Gas prices aren't that far out of line. That may be hard to believe, but it's the truth. Here is an article from MSN Money that puts things into perspective:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/Why4DollarAGallonGasIsABargain.aspx?GT1=33007

Here are some interesting points that the article makes:

1.

When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, a gallon of gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20% more than 86 years ago.

Given the ever-increasing global demand for oil products -- during the first quarter of this year, China's oil consumption jumped by 16.5% -- and the increasing costs associated with finding, producing and refining crude oil, it makes sense that today's motorists are paying more for their motor fuel than their grandparents and great-grandparents did.

2.

Gasoline is also a fairly minor expense when you consider the overall cost of car ownership. In 1975, gasoline made up 33.4% of the total cost of owning and operating a car. By 2006, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, gasoline costs had declined to just 17.1% of the total cost of car ownership. Of course, fuel costs have risen by about $1 per gallon since 2006, but even with those increases, fuel continues to be a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership.

3.

Significant declines in U.S. oil consumption have occurred only after prolonged periods of high prices. Over the last two decades, U.S. consumers have been spoiled by low fuel prices. And those lower prices led to a buying binge that put millions of giant SUVs, pickups and other gas guzzlers on our roads.

4.

A gallon of gasoline in the U.S. is also dirt-cheap compared with gas in other countries. British motorists are paying about $8.38 per gallon for gasoline. In Norway, a major oil exporter, drivers are paying $8.73. In 2007, out of the 32 industrialized countries surveyed by the International Energy Agency, only one (Mexico) had cheaper gasoline than the United States.

Last year, drivers in Turkey were paying three times as much for their gasoline as Americans were. The IEA data also show that in India -- where the per-capita gross domestic product is about $2,700 (about 6% of the per-capita GDP in the United States) -- drivers have been paying more for their diesel fuel and gasoline than their American counterparts.

(Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.)

That last quote is a great point. A gallon of gas is still cheaper than a gallon of milk, at least in my town. And I recently bought two bottles of Heineken in a bar for $4.50 each. Those two bottles, which cost a total of nine dollars, certainly did not equal one gallon! Examples are endless. If you do the math, you'll find that many of the things that you purchase would cost well over $4 for a full gallon. Of course, we generally do not use as many gallons of these things as we use gallons of gas. That is where laws of supply and demand and profit margins come into play.

My advice to my fellow consumers is to get used to high gas prices. The lifestyle changes that we make in order to afford these prices are likely to be long-term, if not permanent. Gas prices will go higher before they go lower, and when they do go lower, they are not likely to go down as much as we would like. We will need to make adjustments accordingly.

Another bit of advice: don't fall prey to the constant media negativity about the situation. Just as the media has been constantly focused on the negative aspects of the economy (which is still growing, albeit slowly, with low unemployment) and the Iraq war (in which we have made great gains), so will the media constantly try to demoralize us about inflation. Don't let them get you down.

Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, but Hillary won't quit. Pundits are declaring victory for Barack Obama's campaign and defeat for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Although it seems almost impossible for Hillary to win the nomination at this point, she is apparently hoping for the possibility that superdelegates may hand her a victory, or that courts may declare that her victories in the Florida and Michigan primaries will no longer be disqualified from the delegate count.

But there is another school of thought that says that Hillary wants to destroy Obama's chances at the presidency even if she knows she can't win. One possible reason she would do this is to keep her options open for the 2012 race. Some people think she will be too old for a presidential run by then. But she will be younger then than John McCain is now. And if McCain defeats Obama in this year's general election, McCain may not run for a second term four years from now, when he will be 75 years old. So Hillary may be eyeing that long-term prize.

Another possible reason that Hillary may want to destroy Obama's candidacy is revenge. It seems like only yesterday that Hillary was thought to be the inevitable Democratic nominee -- and, by some, the inevitable next president. Knowing Hillary (as well as her hubby Bill), she probably thought she was entitled to be the next president. She probably sees Obama as an insolent young punk who came out of nowhere and stole her rightful prize. Five years ago, few people outside of Illinois knew who Obama was. How dare he stand in the way of the Clintons!

Many Democrats are now asking Hillary to step aside so that Obama and the DNC can officially begin the fight against McCain. But Her Highness apparently intends to stay in the race, possibly all the way to the convention.

