After work with a tape measure and calculation, the Minnesota contractor says, ‘I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me.’

The Tennessee contractor measures, calculates and says, ‘I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me.’

The Chicago contractor measures nothing, just leans over to the White House official and whispers, ‘$2,700.’

The official, incredulous, says, ‘You didn’t even measure like the other guys!  How did you come up with such a high figure?’

The Chicago contractor whispers back, ‘$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence.’

‘Done!’ replies the government official.

That’s how the new stimulus plan will work.  (If the Senate complains that this is illegal and/or unethical, a former community organizer who made it big will ‘put in a good word’ for the Chicago contractor–he has practice in this sort of thing regarding Senatorial replacements.)

Point guard Sarah Palin as high school student at Wasilla (Alaska) High (class of ‘82) got the nickname Sarah Barracuda for fierce play on court.  In a state playoff game, while having a stress fracture in her ankle, she hit the game-winning free throw.

Later, she worked as sports anchor for a local TV station.  She fishes and hunts.  Her husband, Todd, won four times the Tesoro Iron Dog Championship–at 1.971 miles the world’s longest snowmobile race.

It’s enough to make Obama drown his sorrows in his wine.

by Stanley Scism

From Stanley Scism
To Editor, USA Today
Date 2008 September 18
Re ‘The Palin Predicament’ by David Gushee

David Gushee gushes over perceived contradictions between conservative Christians’ cultural views, v their support for Sarah Palin. While his statements probably hold true for some people, consider:

First, what he says about women being banned from ministry is simply false. I belong to a quite conservative organization and I’ve met women pastors in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Maine, Delaware, Illinois, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana. These are only my acquaintances–I’m sure there are more. And I know women who pastor in India, Nepal and Bhutan–I’m sure people visiting other nations can point to many more.

Second, he confuses home leadership and church leadership: I’ve asked women pastors about this, and the response is simply, ‘I lead the church; my husband leads our family.’ They follow the Biblical pattern for the family, yet recognize men and women equally inherit salvation and are gifted Spiritually. The roles differ; the family isn’t the church; a pastor doesn’t lead every family unit in the church he/she pastors. Is there something difficult to understand about this?

Third, reality dictates that some women lead homes because the mother is single (or she’s married but her husband is, say, a drunken layabout) and must, or that many women work jobs and help support families because mortgages and college education are expensive and the mother’s income helps a lot. Pastors understand this. Who doesn’t?

Fourth, he misinterprets Scripture. 1 Timothy 2.11-12 says a woman shouldn’t usurp (KJV) or take, grasp (Greek) authority. When a woman is elected or appointed to a position, that isn’t grabbing power. Can Gushee distinguish between taking something and being given it, between democracy and a coup?

Fifth, he tries through his series of questions at his article’s end to ungraciously extract a pound of flesh from his opponents’ imagined positions.

I’ll be first to admit that in the USA/Canada United Pentecostal Church we still define district (= diocese) leadership as being by men only, and I hope that will change so everyone’s gifts can be recognized, appreciated and can benefit us all–in that, I hope in the USA/Canada we will catch up to some of our Third World churches–but that’s one leadership facet only, and in many others, Gushee’s article exaggerated positions conservative Christians hold.

Stanley Scism

Four years later, I was in a junior high where the school was solidly behind McGovern, and I tried to stand up for Nixon, to see the other side, and was similarly shouted down. Two years after that, I visited my relatives, who were solidly against Nixon, and I defended him, saying he just had the media against him. He did, but that didn’t make his relative inability to harness a liberal media didn’t make him right in his use of executive privilege to say whatever the president does, is right. America had fought a revolution over this sort of thing, and he was still wrong.

In America’s bicentennial year, I voted for the first time—for Ford, and persuaded my grandparents, too, to vote for Ford, and he won our state (Oregon)—but lost the nation. I had a great time saying for four years in the midst of escalating inflation and an Afghanistan hostage situation, ‘Don’t blame me. I voted for Ford.’

Four years later, the nation also repudiated Carter. The media had tried to project a tight race, but I knew it would be a landslide, and it was—by 9.00 pm, the race was over and Reagan had won.

Four years later, I voted for Reagan again—less enthusiastically, because he had not filled some campaign pledges. It was another landslide, and understandably so—Mondale looked foolish trying to blame Reagan for not talking to Soviets, when the real problem was that Breshnev, Chernenko, Andropov all kept dropping.

Four years later, I voted third party—not happy over Bush, not willing to vote for Dukakis. Four years after that, I voted write-in, again not enthused over Bush and not excited about Clinton.

