Godlessness and Science

I finally got around to reading Ann Coulter's Godless:The Church of Liberalism. This is a book that I really wanted to like. I usually agree with Ms. Coulter's points of view even though I don't always agree with how she presents them. My biggest beef is she has the bad habit of grouping the entire opposition to her point of view and making broad and grand statements about them. Coulter's works are littered with phrases starting with "Liberals think..." as if she wants us to believe not only that she knows what everybody thinks, but why they think this way. In taking such a stand, she sets herself up for scrutiny.

On the other hand, her sharp wit, while irksome to many, is one reason I like reading her. Some of these topics can get a little dry but Coulter always manages to keep it interesting. It is also very apparent that she researches her material. Just about everything she points out can is referenced in her notes. Evidence of her accuracy can be found in the fact that virtually all criticism of Ms. Coulter seems to be in the form of personal attacks.

Now to the book. Chapter one explains the title of the book and why she calls liberals "Godless". She goes on to call liberalism itself, a religion, complete with its own dogma, priests, accounts of creation and human destiny. Chapters two through six explore common points of argument between the right and left - topics like crime, education, and abortion. Here, Coulter really shines. She does a great job of pointing out why the views of the left on these issues are just ridiculous. For the most part, she didn't really go into linking liberal beliefs to religion. In other words, she didn't really stick to her primary topic, but nevertheless, the arguments were spot on.

All this was just a warm up session, though. The rest of the book is where it seems to me that the real drive behind the book is. One of the common arguments of the left is that the right doesn't believe in science. Coulter is determined to turn that argument around. Today, most of this argument concerns global warming, er climate change. In Godless, Coulter doesn't get into this. Instead, she goes into the long debated argument regarding evolution versus creationism.

This was the part I really looked forward to. Coulter, one by one, defeats just about every argument of Darwin. She does this with facts about research others have done. Personally, I knew about some of the problems with Darwinism but the body of evidence Coulter presents is compelling.

I don't dispute any of her arguments. What I do dispute is her conclusion. Darwinism may not be true but that doesn't mean that science or evolution cannot account for the reason we are here. She doesn't actually say it, but I get the feeling that Coulter feels that since there are so many holes in Darwinism, that must mean that science has failed in explaining creation and therefore, we must just accept that "God did it." Coulter falls into her own trap where it's obvious that she doesn't understand science either.

Just as those who accuse creationists of being anti-science or say things like "evolution is a fact", it is equally incorrect to say that science doesn't work because of a theory being disproved. That's the whole point of science. Science isn't truth. Science isn't fact. Science is a path to discovery that is based more on failure than it is on success. Darwin's assertions may be largely disproved, but in the very least, they put us on a path. Because of this path, we know a hell of a lot more than we used to and more importantly, we understand more about what we do not know. Science will come up with better theories based upon knowledge of the failed ones.

Let's imagine a conversation in the middle ages where a budding scientist meets Anneth of Coulter. Anneth believes in the traditional "God painted the sky blue." dogma.

Scientist: Have you heard the latest scientific theory about why the sky is blue? We now believe that there is a giant sapphire in the sky. Our instrumental readings indicate that the sky color is consistent with that of a sapphire.

A of C: There are many holes in that theory. Haven't you heard that some scientists have discovered gravity and that means it would be impossible for a sapphire of the mass required to fill the sky with a blue color to exist?

Scientist: So you are saying that I need to account for gravity and come up with a better theory?

A of C: No, obviously science can't explain why the sky is blue because God did it.

Again, Godless is a worthwhile read. I just don't agree with its conclusions.

Economic Recovery

I found an interesting tale on the Internet. It had a European flavor so I changed a few details and embellished the story a bit.

There is a small town in Ohio where the recession has hit particularly hard. The local factory had closed. Few are working and everybody is in debt.

An out-of-towner driving through the town sees Harriet's Antique shop and stops. He sees a 1950's era Wurlitzer jukebox and asks Harriet how much it costs. Harriet says it's in perfectly working condition and the price is $20,000. The man winces a bit but really wants it. He sighs and agrees and writes a $20,000 check.

Harriet cashes the check and pays her landlord, Hank $10,000 in back rent she owed. She also pays 5 other people she owed money to a total of $5000. Then Hank pays the local restaurateur, Ellen the entire $10,000 and squares away his debt.

Ellen, with much of the town out of debt, does very good business that week at her restaurant. She does so well that she is able to pay Harriet, the $20,000 she owed in antiques decorations for her restaurant.

