The bad news, the good news

Burning down the house.



The bad news is that Obama will probably be our next president; the good news is the Democrats have screwed him with the subprime crisis. He probably won't have any money to spend--but then, neither will we!

Norma DISAGREED with the Barack Obama position on 46 of the 51 test questions. This means she disagrees with the Obama position 90% of the time.

Actually, I agreed with him on one question simply because the person who wrote the test worded it so poorly. If you're going to write a test, you shouldn't load it, and some of these are. And this test was obviously written before the current bailout/meltdown. But in the end, you do get to see the poll questions they came from.

Six questions on the bailout

Over at City Journal, Nicole Gelinas thinks President Bush, Secretary Paulson and Congress should have taken a deep breath and answered some questions. Read the whole story--I've included just the questions. But I suspect the trillion dollar deal is done. I can see why Obama didn't want to return to DC to provide input. He doesn't want to be anywhere near this when the far left finds out there's no money for the goodies he's promised. As one commenter at Politico observed, ". . . if you were voting for Obama because of all the freebies he promised he will get you, that ship has sailed. That leaves voting for the candidate that is best at keeping our country secure." Here's the questions.

One. Will this bailout plan actively delay recovery?

Two. Isn’t Treasury worried about the dead-weight loss to the economy that the bailout could represent?

Three. How will this plan restart the now-moribund credit markets?

Four. When the Treasury prices mortgage-related assets under its program, what criteria will it use in assessing current values?

Five. Will the Treasury buy derivative securities like credit-default swaps under this program?

(Six) Bonus Question: The proposed bailout plan means that many creditors to financial institutions would be effectively off the hook for mistakes made by the firms to which those creditors lent money. (Injecting government capital into flailing banks, which some have proposed, could carry the same risk.) But in Thursday’s FDIC-engineered failure of Washington Mutual, the nation’s sixth-largest commercial bank, uninsured creditors will suffer losses made through similar management and investor miscalculations. Why is it acceptable for WaMu creditors to suffer, but not the creditors of the institutions that will be able to sell their bad assets to the taxpayer? Aren’t we setting ourselves up for worse problems in the future, by encouraging future lenders to big financial institutions not to worry too much about the toxic assets those companies may be amassing?

Do you really want to marry a guy who can't commit? His behavior during this economic meltdown was scandalous, in my opinion. He wanted to vote "present" even though he wasn't. He wanted phone consults, not face to face confrontations with people who know what a phony he is. His campaign was more important than developing a plan that won't bankrupt the country, even though he has a good chance of being the guy who will be stuck with the solution which could affect all his glorious socialist programs in our future.

You can call Sarah Palin inexperienced and laugh at her accent, baby son and her college degree, but of the four folks trying to lead, she's the only one who wasn't on hand to sound an alarm, kick some bums out, or just sit it out.

Peggy Noonan's palpable hatred

toward President Bush is never more evident than her huge, fully illustrated article "Hope for America" (no bias here, folks--Obama owns "hope" like Palin owns "lipstick") in the week-end WSJ. After a boring and depressing trip through airport lines (Bush's fault) with the Statue of Liberty's sandals in a plastic bin, she mentions finally McCain's temper. But she never alludes to or outlines Obama's seething anger so obvious in his face in the debate Friday, anger building that McCain had shamed him into returning to Washington to do his job--be a Senator from that great state of Illinois where Chicago is king and goon. She gently fondles and caresses Obama like he was a pre-mature baby on life support, and maybe unconsciously that's what she sees. After all, she was a speech writer for Presidents Reagan and Bush the Father. Give her respect! She coined "kinder and gentler" and "thousand points of light," for Pete's Sake.

A few years ago, after she was no longer included among the favored, she began sounding like the girlfriend not selected to be the bridesmaid, then she graduated to the ex-wife who didn't get her settlement in the divorce, and now she sounds like the former mother-in-law of the guy who deserted his wife. But oh so careful, charming and oozy with her words.

