Bittersweet Bailout?

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?

Honorable Move or Campaign Ploy?

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?

CHANGING Your Campaign Theme??

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).

Pet Peeve #1 - "the Kobes and LeBrons"

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.

Is Teixeira the final piece to the Angels' Puzzle?

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?

Dear Elton... 'What the @#$%???' - Baron

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

Four years in the making???

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.