Here is my take on the issues facing the College of Cardinals;
They will agrees as best they can on the following path:

The Catholic Church will elect an older African (white) Bishop and he will serve about six years.
He will do nothing for about a year and then issue a statement condemning condoms except to prevent AIDS. In this way the church will allow contraception in a fashion protecting doctrine and recognizing the value of human life. Every decision made must be consistent with past ideas and not dangerous to the future.
In four years the church will announce that pills to prevent pregnancy in adolescent rape victims is permitted under a priests assistance. Thus the "Morning After Pill" will be ipso facto allowed. A pill that allows casual sex will not be allowed since the church sees sex as a tool of procreation and marriage.
In seven years or so there will be a new pope and he will broaden the application that married men can become priests. This will protect current priests from humiliation and establish a basis for flexibility and encourage new acolytes, married, stable and wanting to serve the church.
In twenty years the church will announce that sexual desire is genetic and thus involuntary and thus discrimination toward homosexuals is untenable. Homosexual priests will be officially celibate, but discrete unions will be allowed if they are not revealed.

Religion thinks in centuries, not decades. The Catholics are rational and understand the path of human affair's quite well.
The fad of consumer civilizations and the novelty of popular democracy might well pass. The church will wait and see and act accordingly.

In every society there are moments of mass hysteria. Smart politicians play the hysteria, building support and getting plenty of money. The current foolishness in Florida, concerning brain dead Terry Schaivo is just such a case.

To think Jeb Bush ever gave a damn about this woman, or that any politician does is bunk. Randall Terry, an extremist from the get go, yearns for Terry to die so he can hustle all the frightened women close by. He uses every tragedy to enrich himself and others who play his game.

The President is in the game, wanting money for his presidential library.

I know how all this looks to history. Nevertheless this hysteria does force the public to think about brain death and how society must act in such cases.

America is a Rube Republic, always has been, so enjoy the show and send your favorite pol a dollar, that's what it's about.

"A misguided Crusade?"

The single greatest threat to any presidency is an attitude of "Self Importance"

Without meaning to do so, President Bush is very likely defeating his ambitious Social Security Reform package. History presents two examples of such transaction.

1. In 1917 President Woodrow Wilson pleaded with the country to accept his 14 point peace plan and New World "League of Nations" plan. He spooked Democrats (And a number of Midwest Republicans) who were against the World War as it became clear US occupation in Europe as well as substantial costs to sustain US presence there would go on for years.

Wilson failed to realize how Americans saw him. He ignored warning he was seen as just another President in his second term, soon to leave.

He ignored historical evidence Presidents generally have two years in their first term to set an agenda and have a chance at success.

By 1917 his once much praised intellectual powers were increasingly marked by rigidity and a distinct intolerance. His caculating antics toward the suffragettes and Temperance movements angered friends and crirtics.

Historic public resentment of foreign adventure, and what smacked of a personal Wilson quest, matched by a bitterness over the loud quarrels by European allies that never seemed to end, eroded public support. He did not respond well to domestic issues or showed much interest in party politics.

In the 1916 Congressional Elections the GOP gained and the Democrats lost seats. His party never forgave him!

US involvement in the war itself in 1917/1918 made matters worse as casualties mounted and it looked the US was in a swamp. Post war violence in the Balkans and the Russian revolution added to the countries jitters. The "Red Scare" made the "League of Nations" idea seem dangerous.

Remarkably by 1919 Wilson had squandered much critical support by his "moralist" attitude and long trips to Europe to push his agenda, neglecting matters at home. His tragic falling out with Colonel House; his "Man in Europe" did much damage.

In 1919 the League of Nations treaty was defeated in the Senate by "Isolationist Democrats: ie: W. Jennings Bryan and Urban Republicans worried over the economy, and Wilson's ambition was swarted.

The Republicans returned to power in the 1920 elections by portraying Mr. Harding as "Normal and his term to be a return to nromalcy" and the Democrats, portrayed as crusaders, wasters of national treasure and young lives were exiled for 12 years.

Historically Wilson greatest failure was to groom a popular successor, his visible contempt for politicians would be duplicated by Jimmy Carter and today by GW Bush. Do you see GOP operatives trailing him and shouting their support?

