jpapagan's Blog

So, the Bailout passed.

Is this good?  Based on the instability of the markets this week, possibly.

But it seems like the general consensus among Americans who have a loose grasp on what's going on with this is...  the $700B Bailout is not really a good thing, but it had to be done.

Huh?  so, basically it's a lose-lose?  Well, kind of. 

It's like this - we'll help you out this time because we have no choice, the economy will fall apart otherwise.  But we're going to have to make some big changes so you won't be able to take us to this point again.

Well that all sounds peachy, doesn't it?  (huh?)

What do you think?

So, John McCain announced that he would be suspending his campaign and asked Barack Obama to follow suit.  He also asked for a postponement of Friday's debate.

So what is this all about?  Is it really about heading back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis?

Here are some thoughts:

New polls this week show Obama surging and lengthening his lead. 

The financial crisis has been helping Obama since polls have shown that his economic plan is better to fix the country than McCain's and McCain has supported the deregulation over the years that has allowed the current implosion on Wall Street.

Obama still has way more fundraising money that McCain, something that will surely be a factor as they race to the finish line.

By coming out with this move, he puts Obama between a rock and a hard place.  If he keeps campaigning, it looks awkward and can make McCain look like he's taking the high road and Obama doesn't care about the crisis.  And if Obama follows suit and stops campaigning, he looks like he's just a follower and McCain is the leader who came up with the idea.

So, what do you think?

Here's something to think about:  In 2004, the election was about national security.  The economy hadn't yet tanked to the point it is now and 9/11 was still fresh enough in our minds that people were most concerned with having a president that could handle the conflicts in the Middle East, deal properly with Islamic terrorism and keep us safe.  And voters viewed that person to be Bush.  

It was likely a no-win situation for Kerry because the majority of the country probably felt that Bush was the one who was in office when 9/11 happened, he's gotten us into the wars that followed, so we'd better not mix things up at the top if we want to keep this country safe.

It was an election about national security.  So what did Kerry decide to do?  He tried to shift his message and image by playing up his status as a war veteran (something Bush could not claim) and try to make a case for his candidacy in the military affairs/national security battleground.  Obviously, it did not work.

Jump ahead now to 2008 - this election is about CHANGE.  The economy is in the toilet, the middle class has dissolved away, the war in Iraq is unfounded and unpopular and overall the country is hungry for a CHANGE at the top.  So logically, the Democrats should be considered favorites and Obama has presented himself pretty well as the candidate of change.

And just as the republicans start to feel things slipping away, what do they do?  They completely change their strategy and message and out of the blue, at their convention, all of a sudden THEY declare that they are the ticket for change.  

Huh??  Seriously?  Well, shockingly, it seems to have helped in the short term, partly due to the interest in Sarah Palin.  But seriously, are voters really going to get brainwashed into the crazy notion that John McCain is the candidate for CHANGE in this election?  That's absurd.  There are no facts to back it up and it just doesn't make any sense.  Hopefully, like in 2004, it won't work and Americans will be smart enough to see through the dust and re-assess the issues, facts and truths about what they want in this election, and which candidate (Obama) actually brings them what they want (CHANGE).

I can't stand when people pluralize the names of individuals to make a point or a comparison.  You hear it all the time from sports analysts and reporters, i.e.:

"He's got to develop a better outside shot if he wants to be mentioned with the Kobes, the LeBrons, the Chris Pauls of the world as an elite NBA player."

HUH???!!  What the hell is that?  There are not multiple "Kobes," there is only one guy.  Why do you need to pluralize them when you say this?   Wouldn't it be equally effective just to say "If he wants to be mentioned along with Kobe, LeBron and the elite players of the NBA, yada, yada..."  ??

I don't know who started this ridiculous trend among sports media "professionals" but it makes no sense and needs to stop.

Many experts have said that the Angels have the best pitching, great defense, great speed, but they need one more big bat to win it all.

Well, they're hoping First Baseman Mark Teixeira is the answer. 

The way they've been playing lately, you might not think they needed another bat and Casey Kotchman has been heating up.

What do you think?  Is this the right thing to do?  Will it secure a championship for the Halos?  Or did they give up too soon on the promising Kotchman?  Could they have won it all without this trade?

Say it isn't so, Elton! 

Seriously, you're going to Philly?? 

Perhaps you haven't been around the past few days, but did you know that I made a verbal agreement with the Clippers?  That's right, I was planning on coming to L.A. to play with you and make us instant contenders in the Western Conference next year.  Isn't that the whole reason you did the 'wink, wink' opt-out move so that you could restructure and the team could make room for my contract? 

What the heck's gotten into you?  Dude, call or text me ASAP, we need to talk.

With you and Cory gone, I'm basically going to have to lead a young team through the west that has as little, if not less, talent than the one I am leaving.  What the deuce are you doing to me?  Andre Miller is no Baron Davis, E.B... that boy is going to shoot first, feed A.I.2 second, and dish to you under the hoop third. 

What about the unspoken agreement?  What about the City of Angels?  What about all that Clippers pride????  (okay, maybe that's a stretch)

Anyway Elton, please clear your head and give me a buzz.  If not, I may have to send my pal, the Zohan after you to fix this.  Believe me, E.B., you don't want that.  Did you see that Jedi mind crap he pulled on me in that NBA Playoffs commercial? 