At the end of that week, the out-of-towner returns to the antique shop and says his wife won't let him keep the Wurlitzer. Harriet returns the $20,000.

There was no profit or income.

But everyone no longer has any debt and the small townspeople look optimistically towards their future.

The Death of Journalism

http://www.mediamalpracticemovie.com/

When I read about John Zieglers Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin was Targeted, I knew I had to get this DVD. The news coverage of the 2008 election was very disturbing to me. I was curious if Ziegler's film would reflect my own personal observations. It did.

Let me summarize the argument. In late 2007 and even early into 2008, it looked like the two major candidates were going to be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN were all nervous over this as most of the people at these networks desperately wanted the next President of the United States to be a Democrat. They were so uneasy about Clinton's chances that they derailed her candidacy and put the spotlight on a young, articulate, African-American who was in better position to get the young vote, the moderate vote, and the liberal vote. It would potentially hurt the female vote but the news media felt the trade-off still favored the Democrats. Meanwhile, these same networks did everything they could to convince America that Giuliani was unelectable and John McCain, as a moderate, would have a better chance. They knew that the soft-spoken McCain would look timid, old, and weak next to Obama. The scheme worked as suddenly, McCain and Obama started winning primaries.

Remember the stink Bill Clinton made about how the media was treating Hillary? Remember how the once-adored Clinton was berated for his accusations? That was just the beginning.

Everything was going as planned for the Obama campaign and the news media. The polls in mid-summer 2008 clearly favored Obama. Then suddenly and unexpectedly, McCain dropped a bombshell in August 2008. This bombshell was the choice of an outspoken, much truer conservative Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. Palin frightened the bejesus out of the news media as conservatives and many ex-Hillary supporters rallied behind her. Suddenly the McCain campaign was a real threat to the Obama campaign and the hopes and dreams of the news media. What did the news media do? They launched a barrage of attacks on Sarah Palin. They attacked her family. They picked on where she shopped. They accused her child of not being her child They got Saturday Night Live to spoof her incessantly. They got Katie Couric to interview her and Couric relentlessly attempted to "gotcha" Palin. When all was said and done, enough damage had been done to the McCain/Palin ticket to get Obama elected. It was an amazing display of contrast how Obama's running mate - Joe Biden, got virtually unnoticed during the entire campaign. Also, since the news media was doing Obama's dirty work by smearing McCain and Palin, Obama looked like a saint. His campaign never had to say anything bad about the opposition. Meanwhile, whenever McCain or Palin attempted to show a negative aspect about Obama, (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayres, willing to negotiate with Iran, etc.) the news media spun it as a negative campaign by desperate candidates.

John Ziegler's Media Malpractice reviews the 2008 campaign. It shows examples of everything shown above. Ziegler presents news clips, screenshots from blogs, and newspaper headlines that provide damning evidence that the news media was behind the Obama campaign all the way. In this regard, the presentation succeeds and should anger anybody who believes in fair journalism.

While I thought it was all worthwhile, I couldn't help but want more behind the scenes material. I would have liked Ziegler to have directly challenged the media organizations concerning the 2008 campaign. I would have liked some statistics to support and further drive home the whole point being made. In these areas, the presentation falls short. Nevertheless, the material shown here is disturbing to say the least and anyone who honestly believes the news media was fair should watch this DVD.

Hate Speech

"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." -Carrie Prejean (Miss California)

“She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!” - Perez Hilton (Miss USA judge and blogger)

I don't usually comment on the media hits of the week but I do want to point out one observation.

The mainstream media in general, is treating one of the above comments as hate speech. In our politically correct, appease everybody society, it's obvious which one it is.

Congratulations! We all just bought a new car

When it was time to purchase a new car, are you one of those who drove past the Chevy dealership on your way to look at a Honda? Did you read Consumer Reports and decide that you couldn't trust the reliability of a Dodge? Did you purchase a Toyota Yaris because the "Big 3" didn't offer anything competitive? Did you decide on a Nissan 370Z because it appears and feels more modern than a Ford Mustang or Dodge Challenger?

Well guess what? Even though you stuck your nose up in the air as you passed by the Saturn dealership, they still got your money. These companies may have not made the cars, SUV's, and trucks you wanted, but you and your children just bought their product anyways thanks to our Federal Government that is so generous with our money.

