And De Bate Goes On!

We're supposed to have dinner with friends tomorrow night. Plans were made a couple weeks ago. But since then the first debate between McCain and Obama was scheduled. It was planned to take place this Friday night. So Mrs. Dada e-mailed our dinner friends, offering 'em an out should they want to watch the debate. She received a reply, "It's not a debate if only one shows up." (Apparently there may not be a debate.)

Our friend makes a good point. But a football game doesn't fold if one team's quarterback can't make it. There are other QB's that can come in, in his place. So in the event McCain will opt out (because he's joining us for dinner?), maybe Obama could go ahead without him anyway?

There are back-ups just itching to be in the game. Folks like Bob Barr, Alan Keyes, Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. I suppose I'm being, like, way sarcastic. That'd probably be far too risky for Obama. Plus it would probably add legitimacy to third parties as well -- the bane of the two major parties.

Interestingly, I happened upon a Ralph Nader video comparing McCain and Obama. Surprisingly, they are alike on a number of major issues. So opening the discussion to other parties might make the debate far more interesting, even if McCain doesn't show. It might even expose us to ideas not being discussed between the two major candidates.

I have a thought. Maybe third party candidates could be allowed to participate in the debates and if either the republican or democrat felt uncomfortable with them there, they could wear blinders just like race horses. (You know, blinders, like trainers put on some of their edgy horses to keep 'em from getting nervous or spooked?)

***

That aside, I wonder what it says about a nation that allows a judge to intervene in bankruptcy court hearings to modify a loan (such as lowering an interest rate so the owner can afford to pay the mortgage), but that only applies to a second home but not a primary residence?

And what does it say as we learn in an article on Truthout (from Nomi Prins at Mother Jones) about the power of the treasury secretary by giving him control of $700 billion to bailout sick companies but, as the fine print of Section VI of the bill authorizing such reveals, that's "$700 billion outstanding at one time." I guess that means if his $700 billion is running low, he can just top it back up to $700 billion again, right?

Well, minutia aside, I'd like to highlight what Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Ohio) had to say about the $700 billion plus rescue scheme being debated on the floor of the House. She did a great job.