The first two years of Clinton’ presidency were such a disaster of rampant ideology that it triggered the first Republican take-over of the House in decades to restore some balance in government and brought people like me back to the fold. I voted for Dole in 1996, and had a great time for four years after that, through Monica Lewinski and impeachment proceedings, seeing again, as in Nixon’s case, a president look out for himself and put himself before the nation, to be willing to let the whole government ground to a halt as long as he could defend himself against indefensible behavior.

As Clinton resembled Nixon, Bush II resembled LBJ. I had no idea the 2000 election would be THAT close—I think hardly anyone did. People don’t seem to remember that Clinton’s elections had been close, too—Clinton had won his first term with only 43% or so of the vote in a three-way race. And, just as the Republicans had put up an uninspiring candidate in 1996 against an incumbent, so did the Democrats in 2004.

And now, in 2008, for the first time, we have two older party men—McCain and Biden—who have run for president before, and both of whom have failed, although McCain got much further than Biden did in past campaigns—perhaps the absence of plagiarism helped. And in 2008 we also have two younger leaders—Obama and Palin—who have excited people in the way the elders haven’t been able to. My own excitement about the Republican ticket has increased since Palin joined.

Here’s how things look to me on 2008 September 10, regarding the Electoral Map:

Obama takes Hawaii, McCain takes Alaska. Obama takes the Pacific coast states, plus picks up enough of the filth vote to take Nevada. McCain takes the next group of states, even Montana (overcoming the recent Democratic surge there), but loses New Mexico due to a heavy Hispanic vote that goes Democratic. McCain takes the South, overcoming a tight vote in Georgia where Bob Barr almost splits the Republican vote, but people don’t want to waste their votes or throw the election to Obama, so they don’t take the bait. Obama takes Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and, in a squeaker, Iowa. McCain takes Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia. From Pennsylvania east, and north of Virginia, Obama takes it all, including New Hampshire in a squeaker.

Result: a 269-269 electoral tie.

Clinton didn’t give up until Obama had the delegates to clinch. And Obama’s candidacy is now racial—90% of blacks in recent contests vote for him, so he does well where blacks are a large portion of the Democratic Party, but that won’t help him as much in the general election because blacks vote for the Democratic Party anyway—having them on board doesn’t represent an increase unless they vote in larger numbers than before.

Indian Fareed Zakaria wrote in ‘The Rise of the Rest’ (Newsweek, 2008/5/12, p16-23), ‘The world’s tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. Its largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. Its biggest refinery is being constructed in India. The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi; the biggest movie industry is in Bollywood….largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. The largest casino is in Macao….most recent rankings, only two of the world’s ten richest people are American….In 2006 and 2007, 124 countries grew their economies at over 4 percent a year. That includes more than 30 countries in Africa. Over the last two decades, lands outside the industrialized West have been growing at rates that were once unthinkable….overall trend has been unambiguously upward….25 companies most likely to be the world’s nex great multinationals….four companies each from Brazl, Mexico, South Korea and Taiwan, three from India, two from China and one each from Argentina, Chle, Malaysia and South Africa.’ True, but then he misrepresents the past by saying America was the most powerful nation in the world from the late 1800s. Wrong. America came to dominance on the ashes of World War II, was quickly caught up with by the Soviet Union, regained ascendancy in the late 1980s due to the Ronald Reagan military buildup, and is still today called the world’s only hyperpower, although the Bush administration has helped weaken America by making it impossible for America to respond to military challenges other than in Iraq and Afghanistan—for instance, the carnage in Sudan and Congo continues because we can’t stop it.

He says Muslim nations during the last five years have stopped favoring violence. Why won’t he notice that this is the same time America has been making violence not pay in Iraq and Afghanistan?

He says ‘the share of people living on $1 a day has plummeted from 40 percent in 1981 to 18 percent in 2004 and is estimated to drop to 12 percent by 2015. Of course. That’s 34 years. He doesn’t point out, though, that $1 doesn’t buy what it did a third of a century ago. A better comparison would have been to use terms adjusted for inflation. And this guy wanted to advise presidents? He calls the United States the ‘biggest of the bunch’ of small nations that have dominated the industrial world, then says ‘the real giants—China, India, Brazil…’ When did Brazil become a nation of larger population than the USA? When did it rank with India and China? India has more people than South America and Europe combined. Brazil might have 160 million—India has one state with that many people.