2. In 1939 President Roosevelt sought to stack the US Supreme Court with younger less reactionary judges. He alienated everyone with what looked to be the worse kind of partisan legislation. Roosevelt betrayed his own ambition and burned away much public admiration.

Today much of America is suspicious of the Bush camp and there is a whiff of realization that Mr. Bush has a habit of putting a ideological spin on his ambitions. He acts as if he's saving America or that his plans are critical to the nations future.

The public gets fatigued when politicians talk in such language.

The President does not believe or understand that he was re-elected less by his virtues than by John Kerry's vices and flaws.

The Democrats will play the "Rich Republicans trying to cheat the working folk" card in 2006, and a tired electorate might listen, if for any reason, to shut the president up!

George Bush ignores a well documented public cynicism about Iraq and does not realize the political damage of steady drum beat of car bombings and mass killings in Baghdad erode support for him.

Plus there is the legacy of the Internet Boom and bust that still galls investors.

The President really believes most folks want the added task of private accounts on top already busy lives!

His 60 stops in 60 days resembles Woodrow Wilson's national campaign to sell the League of Nations. Like President Wilson, Mr. Bush comes across as anxious, ignoring orther important duties, and lost in a fog of personal ambition and ideology few support or are interested in.

Just as dangerous, Mr. Bush fails to glimmer (or is indifferent about) public perceptions of him as a scion of wealth or as a ambitious evangelical.

Watching TV, listening to radio, and following blogs, it becomes obvious (to me) this Social Security plan seems to be a huge ambition for a not so big problem.

Perhaps the Bush Administration should ease up on such intensity, drop the private accounts plan for a few years and offer a smaller, less dramatic plan, and then concentrate of ending the war and reducing the deficit

For further Reference see PBS "American experience: The Wilson Crusade"

Taken without permission from "One Hand Clapping" A wonderful blog by Rev. Donald Sensing.

THIS IS WHAT LIFE IS REALLY ABOUT!

Celebrating 25 years If you ever get the chance not to be married in a blizzard, take it.Twenty-five years ago this afternoon I gave myself in marriage to the former Catherine Elizabeth Stephens of Durham, NC. Saturday, March 1, 1980 was a day to remember for more than one reason - the temperatures the whole last week of February had been in the 60s, but during the night of Feb. 29 the mercury nosedived. At 10 a.m. the first I was having breakfast with my best man, my younger brother, Will. It began snowing as we ate. Our wedding was scheduled for 3 p.m. We delayed it 15-20 minutes to give people more time to make the trip through the four or five inches that had fallen. A lot of folks wisely opted to stay home, but we still had a pretty good crowd. Fortunately, the reception was held in the church, too. We had the world's fastest reception as guests jammed a piece of cake down their throats, gulped some punch, kissed the bride, shook my hand and zipped out the door, where the storm had never abated.My car was untouched because, it was later reported to me, when my "friends" went outside to "decorate" it, their shaving cream froze. So did they, making them abandon this time-hallowed wedding day tradition.I had intended to drive to Savannah after the wedding, but had quickly discarded that idea when the snow started falling. I spent a little while on the phone getting reservations at a local hotel right after breakfast. So I drove my new bride there after leaving the church. We checked in and dropped out luggage in our suite. Since it was about 5:30 we decided to go on and have dinner. So we went back downstairs and crossed the lobby to the restaurant. We had a modest dinner and watched the blizzard wail outside. When we stepped back into the lobby we discovered it was absolutely packed with people. The RDU airport had been shut down by the storm and all the people were seeking rooms because their flights had been canceled.Directly ahead of us were my older brother, Andy, and his wife and some other out-of-towners from the wedding. They didn't know we were there, it was fate. Mustering all my military training, I determined that we would have to infiltrate back to the elevators across the lobby. We almost made it. Andy espied us and called to us. Rather stupidly, we went over, where he informed me that if there were no more rooms by the time he and Suzanne got to the desk, they were going to crash with us.He was joking, of course (well, I think so) but even so, I related to my dear brother in extremely unambiguous terms exactly what I thought of that idea. But no worries anyway, for they did get a room. Cathy and I wound up going to their room and playing cards for awhile before retiring for the evening.The snow continued to fall and fall. We didn't even try to venture out on Sunday. The snow finally abated midday Sunday after dropping 11-12 inches and the skies cleared. The airport reopened and all those people got out of my hotel. Monday I dug my car from the blown snow and we decided to bag Savannah and head for New Orleans, where we had a great time.Now why, you may ask, am I sitting here writing about this on the very night of my 25th anniversary? Because life goes on and sometimes life intrudes into other plans. Cathy unfortunately came down extremely ill the night before last with a virus that's making its miserable way around these parts. She has been bedridden for two days, sick as a dog.So for our 25th anniversary I took her some soup and gave her some medicine and prayed for her health. We're long past the time when we're disappointed we cannot "celebrate" the night by going to a nice restaurant and exchanging gifts and having private times. After 25 years, to minister to her in sickness, not just health, is a form of celebration. She is sleeping now. Simply to be there and give her care is, somehow, a fitting commemoration of this Silver Anniversary. For really, all we can give one another is our love and charity, and what better time than this day?
In the name of God,I, Donald, take you, Catherine, to be my wife,to have and to holdfrom this day forward,for better, for worse,for richer, for poorer,in sickness and in health,to love and to cherish,until we are parted by death.This is my solemn vow.
That's what I said 25 years ago today. I meant it then, I mean it now, and when my love is well I will so vow to her again.by Donald Sensing, 10:04 PM