What is anger, after all, if it isn't hanging out the Bernadine and Bill former 60s radicals who wanted to bring down the government; if it isn't listening to years of Rev. Wright smearing white folk while choosing to schmooze and live with them; playing footsie with Israel's enemies who want them bombed out of existence; if it isn't stepping on the necks of those black mentors who elevated him; if it isn't throwing old pals, including Tony Rezko, the mayor of Detroit and your own grandmother who raised you, under the bus. Peggy, wake up. That's hatred. Not flashes of temper or getting testy. Anger from the guy who gets impatient with idiocy and naivete is anger understood.

But you, Peggy? You're just the gal sitting back waiting to be asked to dance. Or maybe even invited to the dance. Good luck with the new book.

If you're skipping Sunday worship . . .

This week I've been reading "A history of Lutheranism" by Eric W. Gritsch (Fortress Press, 2002). Very readable. In chapter 3 (p. 71) there is this interesting explanation on "a catechetical way," and I say interesting because I didn't get much catechism, i.e. instruction, (became a member in the loosey-goosey 70s), and it's not clear to me what our Lutheran (UALC, Columbus) congretation does to instruct new members these days--looks like 2.5 hours on a Sunday afternoon.

"Because Luther had advocated a spiritual equality between clergy and laity based on baptism, he made the ordained and nonordained partners in Christian formation through worship and education. Accordingly, participants in worship need to understand and become part of the Sunday liturgy, and they need to experience their station in life as a divine calling to make faith active in love. Thus, there is an intimate link between the Sunday celebration of God's love in Christ and the Monday obligation of love of neighbor."

Isn't that nicely said? Loving God, and neighbor as yourself begins with Sunday worship. Then the author goes on

"Worship through word and sacrament is the inhaling of divine power, as it were, and making a living in the world is exhaling."

Some of the music in our worship service geared to the youth and gen-x families is so loud and thumpity-bump-bang-crash that I suspect some are mistaking an increase in heart rate for divine power, but then Bach and some Wesley hymns do that for me.

"(p.40) Worship and education were to Luther the twin pillars of Christian life. That is why he urged everyone, especially pastors, to use the liturgy of word and sacrament, together with the catechism, as the bridge from false security and vanity to proper conflict with the world's evil. . . his pedagogical theory is fundamentally collaborative and reinforcing, with the emphasis on voluntary education at home, enforced in church and school."

Sounds quite modern to me. Luther thought that the monastic schools were poor and advocated public schools so that parents could be involved, and he also recommended the establishment of public libraries! I didn't know that. I think we skipped that in the history of librarianship when I was in graduate school.

The boogey man is real; he lives on the internet

Protect the children.



And if your librarian thinks children don't need filters, sit her down in front of this video.

Parenting a teen parent

I wandered into Chipped Polish from UV's blog, and noticed she had a category on parenting a teen parent. Very honest and realistic. I think she's also trying to go to college (grandma, not mom). Kinda makes you grateful for your own problems, you know? But although I don't want to be her, I give her a lot of credit for supporting her daughter's choice. I'm puppy sitting a 3 lb Chihuahua today. . . and. . . she just threw up.

Road to Victory Rally: September 29th in Columbus, OH
doors open 9 a.m.

The Capital Center [Capital University]
On the corner of Main and Pleasant Ridge
Bexley, OH

Republican presidential nominee John McCain is headed to Central Ohio on Monday with vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin for a rally at Capital University in Bexley.

The McCain camp has scheduled a rally at the university’s Capital Center, on the corner of Main Street and Pleasant Ridge Avenue. Doors open at 9 a.m. for the event. [We drove over and looked at the facility. I didn't see any parking that didn't require a sticker. Maybe there will be exceptions. Not a large building.]

Free tickets can be reserved at several Central Ohio outlets. For details and to RSVP

Ticket Locations

(I removed McCain Headquarters because we couldn't find it.)