He’s got some good points: ‘Russians have long chafed over the manner in which Western countries remember World War II. The American narrative is one in which the United States and Britain heroically defeat the forces of fascism. The Normandy landings are the climactic high point of the war—the beginning of the end. The Russians point out, however, that in fact the entire Western front was a sideshow. Three quarters of all German forces were engaged on the Eastern front fighting Russian troops, and Germany suffered 70 percent of its casualities there. The Eastern front involved more land combat than all other theatres of World War II put together.’

He seems to feel that national media outlets newly provide alternatives to CNN and BBC, and uses NDTV as an example, but India had Doordarshan (the government media) giving alternative views decades ago, so that’s no argument for American non-dominance. As Zakaria admits, ‘The United States is currently ranked as the globe’s most competitive economy by the World Economic Forum. It remains dominant in many industries of the future like nanotechnology, biotechnology, and dozens of smaller high-tech fields. Its universities are the finest in the world, making up 8 of the top ten and 37 of the top 50, according to a prominent ranking produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University. A few years ago the National Science Foundation put out a scary and much-discussed statistic. In 2004, the group said, 950,000 engineers graduated from China and India, while only 70,000 graduated from the United States. But those numbers are wildly off the mark. If you exclude the car mechanics and repairmen—who are all counted as engineers in Chinese and Indian statistics—the numbers look quite different. Per capita, it turns out, the United States trains more engineers than either of the Asian giants. But America’s hidden secret is that most of these engineers are immigrants. Foreign students and immigrants account for almost 50 percent of all science researchers in the country. In 2006 they received 40 percent of all PhDs. By 2010, 75 percent of all science PhDs’ in America ‘wll be awarded to foreign students. When these graduates settle in the country, they create economic opportunity. Half of all Silicon Valley start-ups have one founder who is an immigrant or first generation American….If these people are allowed and encouraged to stay, then innovation will happen here. If they leave, they’ll take it with them. More broadly, this is America’s great—and potentially insurmountable—strength. It remains the most open, flexible society in the world, able to absorb other people, cultures, ideas, goods and services. The country thrives on the hunger and energy of poor immigrants.’ He’s right to ask if the US government is in step with no longer having everyone coming to it. London is ‘now the world’s leading financial center—less because of things that the United States did badly than those London did well….the US health care system, which has become a huge liability for American companies. US carmakers now employ more people in Ontario, Canada, than Michigan because in Canada their health care costs are lower. Twenty years ago, the United States had the lowest corporate taxes n the world. Today they are the second-highest’ because other nations’ came down. If America wants to lead the system, it must be part of the system. ‘It is the global rule-maker but doesn’t always play by the rules. And forget about standards created by others. Only three countries in the worlddon’t use the metric system—Liberia, Myanmar and the United States.’

Japan’s economy has declined from 2^nd (15 years ago) to 18^th in per capita GDP, yet they restrict foreign direct investment. An attitude of ‘we are very good; we don’t need you at all. If you want to come to Japan, work on our terms…

just sort of encourages foreign investors to look elsewhere, where investment rules are more transparent,’ says EU trade delegation head to Japan, Peter van den Heuvel. Japanese governments say they must grow robustly, then plan for 5%, which is unlikely, but even if achieved, is low for East Asia. Japanese companies fear ‘a new investor wll come and force them to change doing business the way they have for years. They have the same level of resistance to domestic agents of change’, says Tony Miller of investment fund Ramius Capital. If Japan doesn’t watch it, the world will pass it by.

First China called the Dalai Lama a ‘devil’ with a human face and beastly heart. Nice of them. Now they want to talk to him. Strange. No wonder Tibet’s government in exile, in Dharamsala, doubts the clean and tender hearts of the Chinese government. While criticism threatens to spoil their Olympic event, they’ll offer talks. When demonstrations die down, Chinese officials will stall. And they insist the Dalai Lama be ‘sincere’? Tibetans demand no more clampdowns in Tibet, withdrawal of security forces from lamasaries, no more ‘patriotic education’ demanding monks to denounce the Dalai Lama, release of political detainees, fair trials for those accused of rioting. Good luck; they’ll need it. China’s state press still slams the Dalai Lama, soldiers still occupy lamasaries, foreign journalists and tourists can’t come, and secret trials sentenced people to terms from three years to life for rioting.

The Dalai Lama, meanwhile, says Taiwan’s future must be decided by its own people, that Tibetan culture and environment be protected. China thinks he still wants to redraw Tibet’s borders to include all ethnic Tibetan areas near it—a quarter of China’s land.