Read it an weep! Here is a responsible leader who rejects fear mongering and cynical politics!
Taken from Andrew Sullivan.com

CANADA SPEAKS
"We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective -- to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this - not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to "civil union." This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: 'Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.'" - prime minister Paul Martin of Canada, blazing a trail for civil rights, in the Canadian parliament yesterday.

Unauthorized copy. Read it, and think about what has been said!
January 31, 2005OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Form Follows Fascism: MARK STEVENS
THE death last week of Philip Johnson, the nonagenarian enfant terrible, brought 20th-century architecture to a symbolic close. Even Mr. Johnson's friends sometimes doubted that he was an architect of the first rank, but friend and foe alike agreed that he was an emblematic figure of his time.
But emblematic of what? In death, his role in American culture will come into sharper focus, and it's a darker picture than many have thought.
Traditionally, Mr. Johnson is presented as the great champion of modern architecture - organizer of the landmark 1932 Museum of Modern Art show on the International Style, and architect of the Glass House on his Connecticut estate, which quickly came to symbolize American modernism. He is equally celebrated for abandoning classical modernism in the late 50's and adopting in the decades that followed a succession of styles that mirrored the changing taste of the time.
It hardly mattered that many of his skyscrapers were corporate schmaltz; he was an enlivening, generous figure, a man who charmingly described himself as a "whore" as he picked the corporate pocket. Always ready to challenge the earnest, Mr. Johnson, who understood Warhol as well as Mies, became both an icon and an iconoclast.
Only one aspect marred this picture: His embrace of fascism during the 1930's, which was mentioned only in passing in most obituaries. He later called his ideological infatuation "stupidity" and apologized whenever pressed on the matter; as a form of atonement, he designed a synagogue for no fee. With a few exceptions, critics typically had little interest in the details, granting Mr. Johnson a pass for a youthful indiscretion.
Then, in 1994, Franz Schulze's biography presented this period of Mr. Johnson's life in some depth. Mr. Schulze's account was as sympathetic as possible - and many reviews of the book still played down the importance of Mr. Johnson's politics - but it was clear that views of Mr. Johnson's import for American culture would change significantly.
Philip Johnson did not just flirt with fascism. He spent several years in his late 20's and early 30's - years when an artist's imagination usually begins to jell - consumed by fascist ideology. He tried to start a fascist party in the United States. He worked for Huey Long and Father Coughlin, writing essays on their behalf. He tried to buy the magazine American Mercury, then complained in a letter, "The Jews bought the magazine and are ruining it, naturally." He traveled several times to Germany. He thrilled to the Nuremberg rally of 1938 and, after the invasion of Poland, he visited the front at the invitation of the Nazis.
He approved of what he saw. "The German green uniforms made the place look gay and happy," he wrote in a letter. "There were not many Jews to be seen. We saw Warsaw burn and Modlin being bombed. It was a stirring spectacle." As late as 1940, Mr. Johnson was defending Hitler to the American public. It seems that only an inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation - and, presumably, the prospect of being labeled a traitor if America entered the war - led him to withdraw completely from politics.
Today, any debate over an important figure with a fascist or Communist background easily becomes an occasion for blame games between right and left. Mr. Johnson is no exception. Morally serious people can have different views of his personal culpability.
But what's essential is to let the shadow fall - to acknowledge that fascism touched something important in his sensibility. Throughout his life, he was an ardent admirer of Nietzsche. His understanding of the great philosopher was surely deeper than that of the Nazis, but he was overly enchanted by the idea of "a superior being," "the will to power" and Nietzsche's view of art. And he loved the monumental.