Ohio Republican Party
211 S Fifth St
Columbus, OH 43215
Hours: Friday 9am-9pm
Saturday 10am-6pm
Sunday 12pm-6pm
Please click here to reserve a ticket at this location

Franklin County GOP
14 E Gay St
Columbus, OH 43215
Hours: Friday 9am-9pm
Saturday 10am-6pm
Sunday 12pm-6pm
Please click here to reserve a ticket at this location

Delaware County Victory Center
6011 Columbus Pike
Lewis Center, OH 43035
Hours: Friday 9am-9pm
Saturday 10am-6pm
Sunday 12pm-6pm
Please click here to reserve a ticket at this location

Fairfield County Victory Center
118 E Main St
Lancaster, OH 43130
Hours: Friday 9am-9pm
Saturday 10am-6pm
Sunday 12pm-6pm
Please click here to reserve a ticket at this location

Licking County Victory Center
1006 Hebron Rd,
Suite B
Heath, OH 43056
Hours: Friday 9am-9pm
Saturday 10am-6pm
Sunday 12pm-6pm
Please click here to reserve a ticket at this location

I've tried unsuccessfully to map this place, and finally found an athletic event that gave directions. I hope this is correct, but if not, it can't be worse than some of automated maps which looked like they'd been hacked by a Democrat.

Directions to Capitalʼs Campus

From the east on I-70:
Exit at Livingston Avenue. Turn right at the light and go four blocks to Francis Avenue and turn left. Francis dead ends into Mound Street. Turn left onto Mound and go one block to Pleasant Ridge Avenue. Turn right onto Pleasant Ridge. The Capital Center is on the northeast corner of Mound and Pleasant Ridge.

From the west on I-70:
Exit at the Bexley/Main Street exit. Follow the ramp around onto Alum Creek Drive, which will dead end into Main Street. Turn right on Main Street and go four blocks to Pleasant Ridge Avenue. Turn right on Pleasant Ridge. The Capital Center will be on your left, at the corner of Pleasant Ridge and Mound Street.

We've always had an economy, only recently have we had televised debates

The back story on televised debates from the Chicago Tribune.

When Vice President Richard Nixon met Sen. John Kennedy in the 1960 debates, it was more than a television first. It was the first time ever that the nominees for the country's highest office had met in face-to-face debate. For more than a century and a half, candidates for president left that job to political surrogates.

There were no debates in 1964, 1968 and 1972 because federal law made televised presidential debates impossible. Until President Gerald Ford and Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter squared off in 1976, the "equal-time" law required anyone who sponsored a televised debate to invite every candidate for president to participate. Typically, more than 200 people register as candidates with the Federal Election Commission. The 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debates happened only because Congress authorized a one-time exemption to the equal-time law. In 1976, the Federal Communications Commission and the courts reinterpreted the law, deciding that a debate was a "news event" exempt from the equal-time requirement.

It takes more than a change in the law to change a nation, and we Americans owe our tradition of televised presidential debates to two Republicans and one Democrat. When President Ford agreed to debate Gov. Carter, he ignored the political wisdom that an incumbent should never agree to share the stage with a challenger. Ford later credited his performance in the debates with his comeback—after trailing badly, he lost the election by a single percentage point. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan was ahead in the polls, but chose to debate Walter Mondale anyway. And in 1960, it was two-time Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson who first proposed the idea of televised presidential debates. But for Stevenson, Nixon and Kennedy would never have debated and there would be no televised presidential debates today.

Chicago tribune via LibraryLaw.com

I think that last sentence is a bit of a stretch--I think someone would have eventually come up with the idea had Stevenson not thought of it in 1960. Sounds like a bit of Illinois hype on that part (he was governor of that state), but the rest is interesting.

Neo-Neocon says: "I’ve never understand why the debates are considered so important. This was true even back when I was a liberal Democrat. Yes, debates do demonstrate two things about a Presidential hopeful: how fast he/she is verbally, and how clear in communicating thoughts without a script. These things matter. But they matter far less than the ability to make the sort of decisions a President actually faces when serving.

Seems McCain had a point about the SEC

A week ago "Obama heaped criticism and sarcasm on John McCain, his Republican rival, and mocked his call to fire the head of the SEC." (USAToday) Yesterday, the NYT reported "The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down." Story. I don't expect Obama to apologize--he'll explain it away and say 1) it was his idea, or 2) he didn't mean it, or 3) we're all too dumb to understand his nuances.

