he seemed to be a good personality for that team. 

That's what surprised me most about him.  He seems like the guy who lights teammates shoelaces on fire and stuff.  I like those guys.

Out of the catchers you have mentioned, Thigpen is the most likely to play back-up.  Jeroloman needs to prove himself at AAA, and personally I think Arencibia should be back at AA to start the year.  They are our future and one if not both will get a shot this year, but Thigpen is the guy who has the best chance to start as the back-up.  I'm not really looking forward to a year of Barajas.

So Thigpen has proven himself at AAA?

I honestly want no part of Curtis at the major league level.

Where does all this Curtis Thigpen optimism come from?  Joey Lawrence the 2nd is not a major league catcher, backup catcher, 2nd baseman or anything else.  Perhaps some day he could be a major league backup but it's not likely given his age now, and for sure he's not now or in 2009.

If the jays go into 2009 with Thigpen as backup catcher I think I'm going to find another team to root for...

• By December 1, each club must decide whether to offer salary arbitration to their former players who have filed for free agency. A club not offering arbitration may continue to negotiate with the player but does not receive compensation if he signs with another club.
  
• By December 7, player must accept or reject the arbitration offer. If the player accepts the offer, he returns to his club’s 40-man roster. The player and club may continue to negotiate before the February arbitration hearing. See Arbitration. If the player rejects the offer, he may continue to negotiate with any of the 30 clubs.

Curtis Thigpen can be a AAA guy who can ocassionally be called up to, hopefully, play multiple positions until his 40 man roster spot can be used for something better. It is very possible that neither Jeroloman or JPA are ready to receive any at-bats in 2009, so getting another Barajas-type on the cheap makes sense.

I like the idea of JP giving the kids a chance. In reality, the Jays need to adopt the Red Sox philosophy as much as possible...have a very strong roster and allow a couple of rookies to be intergrated into that roster every year. I'd rather the Jays spend their money on one elite player such as Manny than try and fill 3 holes with mediocre production. Please, no Giambi, Burrell or Lowe. Instead of spending 3/40 on Burrell, spend 2/8 on Juan Rivera. Instead of spending 4/60 on Lowe, spend 1/5 with an option on Freddy Garcia. If JP plans on taking a short-term injury risk, Furcal and Sheets are worth it, in my opinion. If he wants to take a long-term injury risk, AJ can probably be had for 5/80...

I'm also of the opinion that JP needs to start using the depth of his system to acquire elite players since he typically avoids drafting these players. So if two solid, semi-proven players such as Litsch and Lind can be used to acquire one potentially-elite player such as Matt Cain, pull the trigger and then sign a couple of one-year guys to fill the gaps behind Halladay, Cain and Purcey until McGowan/Cecil et al are ready to contribute. And unless Mike Jacobs learns how to play SS, I'm glad he will not be playing anywhere near Toronto in 2009...

unless he absolutely hates playing for Cito.

But that's just it, he doesn't play for Cito. Gaston clearly doesn't like Zaun which we saw that with Zaun's greatly reduced workload once Gaston took over, despite Barajas's numbers heading south.

I can't see Zaun turning down arbitration, but I'm sure it won't be offered. The team will want a cheaper solution for a one- or two-day-a-week catcher. Gaston will probably continue treating Barajas like Johnny Bench.

Would it be a bad thing for the Jays if Zaun accepted?  Thigpen or Zaun.  hmmm.

The other option is not offering Zaun Arbitration but bringing him back at $2m for next season.  Or $3m over two seasons.  JPA and J-Roloman may be ready to handle the load in 2010, but having a veteran as a back up plan wouldn't be a bad idea.

What's mediocre about Burrell?

He's had 4 straight years of OPS+ in the 120s and he's still just 31...no spring chicken, but I don't really see too many signs of decline...he seems like the perfect guy to fit into the Jays LF/DH situation, what with being right-handed and all.

Although I was thinking...Lind/Snider/Baldelli might be a good 3-man platoon system for LF/DH, make sense to anyone?

in hockey teams can walk away from the arbitrator's decision

In baseball you can't walk away.

What's mediocre about Burrell?