Personally, I hope she does. I've been taking pleasure in watching the two Democratic candidates beat each other up. It's usually rare to see a Democrat feud with another Democrat, or a liberal to attack another liberal. But that's exactly what has been happening these past months. It has also been fun to watch the Clinton attack machine directed at another Democrat for a change. The Clintons excel at the politics of division; they deeply divided their country during their eight years in the White House. It's been a pleasure to see them divide their own party this time.

I have this to say to liberals who are angry over Hillary's antics: the Clintons are a monster that you helped to create. You elected Hillary's lying, cheating husband to two terms as president. You defended the Clintons through countless scandals and illegal activities, sending them the message that they can do whatever they please, right or wrong. To all you Democrats who stood behind the Clintons no matter what they did: you have brought this current election-year mess on yourselves and your party.

I would enjoy watching the Democratic Party's civil war even more if the Republican party had nominated a good conservative candidate to benefit from it. Unfortunately, the Republican nominee is John McCain.

An ex-Gitmo prisoner committed a suicide attack in Iraq. The U.S. military has confirmed that a man named Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi took part in a suicide attack in Mosul last week, and that al-Ajmi was a former detainee at the U.S.-run detention center at Guantanamo. Here is the MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24504862

This should serve as a wake-up call to those (including Republican presidential nominee John McCain) who want to close down the prison at Gitmo. What, I ask you, will we do with the detainees after the prison is closed? The prisoners at Gitmo are not purse snatchers, nor are they what libertarians like to call "non-violent drug offenders". They are terrorists. T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S. If they are set free, they will commit more acts of terror.

The Myanmar government is refusing international aid. A cyclone has killed over 22,000 people in the Southeast Asian country which is also known as Burma. The U.N. estimates that about 1 million people are now homeless in Myanmar, and that its entire lower delta region is basically underwater. Obviously, this is a major disaster which will require much help from around the world. Here is a related article:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080507/D90GR35G2.html

So, why is Myanmar's government blocking relief efforts? Because it is an isolated dictatorship. A dictatorship requires its people to be completely dependent on its government so that its regime can maintain power. If the people of Myanmar receive help from other countries and outside organizations, it may make them less dependent on their government. Even if the difference in dependency is miniscule and short-lived, the government will still see it as a threat. Of course, Myanmar's government is probably incapable of providing sufficient relief for its people, and probably wouldn't provide it even if they could.

As this disturbing drama plays out on the world stage, I think that American leftists ought to learn a lesson from it. This is what can happen in a totalitarian regime, and if America becomes a socialist country (as liberals apparently want it to), totalitarianism may be the only way to enforce the socialism.

I especially want to point this situation out to so-called "multiculturalists", who claim that America is evil and other cultures are better. "Multiculturalism" is really just a euphemism for anti-Americanism. People who subscribe to this philosophy actually tend to know suprisingly little about other world cultures, even though they claim to be experts on the subject. For the past seven years, I have been stunned at how little leftists tend to know about the cultures of Muslim countries, even after everything that has happened since 9/11. It also amazes me how little leftists seem to know about the ways of life in Communist countries. When the controversy over Elian Gonzalez erupted in 2000, I was shocked by how many liberals failed to understand that Cuba is vastly different than the United States. When I tried to explain to my liberal friends that Gonzalez escaped from an oppressive country, and that he would be placed under the control of Castro's government after the Clinton administration forced the boy's return to that country, they refused to believe me. After all the years of the Cold War, how can people be so ignorant about the ways of a Communist country that sits less than a hundred miles south of the Florida keys? As usual, liberals took the side of America's enemy.

The cultures of Third World dictatorships are another thing that so-called multiculturalists often seem clueless about. When liberals hear about the difficult lives that people live in such countries, they often find ways to somehow blame America. (That's what multiculturalism always boils down to).

So...this Myanmar situation is an opportunity for liberals to learn about what really goes on in some cultures. In a dictatorship, nothing is more important to the government than maintaining control over its people. In many cases, such regimes murder thousands, if not millions, of people in order to exert and maintain power. In the case of Myanmar, the government is willing to let its people continue to suffer, and perhaps die, rather than risk the possibility of those people becoming less dependent on the regime.

Meanwhile, America (the country which multiculturalists hate) is one of many countries around the world that seeks to help the people of Myanmar, but so far the Myanmar government is refusing to allow it.