The Debate

Too close to bedtime for me, so I didn't watch it until this morning when I tuned it in on C-SPAN when I was fresher. WaPo may call it "lukewarm" but that's only because Obama didn't score any points. This debate wouldn't have changed anyone's vote--you'll dance with the one you came with. However, for people like me who became a McCain supporter very late or after Palin was his pick for VP, it was an eye opener. During the primaries, I was supporting first Huckabee then Romney, so I barely paid attention to McCain. The debate was my first time to really hear a broad range of what he believes. And I don't like all of it, but as far as debating or explaining, the old guy was vastly superior to the young whipper snapper. His wisdom and experience were the "brights" on the classic car speeding into the dark night. Obama's vehicle was the experimental model driving on "dims." (For you young folk, that's high beam and low beam.)

Let's set aside Obama's facial expressions which ranged from grim to grimace, from scowel to snippity, from half closed eyes to downcast eyes. He's far less quick than George Bush, whose been the butt of so many jokes from both his enemies and supporters (and he accepts it with humor, something Obama doesn't have). His stammering and parenthetical lead ups to every question seem to imply, "Help, I'm in quick sand, someone write me a speech!" Eventually, he gets to the point and hits his stride that he has memorized, but it is so painful.

And the head nodding during the question? Doesn't that drive you crazy when someone does that to you? It signals: "Hurry up, I know best, so let me speak." If a question is directed to both, Obama would "hit the buzzer" first with "uh, uh, well, I, I, I, . . ." until he could think of something to say, and then he begins, "The only point I want to make is. . ." and you think he'll finally get it out, but it leads to more stammering. The man seems incapable of saying anything with clarity or succintness. Maybe it was his years as an untenured teacher of law. Love or hate McCain, he gets to the point, even if it begins with "let me tell you my record."

Each speaker was skilled in bringing the question, no matter what it was, around to their best talking points, but Obama was not good at trying to paint McCain as a third Bush, which seems to be all his coaches tell him to say. He's voted with Democrats 97% of the time and accuses McCain of voting with the President, his party, 90%. Duh! McCain was a thorn in Bush's side. Are Americans so stupid that they don't see that's a one string guitar? And even Obama's record agreed with the President 40% of the time. Was he wrong?

My opinion: McCain won because he stayed on topic and struggled less for an answer.

And a note from McCain who is returning to Washington to work on the financial crisis in my mailbox this morning: "Our next president and Congress will face challenging times that require selfless leadership. They must find solutions to issues like the economy, national security, and energy independence. I'm ready to work with Governor Palin and our Congressional allies to address the nation's most pressing challenges. Make no mistake, we are ready to lead and the Obama-Biden Democrats are not."

Vote for experience, and the guy who doesn't stammer.

And now a word from our change agent

Sorry, I didn't find this sooner--dated Sept. 24.

The [McCain] announcement knocked the Barack H. Obama campaign, the Democrats, the congressional leadership, and the elite news media (to the extent that those are not simply synonyms) back on their heels... like walking up an unlit stairway and taking that last step that isn't there. They scrambled around like prats, denounced McCain, called it a "political stunt," contradicted each other (and themselves two minutes later), and in general, ran around like chickens with their legs cut off.

In other words, just exactly what they did when McCain named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate.

The decision by Sen. McCain to return to the Senate and worry about the country before his own political interests is the same bold, maverick move as the Palin choice... and it tells us once again, if more proof were needed, who the real "change agent" is in this campaign: Consistently, from the moment the Democratic primary was settled, John McCain has been the leader and Barack Obama the reactionary, either following or angrily denouncing. Today was a "denouncing" day:
Big Lizards, Sept. 24

Top Four 527s go for Obama

These are the guys funding all those ads that drive us crazy.

"Of the top five organizations to give money to 527s, the top four are liberal.
They are SEIU ($24,014,524), Soros Fund Management ($4,900,000), Steven Bing’s Shangri-La Entertainment** ($4,850,000), and The Fund for America ($3,770,000).
The fifth is conservative Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Corp. ($3,597,632).