This is all kinds of nuts, Elton.  You're screwing up everything.  Don't go to Philly.  There's still time.  I'll even shave my beard if you stay.

Call me,
Baron

Seriously, this is the slant that the L.A. media is taking with this Lakers team?  When they beat the Spurs to advance to the NBA Finals, all of the media in L.A. was delivering the story of "... a goal that was four years in the making" and even worse, I heard one reporter say "Lakers fans have been waiting a long time for this..."

Are you kidding me?

This is hardly a franchise that's been starved for success or been deprived of greatness for any marginally significant stretch of time. 

I even heard one media outlet say something to the effect of "First there was Magic, Worthy and Kareem, now there's Kobe, Pau and Lamar!"

Did everyone forget that the Lakers won THREE NBA titles IN THIS DECADE???  are we forgetting that Kobe's already been here 4 times with Shaq Daddy 2001-2004 and won rings three of them??

Look, in full disclosure, I'm a Celtics fan, but I was  rooting FOR THE LAKERS to beat the Spurs, because I want to watch a Lakers-Celtics Finals. 

But please, media, don't take this approach with this Lakers' run.  It just sounds idiotic, pompous and entitled and insulting.  The Celtics haven't been to the finals in 21 years but even I'm not stupid enough to play the "finally, after years of torture" card and pretend that they haven't had many years of success.

Here they are folks, the BEST of the finalists:



That's right, these two are the best.  This SHOULD be the final two this season.  It may not be, in fact it probably won't be... but it should.

If you have any musical training or just an ear for a good voice, you have to agree with me.  Certainly there is a lot of talent in the competition this year and all of the top finalists are pretty talented.  But Syesha and David Cook are a level above the rest.

David Cook has been getting rave reviews and he has a good shot at being in the final two and even winning.  But for some reason, Simon and Randy to an extent, have been a little biased against Syesha.  Simon continues to make comments that acknowledge how good she is ( like, "technically, it was very, very good...") but he continues to add inexplicably weird negative spins to his comments, like "I'm not sure what people will think of a song that they don't know at this stage of the competition," whatever that means.  He's being totally hypocritical when he says something like that.  Because how many times has he said that it's hard to sing Whitney or Mariah, et al, because you're going to be compared to the greats??  So now, when it's Mariah night, Syesha decides to sing something that is NOT one of Mariah's more well-known songs and Simon criticizes her for it!!!  I actually (and I can't believe I'm about to say this) TOTALLY AGREED WITH PAULA this week when she said Syesha was smart for choosing a lesser known Mariah song so that people would just judge her performance (which was superb) and not compare her so much to Mariah singing it.

Anyway, these two are the best.  Take it to the bank.  I think the teen girls might have more to say about it than I do and push David Archuletta to the top, but anything can happen.  We'll see.  At this stage, they are all very talented and it's all pretty much about personal taste.  So, here is how I would rank the remaining TOP 7 finalists:

1. David Cook
2. Syesha Mercado
3. Brooke White
4. Carly Smithson
5. David Archuletta
6. Kristy Lee Cook
7. Jason Castro

People who say they would not vote for the other Democrat if their Democrat doesn't get the nomination are just insane.

This is a very scary potential problem that shows the uneducated, idiotic nature of so many people in this country.

The fact remains, that Obama and Clinton are so similar on about 95% of the issues and both are miles away from John McCain. If you support one but wouldn't support the other vs. McCain, you are either a hypocrite, a phony or ignorant.

So I ask you, why are you supporting your candidate in the first place? Because she is a woman? Because he is African-American? Because you like their perceived charisma or personality? Or you "trust" one more than the other? All of these things are tiny factors but not the ones that should be shaping your vote.

Do you LIKE paying $4/gallon for gas? Do you LIKE this ongoing war in Iraq? Do you LIKE not being able to afford a house because of the abolition of the middle class over the past 8 years?? Because these are the things that you'll continue to get if you vote for John McCain or abstain from voting because YOUR Democrat didn't get the nomination.

Wake up, Democrats. Wake up, Americans. You're smarter than this!

Fear mongering!  That's what Hillary is resorting to with her recent tactics.  It is cheap, dirty and insulting to the intelligence of voters.  Her ad about "who do you want answering the phone at 3am" is just disgusting.  She's trying to play to Americans' fears of safety, terrorism and national security.  It's the same B.S. tactics that the Republicans have always used, and WILL use in the general election. 

The strategy she is using - "I am battle tested and I will keep you safe, and Obama is not experienced enough to do so" - makes no sense and will hurt her in the general election.  It's like she's resorting to whatever she can to win this battle (against Obama), even if it means losing the war (against McCain).

Here's the real truth: If there's anyone we should be afraid of answering the 3am phone call in the White House, it's Hillary Clinton and John McCain!

McCain has a long history of being a loose cannon and flying off the handle, and Hillary's shown to make the opportunistic decision, often in spite of what's "right."

The fact is, Obama is clearly the best one to "answer that phone" because he is the only one of the 3 who actually has his head screwed on right, and will make smart, educated, well-informed decisions because he continues to show that he won't get caught up in the mud-slinging campaign games that Hillary is trying to drag him into.