Not only that, our government is now running General Motors and Chrysler. They dangle billions of dollars in front of their chairmen and quickly pull it back and say "Uh, Uh, Uh, you don't get this unless you do what we tell you to do. Let's start by...oh...how about firing your CEO...That's a good company. Oh, and you too Chrysler. Get together with Fiat and we may just keep you solvent."

Who out there really thinks the Federal Government can run the auto industry successfully? Unfortunately, this is only the beginning.

For those of you who agree with this;

Wake up! We are slowly but surely becoming a Socialist Police State where the Federal Government controls everything!

They're doing this by making us fearful and villifying corporate executives. Corporate executives can be bad but they can be ousted due to poor performance. Once the government comes in, there is almost no way of getting them out.

This Is The New America

Those folks who cheered and celebrated a "new America" at the inauguration of Barack Obama may want to consider how this "new America" is going to look. Aren't these the "green" people? The one's who complain about businesses dumping trash into the air, water, and ground? I guess none of the people who attended the inauguration were boy or girl scouts where you are supposed to leave a place in better condition than the way you found it.

Maybe cleaning up this mess is where those new "green jobs" Barack Obama promised are going to come from.

George W. Bush: My Perspective

So the eight year Presidency of George W Bush ends. Bush's tenure was unlike any other in many ways. I am quite sure that there had never been a President so openly hated by the mainstream media and others. The others include most of Hollywood and a multitude of pseudo-intellectuals who would daily post blogs and comments on the web spewing utter hatred at the 43'rd President and his Vice President.

With all this hatred on the web and all the news people from CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN openly criticizing seemingly every single policy Bush invoked, it had become the norm for many Americans to just assume that Bush was a terrible President. It's practically become the background noise of America.

Why all this venom? I'm not completely sure but I have some thoughts about that. The mainstream media adored Bill Clinton. Clinton had agendas that agreed with Hollywood and the media - namely ideas awash in pure liberalism that empowered Hollywood. These same people were sure that Al Gore would continue what Clinton had started. The problem was, Gore didn't win. Instead, we got this Republican and his semi-conservative ideals. Hollywood and the media went on the warpath immediately to ensure a Democratic victory in 2004. When that didn't work, they re-doubled their efforts in his second term.

These attacks included:

Vilifying the tax cuts: Bush inherited a recession and immediately put forth the John F. Kennedy/Ronald Reagan idea of lowering taxes to stimulate the economy. Media pundits and Hollywood figures bashed this idea by constantly chanting "tax cuts for the rich - Bush only cares about the rich!" Much to the gall of his critics, Bush's tax cuts worked brilliantly and the economy flourished for years. Yet Bush never got any credit whatsoever for the incredibly strong economy America and the world experienced from 2003 to 2007. Remember all the credit Clinton got during the dot com boom? Yeah, like that had anything to do with Clinton.

Faulting Bush for 9/11: Ever since America supported Israel, much of the middle east has hated America. Generations of poor Arabs were taught that the reason they were poor was due to Israel and the United States. The hatred grew and spread and no President ever really did anything about it. Remember the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 and how Jimmy Carter sat on his ass and did practically nothing? Reagan didn't do much either even though embassies were bombed during his Presidency. George HW Bush at least took on Iraq for invading Kuwait but left Saddam in power. Clinton did very little despite his claims after 9/11. So when the **** hit the fan on 9/11/2001, that is when the anti-American hatred in the Middle East finally hurt Americans on our own soil, the only culprit the media could find was one George W. Bush. Bush reacted with the Patriot Act to help prevent this from happening again. All he got in response was how it violated our rights.

Iraq: The intensity of criticism and hatred of George W Bush over his decision to invade Iraq is a national disgrace. The mainstream media conveniently forgot that virtually every politician in Washington, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, and Al Gore, upon hearing the evidence from the CIA Director George Tenet, was convinced that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical, and possibly biological and even nuclear weapons. This was in 1998 and nobody did anything about it! Remember the ridiculous UN inspections? Remember how they were not allowed access to certain "restricted areas" (there were not supposed to be any "restricted areas" in Iraq according the the treaty Saddam Hussein signed)? Remember how Saddam Hussein dictated to the UN inspectors as to where and when they could do those inspections? At the time, this was outrageously scary yet no one seems to remember this. All I hear and read now is how the UN found no weapons of mass destruction and how Bush lied us into the war. The invasion led to the capture of Saddam Hussein - the killer of thousands (some reports suggest millions) of his own people. The media downplayed this and almost acted disappointed that the invasion had this positive result.