Here’s the rest of the story.

**Bing's personal fortunes mostly stem from his grandfather, Leo Bing, who built luxury apartment homes in New York decades ago and reportedly gave a $600 million inheritance to his grandson when he turned 18. (SFGate)

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate

Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties: Total contributions: $339,649,585, 50% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans, but the heavy hitters like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, are all betting on the Democrats.

Check it out. Do you suppose there's any arm twisting going on in Congress?

Oh those darn Jesus people!

ACORN and LaRaza, the “community organizers” (like Jesus), apparently would have gotten a piece of the bailout pie.

"House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise. One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza.

Read the pitiful news here.

Dodd's scam to bankroll the left.

ACORN practices widespread voter fraud to increase liberal turnout in elections, and is guilty of financial fraud and embezzlement, but it has avoided any punishment due to its links to liberal lawmakers like Senator Chris Dodd, Congressman Barney Frank, and Senator Charles Schumer. ACORN is engaged in massive fraud in battleground states like Florida. (Election rules are being shredded for partisan purposes in other battleground states like Virginia and Ohio).

Some of these organizations really are Jesus People. Others are just crooks and agitators. I looked up the Ohio Housing Trust Fund, and our church's Hilltop housing group gets a grant.

When the power goes off

Much of Ohio was without power last week--no electricity, no cable TV, no internet. It was darn inconvenient--and we didn't even lose ours! Meetings were cancelled, traffic lights were out, grocery stores and restaurants had rotting food, lots of "little guys" had no income. Remember folks, 50% of the country's electricity is supplied by coal. Yes, that stuff the environmentalists and the Obamanationists want to ruin. If you think it was dark last week, just wait!

Liberals and fat cat CEOs never worry about the cap and trade costs which will kill the coal industry, dim the lights, and hurt the poor. But if you are a voter in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana, and you're clinging to your religion or guns, you'd better start worrying about where the electricity is going to come from and how you'll pay for it when the e-regulations gear up. And no, I don't like McCain's falling down the green hole either, but sometimes you have to choose your battles. The only hope we have is he has chosen a conservative running mate who might be able to influence him.

Check it out, voters.

Country First

I've never been wild about John McCain, but my respect grows by the minute. I don't know if he can do a thing in Washington, but at least he knows he has a job to do. Both Obama and McCain need to be in DC doing the job they were elected to do. The campaign has already been too long, and people have already made up their minds. Obama is afraid of townhall meetings because he'd have to use his own words, but debates work well for him. On the economy, Obama is clueless. He's also not popular with anyone in Congress. He couldn't referee a little league game let alone bring conflicting sides together. One or the other of these two guys will have this dumped in their laps come January. Will Obama continue to be AWOL as he was in Illinois and as he has been for most of his Senate term?

I just hate the idea of the bailout--I've paid my bills, I've been honest, and then these whiz kids decide every Tom, Joe and Fred needs to buy a home, and the real estate flippers decide to take advantage. These guys have had 4 years to clean up this mess, and the same cheats and liars continue to make money--like Jamie Gorelick and Barney Frank who 2 years ago stonewalled (pardon the pun) the Republicans who wanted to clean house and said there was no need for changes--everything was fine. But given that, I would hope the Senators have a few more details, even Obama, that we haven't been privy to, and which the MSM hasn't spun out of control.

Update: The debate is back on and Obama was dragged kicking and screaming back to DC, then made the rounds stuttering and stammering on the TV news, telling everyone "he's on the phone." I've heard that within another decade there may have to be classes in the public schools to teach kids how to talk to people face to face. Sounds like we might be there.

Janet, Joycelyn and Jamie, Clinton’s back-up singers

Jamie Gorelick has been in the news lately with the Fannie Mae scandal--I think she’s gone on to more millions. Not sure about Janet Reno. But poor Joycelyn is on the rubber chicken circuit, chatting up the folks, earning a few bucks, still mad that “politics” lost her a cushy job.