In an interview published in 1973, long after he renounced fascism, Mr. Johnson said: "The only thing I really regret about dictatorships isn't the dictatorship, because I recognize that in Julius's time and in Justinian's time and Caesar's time they had to have dictators. I mean I'm not interested in politics at all. I don't see any sense to it. About Hitler - if he'd only been a good architect!" In discussing Rome, he contrasted the poor artistic achievements of the democratically elected Republic with those of earlier regimes. "So let's not be so fancy-pants about who runs the country," he concluded. "Let's talk about whether it's good or not."
Mr. Johnson's observation was refreshingly hard-nosed about art's relation to politics: good politics is not now and never will be a prerequisite for good art. But his emphasis on the aesthetic as the only important value in art was remarkably cold-blooded. His main regret seems to be that contemporary republics have failed to create monuments that ravish the senses.
He never became a fascist architect. But he was probably one of those artists - among them many Communists - whose philosophical sensibilities were gutted by the experience of the 30's and World War II. Afterward, he lived more than ever for the stylish surface, appearing uncomfortable with large-minded ideas even when his buildings reached for the sky.
Perhaps as a consequence, his imagination developed no particular center. Nothing was intractable or non-negotiable. He was remarkably free. He could toy, sometimes beautifully, with history. He liked a splash. He was a playful cynic, cultivating success even as he winked at its vulgarity. If someone should complain, well, the problem lay not in the artist but in the fallen world.
Philip Johnson now seems like an emblematic figure partly because he appears to have been happily, marvelously, provocatively, disturbingly hollow. It is an underlying fear of Western culture, one that has lasted since World War II, that there is no larger or ennobling content to mine. Mr. Johnson's main flaws as an artist - his tastes for razzle-dazzle and overweening scale - are equally the weaknesses of American secular culture. His main strengths - his openness to change, playfulness and urbane rejection of the Miss Grundys of the world - are equally it strengths.
The beautiful Glass House will remain Mr. Johnson's signature work. It is the transparent heart of a collection of eclectic buildings in New Canaan, Conn. It's a dream house, a stylish stage set. It floats upon the land, eliding boundaries between inside and outside. It seems full of emptiness. It's not really a place to live, but was still Mr. Johnson's essential home. That uneasy stylishness deserves emphasis. Philip Johnson lived in a glass house. He threw stones, too.
Mark Stevens is the art critic of New York magazine and the co-author of "De Kooning: An American Master."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help

The rain has returned to San Francisco. I am mildly depressed. Reading blogs and sensing a growing helplessness to world events. The lies and deliberate manipulation of events! Kids being eaten by neighbors in Mexico, English interns killing little kids in hospitals for shear sport. The Bush Administration calloused attitude toward death and slaughter in Iraq and US media silence concerning the tribal warfare in Afghanistan. Here in SF the psychopath Chris Daly is still on the Board of Supervisors. He is the next Dan White. He will assassinate Mayor Newsom before it's over. And why not? This looser runs amuck in City Hall and the fools just laugh! Dan White did all the same and then got five years for two premeditated homicides! Chris Daly will soon realize that no one is listening and he will have a loud exit. The path has been followed so many times before. Why would this psychopath be different?

I am tired of scamers and street grifters coming into Starbucks and willfully creating loud disturbances! SF has become a asylum for the hustler and mentally troubled.

New York City has a better attitude toward the characters.

The rain will stop and life will go on. Well, maybe!