The Surge: The Iraq invasion didn't go smoothly. There is no question that Bush and his administration underestimated the level of insurgency the troops would encounter. In my opinion, the method and hubris of the invasion was an area where Bush was rightly criticized, especially when the premature "Mission Accomplished" sign was put up. Bush, in realizing this mistake, took the advice of his generals and campaigned for a "surge" - a dramatic increase in troops to finish the job. Not surprising, he was criticized and ridiculed. Of course, it worked. Where's the credit?

Waterboarding: Bush has been criticized heavily for allowing waterboarding. Is it torture? I can't say but I wonder if prisoners who suffered unbelievable pain, lost body parts, caught diseases, and starved half to death in other countries would regard this relatively mild procedure that does no permanent damage as torture.

Osama bin Laden: The funder of the 9/11 attacks has been hiding in caves and living meagerly in fear of being caught and/or killed for over seven years. We've had troops in Afghanistan hunting him and the rest of the Taliban. The media mostly ignores this and asks why Bush never went after bin Laden.

Corporate Bailouts: I'm with the critics on this one. Bush panicked and gave unbelievable sums of our money to the irresponsible clowns who mishandled it. In other words, Bush acted like a liberal would have.

What if Bush hadn't done these things?

What if the recession of 2000/2001 lingered due to no breaks for businesses? Don't forget the tax refunds we all got. Do you think Bush would have been congratulated for this?

What if Bush had closed the airports and called the national guard in early September 2001 due to warnings that Al Qaeda was planning an attack? What if he did this and 9/11 didn't happen? He probably would have been impeached for violating our rights. What if there was no Patriot Act and Al Qaeda struck on U.S. soil again?

What if we ignored Iraq? Saddam Hussein would have at least continued to shoot at our planes and kill more people. What else might have he done? After all, he did hire nuclear scientists and had communications with North Korea.

You've probably heard this before but what if we had not waterboarded the operative into revealing the Al Qaeda plot of bombing transAtlantic planes? What if had happened and the mainstream media found out we had a prisoner that knew all about it?

Don't you think the highlight of Bush's Presidency would have been the capture of Osama bin Laden? Do you really think he ignored him?

Farewell George Bush, you were a far from perfect President but you dealt with many difficult situations. You never whined or backed down. I hope that as time passes, you will be remembered for much of the good you did during a very difficult Presidency.

Out on a Limb

My daring NFL predictions for the rest of the season.

Cardinals over Eagles
Steelers over Ravens

Superbowl Pick:

Steelers over Cardinals

Format Change

Happy New Year!

I decided this year to treat this blog a little differently. I've been having the problem with this blog where I feel obligated to post for the reason that it had been too long since my last post. Subsequently, I've hurried together some posts that I never really felt fully satisfied with.

My attitude concerning this blog will be different this year. I want to concentrate on creating more robust posts that fully and truly convey whatever point I want to make. This is going to mean fewer postings but the postings I do produce should be a bit meatier than before - at least I hope so. I will probably occasionally sprinkle in a few quickies like sports predictions and such also.

So be patient, I'm not going anywhere. Thank you for your attention.

Robert

Afternoons Will Never be the Same

On Thursday, December 11, 2008, Larry Elder announced his departure from TalkRadio 790 KABC.

For 15 years, Larry Elder has stood out as the conscience of America (for those who would listen, anyways). I've listened to him for years on KABC and found his calm demeanor and no-nonsense approach to political and economic issues refreshing. While I didn't always agree with him, he always made sense and I could always see his point of view - even if I occasionally disagreed with it.

There are many out there who won't be sorry to see him go. These individuals are those Larry termed "victicrats" - people who feel sorry for themselves and feel they got a raw deal in life and its out of their control. Larry preaches that the road to success or failure begins and ends with the self. Do you see the world as a place of opportunity where high moral values and hard work get rewarded? Do you see the world as a dark place riddled with hatred where only certain select fortunate people get the advantages? One of these points of view will lead to success, the other to failure.

If you've never seen it, take a look at Larry Elder's Personal Pledge.

Also, take a look at his weekly articles at TownHall.com

Larry, I will miss your daily broadcast. I don't know why you had to leave so suddenly but I wish you all the best in whatever endeavors you pursue.

The One Way Street

USA Today published the following article today:

President-elect Obama's actions perk up stock market

Today, the Dow lost 7% of its value by plunging 679.95.