Well there is the age, which you mentioned. He is very inconsistent, is restricted to LF and supposedly plays poor defence and cannot run. Looking at OPS is fine and dandy, but I certainly do not consider, for example, Jason Giambi's contributions to a ballclub as useful as his nice OPS, espescially since he is useless defensively and cannot run at all. This is just my personal opinion, but I don't trust Burrell enough to pay him $50 million more than Juan Rivera, who many people seem to mention as a good, cheap option. The free agent market is what it is; even Manny who looks nice at this point is a massive gamble. Frankly, the best people to take may be high-upside injury risks like Sheets and Furcal, espescially if they are only looking for 2 or 3 year deals. Furcal would espescially be nice since he will not require compensatory picks. If Burrell would take a one year deal, then I'm all for it. But if he wants 4/60 or whatever then I don't see the point...

Maybe I'm not being entirely rational about the way Gaston handled Zaun. I am a big fan of reason, so I'll cede to a more objective analysis.

Zaun is old, yes. But he's a young 37, if that's possible, given how little he has caught over his career. It just struck me that even with Barajas hitting so poorly during the second half, he was still Gaston's all-too-frequent choice over Zaun. And when Barajas continued to bat in the middle of the order, it was clear that Gaston had the beer goggles on where Barajas was concerned.

I'd like to see a Barajas/Zaun 50/50 job-sharing, as I hoped we'd see last year. Each catcher has strengths and weaknesses and these can be mixed and matched based on the opposition. But Ricciardi and Zaun have to know that Gaston has 75/25 in mind. Ricciardi might decide that $3M for 40 games is too rich for his blood. Zaun might decide that there's a team out there that may well give him 60-80 starts.

Or, as someone mentioned earlier, Zaun may decide that staying in Toronto, even at a "discount", has the upside of keeping him poised and ready to segue into his Buck Martinez post-playing broadcasting career. I'm all for a plan that has Zaun staying in Toronto one more year and then retiring, taking Pat Tabler's spot in the booth. Ah, yes. Dare to dream.

He has similar numbers to Cain the last two years and he pitches in the AL East, not the NL West.

While they both have a career ERA+ of 118, they differ dramatically in K/9 (Cain 7.7, Litsch 4.7). K/9 is a strong, though not foolproof, leading indicator of success.

it is Sabean after all...

While Sabean deserves much mockery for his checkered track record, he tends to err most dramatically in his over-evaluation of veterans. It is unclear where his skills lie in evaluating young players. His decision to not move Lincecum for Rios is a data point in his favour.

Chuck, I realize Cain has the far stronger K numbers in comparison to Litsch. And obviously he has the better ceiling; however, guys like Litsch are perfect for the NL west. Frankly, if JP were the GM of the Padres he'd build a far better $50 million team with his philosophy than Kevin Towers, in my opinion. Obviously having an arm like Cain to pitch against the Yankees/Red Sox/Rays is necessary; this is one reason I wouldn't be terribly disappointed if the Jays overpay for AJ because he had a far better year vs the beasts of the east than Marcum or Litsch. But I highly doubt anyone would give a pitcher with as much proven success as Cain in a trade for Cain. Whether or not Litsch keeps it up is obviously the key question; I don't think he will and that is why I wouldn't mind if the Jays sell high on him. But who knows how others feel about him.

If Cain cannot be acquired, perhaps Litsch could be traded for someone such as Yunel Escobar, considering Atlanta badly wants a pitcher. Obviously Litsch cannot be traded without acquiring at least one other starter and the Jays would be in a better position to trade an arm next winter. 2009 looks like a frustrating year - almost as though the Jays should just sell off everyone to give themselves a top 5 farm system...

lefty Joe Wice was a draft and follow from the '04 draft.....lefties Luis Perez & Edgar Estanga, right hander Edward Rodriguez, catcher Jonathan Jaspe &outfielder Welinton Ramirez all signed in '04.

teams might take aflier on the lefties but not much else, could lose some depth in the AAA draft

Good points on Burrell's age and lack of defensive value...but as the Jays could use a right-handed bat at DH and maybe the ocassional game in LF, I think Burrell is a good fit

And as for inconsistent, I don't get why Burrell gets stuck with that description.
He struggled in August/September this year, but in his fast 4 years, he's only had 4 months with an OPS below .850.  That's 4 out of 24 months!

As far as I can tell Burrell is a freakishly consistent hitter
Slugging percentages his past 4 years
2005 - .504
2006 - .502
2007 - .502
2008 - .507

His OBP slipped a bit this year, but for 3 years straight he was within 10 points of .390. 

