that birth control of any sort (including condoms) was wrong. Insane? You bet! The Pope, the LEADER of the Catholics, is directly responsible for the suffering of these millions. A saint? Hardly.

The Pope's stance on homosexuality was barbaric. He claimed that the Bible condemns homosexuality (simple as that) but never, for example, aggressively ostracized fat people. But isn't gluttony one of the seven deadly sins? He chose to act with cruel indifference to a group of people who hurt no one. Remember Governor George Wallace on the school-house steps, screaming that segregation must prevail? Nasty stuff, eh? What this Pope did was far worse. And those who oppose same-sex marriage are no different from those who oppose interracial marriage. It comes down to hate, regardless of how one hides the hate behind a religion.

Next, let's discuss his vicious, misogynistic attitude. For centuries, women have been prevented from becoming Catholic priests because, well, the Catholic church has a history of oppressing women. So when Pope John Paul II came along (1978) he had a chance to change the world. Like Martin Luther King, Jr., he had the opportunity to face the majority and demand justice. And he chose to do nothing, deciding again and again that women were not worthy. Vicious and prehistoric. Hardly the actions of a saint.

Anything else, Paul? Yep. For decades, hundreds of priests satisfied their lust by viciously raping countless numbers of trusting Catholic children. And what did the Catholic church do about these outrages? They moved these remorseless pedophiles from church to church, whenever the local complaints became too heated. There is ample evidence that the Cardinals and the Pope knew full well about these atrocities but, rather than expose the precious church's problems, they instead chose to allow their employees/monsters to continue destroying countless young lives with impunity. Allowed them unfettered access to the flesh of vulnerable children. Utterly decimated life after life after life while paying hush money to those who complained. So, if a Pope is the LEADER of the Catholic church, what happened to the old adage, "The buck stops here?" Never once did he personally take responsibility for the actions of his criminal "employees!" A saint? A monster is more like it. Any OTHER boss would have been fired in an instant. Criminal felony charges would then have been filed in short order. But soon this man will be a "saint." Wow.

Had enough? Me too. But let's not forget the Pope's barbaric stance against ALL stem-cell research. Further, he opposed Euthanasia, even for patients screaming in agony while enduring final-stage bone cancer.

And if all of the above isn't bad enough, the guy was a lousy dresser! Everyone from Yves St. Laurent to Halston begged the Pontiff to lose the "pistachio-nut hat" but, time after time, he refused to embrace fashion in any way. Dressed sloppily in loose-fitting sheets and gaudy jewelry, the dude was a visual trainwreck.

Finally, the Bible is clear when it states (in Matthew 19:16-21), "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor." Irrefutably, God is declaring here that man is morally obligated to live simply (avoiding vast material wealth) so ALL of his "flock" may avoid misery. And how did the Pope observe this fun Bible passage? Decide for yourself while enjoying these fine (free) photographs....


-Papal Palace in Vatican City


-Catholic kids living on a Sao Paulo dump.

Friends, I welcome all comments but, if doing so angrily, please point out specifically which assertions I got wrong. I am always eager to grow and learn. Thanks and God bless America.

-Paul C. Rosa