I'm sure, President Bush will get the blame for that.

Your Bond-quote quotient is exceptional!

Your Bond-quote quotient is exceptional!

James Bond 007 One-liner Quiz

Guess Who?

Read the following statement and try to guess which organization wrote it. The link to the answer is at the bottom.

[Our organization] views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.
The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them.

[We] endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism. The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies. Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money.

We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.
...
We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress. The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected. It is critical to our country’s renewal and future. We think this election is a great opportunity to bring an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It can mean job creation and relief for those who are losing their homes or unable to pay their bills. This election can set the stage to advance the interests of working people; of those excluded because of race, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status. This election can begin to turn the tide: it can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights.

The Answer

Spread the Wealth Part 2

The gist of the story below is not mine. I have embellished it a great deal, though.

There are five guys who went to high school together and remained friends long after. Arnold became a very successful businessman and makes a very good living. Benny owns his own small business and works very hard to keep it and manages to make a decent living. Charlie is an employee of Arnold and makes a nice living as a manager in Arnold's company. David has struggled and is also an employee of Arnold albeit a low end one. Edward has been in and out of work since high school.

Now in their thirties, the five of them get together once a month at Clinton's restaurant. Through an agreement with the owner Clinton, the bill comes to $100 which Arnold, being the most well off, pays $60 of it. Benny and Charlie each pay $20 and David and Edward pay nothing. This arrangement goes on for some time and everybody is used to it.

Eventually, the restaurant is taken over by new management. Bush, the new owner decides he can increase business to the restaurant by lowering prices. This includes making a new arrangement with the five men who come every month. The total food bill at Bush's restaurant is reduced to $80. Bush decides that since the bulk of the bill had been paid by Arnold, he should get the biggest break. So the new arrangement is Arnold pays $50, Benny and Charlie each pay $15, while David and Edward still pay $0.

Arnold is delighted with the price cut. Benny is also very appreciative. Charlie is unsure how he feels. Yes, he is paying $5 less but is somewhat jealous of Arnold paying $10 less. "Why does the rich guy get the biggest break?" he wonders. David and Edward are frustrated as to why they didn't benefit from the price cut at all. For the first time, there is an uneasiness in the group as three of them felt they got the short end of things. Benny tries to explain that it's only fair that the people paying the bulk of the bill deserve to benefit the most. Charlie, David, and Edward refuse to see it that way. They feel the new arrangement is unfair. Meanwhile, Bush's lower prices attracts a lot of new business and the restaurant booms profits for years.

All good things must end and it is discovered that some staff at the restaurant made poor investment choices with the restaurant's profits. Instead of the restaurant being a model of financial stability, it is a wreck and Bush and his executives struggle to keep the restaurant in business. What's more, this occurred just as Bush was ready to hand over the restaurant to a new owner.

There are two prospective new owners. One of them is McCain. McCain has similar philosophies as Bush. He tells the five men he will maintain the current pricing and the breakdown. He also knows he will have to keep a better eye on what the staff is doing than his predecessor if the restaurant is to stay in business.

The second prospective owner is Obama. Obama has his own ideas on how the restaurant should be run. He is going to "change" things. He talks to the five men and tells them that he will return back to the $100 total price of the Clinton era, but, he will offer the majority of them a better break. Arnold will pay $90, but Benny and Charlie will now only pay $10 each. This allows David and Edward to actually receive $5 each.

David and Edward are thrilled about Obama and passionately hope he becomes the new owner. Charlie likes Obama too as he relishes paying less and feels good about the thought of how David and Edward would benefit from this. "So what if Arnold has to pay more, he can afford it. It's only fair that he share his wealth."

Arnold and Benny, both with business experience shake their heads at what Obama is attempting. Arnold can't believe he will be required to pay such a huge percentage of the bill and be outright paying David and Edward as well. Benny, being the smart small business owner recognizes that even though he is paying less, Obama's vision won't work. Bush already demonstrated that the restaurant does better with lower prices so why does Obama want to go back to the Clinton price? Also, Benny realizes that Obama's plan will hurt Arnold and if Arnold is hurt, he will be subsequently hurt also as he will get less business from Arnold and people employed by Arnold, like Charlie.

In the end, Obama becomes the new owner - much to the delight of Charlie, Edward, and David. Unfortunately, Arnold leaves the group leaving the $100 bill to be paid by the four of them. Benny, Charlie, Edward, and David can't pay. The harmony the five men once had is shattered and the restaurant is eventually shut down.