I think Burrell would easily be the best hitter on the Jays next season, and fits what could be considered a hole (a right-handed bat in the DH/LF situation).  He certainly has his flaws, but he seems like a really under-rated player to me.

The Jiminez and Sanchez waiver claims are on the Official site.  Sanchez had TJ surgery on his elbow in 2007 and hit .250 last year.  Seems like standard SS AAA filler.

Jiminez had a decent ERA but his peripherals are not that exciting to me.  Maybe he is a groundballer that had bad defence behind him?  Maybe he will be auditioning for Jason Frasor's job?

JP has now filled the 40 man roster (according to the site) with a lot of marginal guys including:

Bullington, Camp, Castro, Dirk Von Hayhurst??, Jiminez, Machi, Bill Murphy, Parrish, Reid Santos and Sanchez.

Maybe JP is under pressure to field a better team in Vegas and figures if he sends these guys down they may not get claimed and will stick with the organization.  I guess Joe Inglett didn't look like much either - still its tough to get excited about these moves.

Litsch is not the only starter who has been effective with a low K rate. Wang and Westbrook are others. I'm not saying anyone considers Litsch a number 2 starter or anything, but is it unrealitsic to call him a number 3 starter in the NL? He also improved his K rate in September, when his velocity was up. If people are willing to dump millions on Marquis, Silva, Suppan et al, I'm sure someone would be willing to give up something solid for Litsch. Other than JP Ricciardi, most GMs have shown a willingness to trade prospects for young cost-effective pitching; Litsch is not Dan haren by any stretch of the imagination, but he is worth more than two B prospects. I doubt he is going to be traded and, personally, I would not consider trading him unless AJ stays or we acquire another number 2 starter. But by 2010 it is very possible that Halladay, McGowan, Cecil and Purcey will be leading our rotation with their excellent arms and someone will have to be moved (barring more injuries). Acquiring Yunel escobar, for example, for Marcum at one point was not impossible (espescially with Brent Lillibridge waiting in the wings). Supposedly if Robinson Diaz had been added with Rios we may have landed Lincecum. The point is that JP is way too protective over his players/prospects and needs to get over his stubbornness if he wants to save his job...

But Glevin surely you must be willing to acknowledge that Litsch is only entering his age 24 season. He's had 2 fine seasons for someone his age. Yes, his K/9 isn't great. However, he did improve it dramatically from last year to this (he went from 4.05 to 5.06) while at the same time lowering his walk rate by nearly a full walk per nine innings and less significant was his lowering his H/9 by .3. Not to mention he also lowered his HR/9 from 1.13 to 1.02

These are all good positive indicators of continued success. This is a critical difference of Litsch from a seemingly similar pitcher in Chacin. Chacin got worse in K/9, BB/9, and HR/9 from his breakout, 119 ERA+ season to his followup season. As for Wang, Jesse will have thrown 3 full seasons before Wang ever threw 1 MLB pitch. Will he be as good as Wang? Hard to say he really is a different kind of pitcher, but he's still got time to improve yet. Westbrook at the same point in his career had thrown 70 innings with an ERA over 6.00 with a brutal K/W ratio albeit a decent K/9 ratio.

To say there is no GM in baseball who wouldn't trade 2 B prospects for a guy like Litsch is laying it on a little heavy, I think. I think there are several GM's who would pay that given the price of pitching in baseball. Litsch is still under control too. He is an asset.

But then again, we all see the glass differently. I think Jesse's is half full.

Glevin you are more likely than not correct about Litsch's value (though Cecil isn't a B prospect and Sickel's evaluations really don't mean much in terms of Cecil's present-day value). However, I remember on a Blue Jays broadcast that a scout had said something to the effective of "I would pay to see Marcum pitch and I think he could develop into an ace). Now Marcum and Litsch are different pitchers - but the basic point is that one scout from one organization placed a very high premium on Marcum. Marcum has the stronger K rate but he has the worse HR rate in comparison to Litsch. The point isn't so much to compare Marcum to Litsch; it has more to do with the fact that they are both control pitchers that have exceeded expectations; Litsch has also show that he's durable so far in his career and I'm sure there are teams that feel he can give them 200 quality innings next year.