Former U.S. Surgeon General M. Joycelyn Elders will present “The Politics of Health: What will the New Administration’s Challenges Be?” during a lunch presentation Wednesday (10/8). The lecture and Q&A, from noon-1:15 p.m. at the Buckeye Hall of Fame Café is sponsored by the OSU College of Public Health, Ohio Department of Health, Columbus Public Health and Columbus Metropolitan Club. Lunch is $25.

I tried to find out what agency represented her so I could see what the honorarium is, but the only one I could find (in cache) apparently doesn’t represent her anymore. Of course, if Obama is elected there won't be any politics in health and we'll know that racism is dead in this country. The vast army of Civil Rights folks will be in the unemployment lines. Well, if he isn't elected because of racists, wouldn't the opposite mean racism is gone?

Dear Left Wing Friend

You disparagingly referred to my blog as "right wing," but I notice you don't call yourself "left wing" even though you are working 24/7 for Obama having left family, friends and dog to go out and work for him. I write a lot of blogs--you can check back here to see what else I blog about--which you apparently don't read. Yes, I do think the stakes are high for this campaign, but I thought that in 2004 too. I sort of snoozed through 2000 just beginning my retirement, and wouldn't have been too concerned if Gore had won. At that time he was not unhinged. The attack on this nation on September 11, 2001 turned me into a Bush fan. I just knew Gore wouldn't have been up to the task.

So I'm right wing, but you're not left wing??! If it weren't for abortion, I'd probably be calling myself a libertarian. You will never be anything but a Democrat; you were born one and you'll die one. I'm exposed to the liberal lock-step-think all day. You wear blinders. You have contributed to Moveon dot org and the ACLU and you brag about it. I've never given my hard earned money to any political action group, and only on a few occasions have sent money to a candidate--and usually that is someone at the local level where it's a little easier to see the results. If money is going to leave my piggy bank for a cause, it will be to help poor people through a Christian organization or church, and it won't be given to a politician who will ear mark it for pork to build a park or a highway named for himself. Yes, I'm among those evil conservatives that surveys report give far more time and money to charity than liberals.

I spend about an hour a day telling the folks who stop by here my own researched and thought-out opinion, backed up with links to other writers if I can find them, that your candidate is an empty suit and a disaster for our country, and you spend 8 or 9 hours a day working for him, script in hand, organizing the novices, phoning the undecided, and doing the shitty work women have always been asked to do to move the man ahead. Based on just time spent, that makes you more a fanatic than me.

You live in a state with one massive city that controls the whole state with a history of corruption back to the 18th and 19th century. If it has ever been a swing state, I don't remember. Kennedy wouldn't have been president if the dead hadn't voted in your state. It has such a powerful Democratic machine that it even raises the dead to vote at election time. This is the machine that has nurtured your candidate.

You complain that your salary has been low your whole working life. What? Was that even during Kennedy/Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations? And all those years we had a Democratic Congress? Didn't they do anything for you? And you think Obama will change that? He wants to decrease our disposable income by increasing taxes on business! He wants to punish the successful. Will you (or your surrogate Democrats who are younger) move to another city for Obama? Will you learn to drive a car for Obama? Will you go to college for Obama? Will you invest in the stock market for Obama? You don't have to have millions or even thousands--I did without and put aside 15% of my salary in tax deferred investments after the children left home. During the 1990s technology bust and fall out from 9/11 my investments didn't grow at all until Bush cut taxes to encourage investment and growth. Over time, the stock market is a much better investment than gold or real estate (although Fannie Mae CEOs and Barney Frank want you to believe everyone, even the poor and illegals, has to have a house). I'm not sure my little pension will recover from this latest government melt down, but at least my candidate knows he needs to be taking care of business in Washington and not saying, "call me if you need me."

You have stayed with your party and never questioned. The party left me years ago. I first began to suspect something was wrong in the mid-80s. Don't know which had more affect--raising teens, the Bork inquisition, or the smearing of Clarence Thomas, but I did eventually learn that I couldn't change someone else's direction and lifestyle--not with lectures, not with money, not with bribes, and certainly not with my politics. It was a valuable lesson, one I've never forgotten. You can stay there on the fringes of the left wing if you want, but not me.