Spread the Wealth Part I

For those of you who think the Obama "spread the wealth" policy is a good thing should seriously sit down and think this through. I've found a couple of analogous stories that illustrate the problem. The sad thing is that all one really has to do is look at the failed Soviet Union and that should put the matter to rest. Unfortunately, too many people aren't aware of that history.

A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA. The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing". The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party"."

Echoes of 1985

Concerning the NLCS game between the Dodgers and Phillies last night, I have to gather that Joe Torre didn't know that you don't put a fireball right-handed pitcher up against a left-handed power hitter when a playoff game is on the line. Jonathan Broxton, like Tom Niedenfuer 23 years ago, was the poor choice and Matt Stairs was fortunate to play the role of Jack Clark.

I wonder if Torre mouthed "maybe we should walk Stairs" right before the big hit.

Round 3 (Enter Stupidity)

The October 7 Presidential debate featured some really stupid remarks by both gentlemen.

John McCain

And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values. You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments.
As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.
Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy.

First of all - Welcome to the Democratic Party Senator McCain. You know, the party that makes all sorts of pledges of ideas that sound good to some people but are really bad ideas? How is "renegotiating at the new value of those homes" going to "do something about home values" other than lower them? Or is that what you meant? Then why did you say "stabilize home values"?

This is exactly what I'd expect from a Democrat. You're promising lower payments and stable home values. Add to that a big government expenditure. It doesn't add up and I am speaking as one who owes more on his house than what its worth. Yeah, part of my brain likes what you said but I'm no hypocrite.

Barack Obama

So here's what I would do. If you've got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it. You can keep your choice of doctor. We're going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.
...
If you don't have health insurance, you're going to be able to buy the same kind of insurance that Sen. McCain and I enjoy as federal employees. Because there's a huge pool, we can drop the costs. And nobody will be excluded for pre-existing conditions, which is a huge problem.

So what's to prevent an employer from offering the worst health care out there to basically force all employees to go for option B and then not have to worry about dealing with employee health care? After all, the employer is offering health care so he or she can't be fined, right? Raise your hand if you'd like Senator-level health care. Mine's up. I guess we'll have to stick the doctor bills to GE, Microsoft, and of course, Exxon/Mobil.

Barack Obama

And one of the things I want to do is make sure that we're providing incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that's made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea.

In case you didn't know Senator, fewer and fewer cars are being built in America and one of the reasons why is that American car companies are taxed much higher than those in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and China. And you want to raise them higher, right? This is spoken like a true Democrat. Say what we want to hear even though your policies contradict the result you promise.

McCain was less than brilliant in this debate but he won it, nevertheless.

Round 2

If you missed the October 2'nd Vice Presidential debate. Here it is in a nutshell.

Moderator: Senator Biden, how do you see the bailout situation?

Biden: We need more oversight and McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor Palin?

Palin: I just want to talk about the economy in general. McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator Biden, what do you think about being Vice President?

Biden: McCain said the economy is strong. Then he changed his mind. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor Palin?

Palin: Stop playing politics. That's not what McCain meant. McCain is good.

Moderator: Governor Palin, whose fault is the subprime meltdown?

Palin: We need to stop greed on Wall St. McCain will do this because McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Obama knew this would happen. McCain didn't. We need healthcare. Oh, and McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor, would you care to comment about health care too even though it wasn't asked?

Palin: No, I want to talk about taxes. Obama wants to raise taxes. Obama is bad.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Obama is not bad. Obama is good. McCain wants to raise taxes. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: I'm a straight talker and McCain is good.

Moderator: Since you two want to talk taxes. Say more.

Biden: It's just simple fairness. Rich people should pay more taxes because like John McCain, rich people are bad.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: Bad people like Obama want unfair re-distribution of wealth.

Moderator: Governor, do you support McCain's absurd health plan?

Palin: Yes, McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: I'd rather talk about the good people in Scranton Pennsylvania. John McCain wants them to pay Exxon/Mobil's taxes. McCain is bad. ... Oh and about health care, John McCain wants to tax health care. He really is bad.

Moderator: I'm going to ask you a tough question Senator. What promises can't you keep?

Biden: None. It's all good because Exxon/Mobil will pay for it all. They, like McCain, are bad people.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: How is Obama going to keep the promise he made to one group and the contradicting promise he made to another? See, I don't have to answer the questions either.

