"the rise in oil prices from $22 per barrel in May 2003 to $108 today has almost nothing to do with increases in oil demand."

"the huge increase in oil prices is directly correlated to the American voter's increasing loss of resolve on Iraq, and the related threat that America will abandon Iraq to chaos that will threaten Iraqi oil exports and global access to Middle East oil."

But back before the war, we in the USA weren't getting any oil from Iraq, right? Remember economic sanctions? Wasn't Iraq under embargo from most of the world?

"At best, America's retreat from Iraq would result in a hostile Iranian proxy state in Iraq that will postion the radicals in Iran to pursue their dream of liberating Saudi Arabia from the "apostate" Sunni regime, and thereby controlling global oil prices and distribution to America's economic detriment."

And the rest of the world would let Iran take over Saudi Arabia?

"Alternatively, it would ideally position Al Qaeda on the border with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where they could join forces with their radical Wahabi brethren in Saudi Arabia to pursue and overthrow of the "apostate" royal regime, and allow them to establish a vicious Sunni caliphate that would control global oil supply and prices to the extreme detriment of the USA and the financial well being of every American."

There's no evidence SH had anything to do with Al Qaeda, either. Toppling him gave them an entry point.

IOW, what you're saying is that the war really is about oil. So America must fight on endlessly to protect the supply of cheap oil, rather than change our consumption habits. Except the oil isn't so cheap any more.

"So far, the American people are paying almost $650 billion more per year for oil than they were before they began buying the insane notion that America can abandon Iraq to chaos that would upset the global oil supply/demand balance and threaten global oil supply."

How much is the war costing? How much will it cost to stay in Iraq long-term?

How about we put a tax on every barrel of imported oil, at a level that will finance a continued presence in Iraq without deficit spending and without using any other tax funds? That way, the real cost of the oil will be clear to everyone. We'll wind up paying for it anyway.

"You and your psycho liberal brethren may feel this is a good thing because radically higher oil prices will force America to wean itself off of oil and pursue other alternatives. The problem is that it will take at least a generation to achieve that goal if it was our first priority, and a sudden, radical increase in oil prices could easily trigger a global depression."

The first OPEC oil embargo was 35 years ago. Yet in all that time the only administration that took energy independence seriously was the Carter Administration, which lasted just one term. Since 1980 we've had 20 years of Republican presidents (plus 8 years of Bill Clinton) who could have made energy independence a national goal, but chose not to. Instead we got SUVs, and "supply side economics". Alternative energy and other changes needed have been poor relations, underfunded and ignored.

But War For Oil is OK. Thanks for confirming that.

I'm all for splitting the household chores equally, parity in home responsibilities, whatever you want to call it. No-brainer.

But who decides what amounts to "equality"? Or what chores need doing when?

IOW, how many loads of laundry equals paying the bills and balancing the checkbook? Who decides how often the bathroom needs to be cleaned?

Sure, in a perfect world all that is worked out in a fair and balanced manner. But in real relationships it's a lot different.

said it best.

John Lennon in the song "Imagine"

Woody Allen when he (or a character in one of his movies) said: "If Jesus were to come back and see some of the things done in His name, He'd never stop throwing up."

Kurt Vonnegut in the Books of Bokonon

Most of all, Douglas Adams in a speech back in 1998:

http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

People can believe, or not believe, almost anything they want, no problem. The problem is when they insist that their beliefs be forced on other people without any proof of their validity, or even serious questioning, simply because they are "religious" beliefs.

The forcing can be direct (you must believe what I believe, without question, because I say so, or because my interpretation ) or indirect (my right to do something because of my religious beliefs trumps your rights to do something else). When people insist that their religious explanations be taught as science in public schools simply because they believe in them, that's direct forcing. When people insist on excluding others from a gym because of their religious beliefs, that's indirect forcing.

The person you most have to watch out for is the person who insists that their beliefs not be questioned.

"why so many brilliant, otherwise admirably normal, productive, nice people are believers"

It's because there are all sorts of questions that we still cannot answer. Like what happens to a person's consciousness when they die, or how the universe came to be, or if we are more than organic bags of mostly water that simply got to the point of being able to ask these questions.

Believing gives them at least some idea of answers to those questions.

After all, it's impossible to prove that God or an afterlife does not exist. The universe we know has been shown to contain far odder things.