Moderator: There's no promise you can't keep?

Palin: Well if you insist. I don't have to worry about keeping promises since I have made none.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Let me take 10 more minutes to repeat everything I have already said about taxes. Obama will lower them and give us free healthcare and clean alternative energy. McCain will raise taxes and we will all choke on oil exhausts.

Oh, and I support windfall profits taxes. They have been proven to be horrible for the economy and is really the stupidest idea ever, so I hope Governor Palin will convince McCain to support them too.

Moderator: Governor, what about legislation regulating the mortgage industry?

Palin: McCain said two years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would be in trouble. McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator, didn't you disagree with Obama on this?

Biden: Yes, and Obama predicted the mortgage crisis two years ago. McCain was unaware. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor, is that so?

Palin: Let's talk about energy and not boring old mortgages. It's a subject I really know. I am good. Energy independence is good.

Moderator: Okay, screw that last question. Let's just skip it and move on to climate change. Governor, what do you think?

Palin: Yeah, we feel it in Alaska more than anywhere else. We can help this by being energy independent. Did I mention that I like talking about this subject?

Moderator: Senator Biden, as a leading climate scientist, what has your exhaustive research on climate change led you to conclude?

Biden: All scientific evidence leads me to believe that climate change is McCain's and Palin's fault because they want to "drill, drill, drill".

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: We have oil, gas and coal. We believe in using it. Obama and Biden want to keep it in the ground.

Moderator: Governor do you support clean coal?

Palin: Yes

Biden: Me to, but McCain is bad.

Moderator: Senator, do you support rights for same sex couples?

Biden: Yes

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: Yes, but not gay marriage.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: I agree, no gay marriage.

Moderator: This is no fun. Let's move to foreign policy. Governor, you said you believe in an exit strategy in Iraq, is that true?

Palin: The surge is good. Petraus is good. McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Obama said we will be out in 16 months. McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: Our troops have come too far to throw up a white flag now. If McCain is so bad, why did you support him initially and call Obama "not ready to be Commander-in-Chief" Senator?

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: McCain voted against funding for troops. McCain is bad.

I'll end it here and just say that Palin looked particularly strong early and really challenged Biden well on the economic and energy questions. Biden looked more comfortable in the foreign policy arena. He obviously wanted to do what Obama chose not to do and that is to continually attack McCain on every single issue. It was too incessant if you ask me.

My other comment is that the Moderator revealed that she was pro-Obama when she asked Palin if she supported McCain's healthcare plan. She never bothered to ask anyone about Obama's. The climate change question had a similar tone. It also appeared that Biden knew what questions were coming and Palin did not. Maybe he is just gifted at this but Biden had every answer prepared and sounded like a speech giver. Palin 'ummed' a few times and appeared to think about how to answer. She may have diverted some answers but she came across as much more genuine.

Not all that interesting of a debate. I'll call it a tie.

No Predictions

Unlike previous years, I will not post my baseball predictions for the 2008 postseason. Here is why.

1. I was almost spot on last year and I want to continue to bask in that (no, not really).

2. (The real reason) This is the best I have felt about the Dodgers in years so I can't be anything but biased. Dodgers all the way and will crush the Angels in the Series.

Go Blue!

Round 1

Just a few comments about yesterday's Presidential debate.

Why did McCain resort to calling Obama naive and dangerous? Just state your cause McCain. Let us make those determinations for ourselves.

McCain will never win the battle of stage presence. Obama projects his voice like an old-time orator with his eyes outward and his voice strong and steady. McCain always comes across as a bit shifty-eyed and uncomfortable.

Democrats like to argue that Obama comes across as "more Presidential" and I can't argue with that.

However, when it come to content...

It appeared that Obama resorted to simply agree with John McCain several times. Nothing really wrong with that but it also seemed that this tactic just confirmed McCain's superior experience.

Obama, like most Democrats, relies on the ignorance of his audience. He is always stating what he thinks people want to hear.

Listen to his message.

• He stated that Al Queda operates in 60 countries now and we need to devote our attention away from Iraq and focus on these other areas.
• He is going to drastically increase funding for the development of alternative energy.
• He is going to promote American good-will around the globe (with the possible exception of a certain 60 countries).
• He'll get us all free health-care.

The punchline is - he is going to accomplish the above and still lower the taxes of 95% of us. I have a bridge for sale to anyone who is buying this load.

Still, by a small margin. Obama edges McCain in debate number 1.