We know for a fact that at least one team thought very highly of Marcum, one team gave up a ridiculous package for Bedard and this same team spent $48 million on Carlos Silva. We also know that a major reason that Arizona traded for Dan Haren as opposed to a more expensive pitcher is that they wanted a cheap, controllable pitcer. So, basically, while I agree with your main point I disagree that the every one of the other 29 teams don't value a guy like Jesse Litsch as much as Toronto does. If Litsch was made available, there will surely be someone who pays more than two B prospects for him (actual B prospects, not Cecil). To use the Jays system as an example, I would expect that someone would give up Jackson, Ahrens and Campbell at the least for Litsch. Perhaps a R Romero is tossed in as well. There are no sure things in that group, but I believe those will be 4 of the top 10 Jays prospects when BA comes out with their 2009 rankings. Litsch probably won't bring back any studs, but he'd get more than redundant prospects from other organizations...

this same team spent $48 million on Carlos Silva

Bill Bavasi has been canned. One imagines, though cannot state categorically, that the GM bar will never again be so low.

Allegedly quality organizations spent a lot of money on Jeff Suppan and Jason Marquis. In the case of Suppan, I remember people suggesting that the Brewers only had one major hole to fill on their roster that year and GM's will overpay to "complete" their 25 man roster. In the case of Marquis, he was clearly payed for winning 14 games for 2006 (though he lost 16 games and had an ERA over 6).

There will always be someone who gives out ridiculous contracts or someone who will overpay in trade, espescially for pitching. I think watching the Blue Jays organization for the last 7 years has convinced people that trading prospects is a rarity; even as teams become more protective of their young players/prospects, there will always be someone like Bavasi who believes that replacing the 2007 production of Weaver, Ramirez et al with Bedard and Silva will give them another 10 wins and a shot at the division (of course, Brad Wilkerson replaced Jose Guillen and their 87 wins in 2007 was a fallacy considering their -21 run differential). Bavasi is not alone; most GMs are not like JP (in that JP doesn't make too many colossal errors but he has not done many things espescially well either). If Litsch were available, someone would be dumb and overpay.

Anyways... enough of that, let's get back to talking about the Jay's and baseball in general.

Glevin: Do you think that Litsch will not improve, or not improve enough to offset the expected decline?

I think he is capable of improving enough as a pitcher to post numbers maybe a half step below last year. He's not really a 119 ERA+ guy, or atleast I would be moderately surprised if posted another season like that, but I think he could turn in 100 - 110 ERA+ performances for the next 3 - 4 years, which I think has great value. He's already passed one big test which was improving upon his performance as a 22 year old.  There is value there. Pitching is a precious commodity in baseball.

And no, I wouldn't make that trade you proposed either, but we are not talking about Galarraga. Litsch is younger by 3 years, this is significant.

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/028876.html

Our boy Nate getting some love.

Nate Silver of The Plank and fivethirtyeight.com has done a better job synthesizing and explaining the polls this election than any statistical analyst has done in this or any previous presidential election. ....Anyways, here's Silver's final take:

Final Projection: Obama 349, McCain 189

Man, I was hoping nobody would respond to that earlier post by Dean; it was so obviously an attempt to bait someone into responding, so he could answer back with his hate-filled rant.  Dean, it's dishonest of you to say you're only responding "since you asked", when you were baiting people.

But, despite your lack of integrity, I'll address your concerns.

First, do your really believe George Bush, John McCain, or anybody else in Bush's cabinet really believes dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago?  That belief exists only in a minute fringe.  Every group has fringe elements that could be used to discredit the whole group.  This is more blatant dishonesty on your part, claiming Bush, McCain, etc. are "stupid" for a belief they don't even hold.  And as far as "preventing obvious scientific truth from being taught in schools", I assume you mean evolution.  Or I should say, the "Theory of Evolution".  Because that is all it is at this point.  It may well be true, but it has not yet been proven scientifically.  And that is why science has lost so much credibility over the years, because they are asserting things as fact that they have not yet proven.  Evolution and man-made global warming are the two prominent examples right now.  Wanting things to be taught as fact when they remain unproven is another example of a lack of integrity.  And burning books, does anybody actually do that?  That just a slander thrown in for effect (more dishonesty - anybody notice a pattern in Dean?).  One could just as easily assert that Obama supporters sleep with goats, since I'm sure a liberal, somewhere, has done so.

Point 2 is just more slander.  Why would racists have Condi Rice, and before her Colin Powell, in a prominent position like Secretary of State?  Your comment doesn't make much sense, but if you're referring to the issue of whether illegal immigrants should be given citizenship rights, that's an issue that people should be able to debate without being called racists.  Unless you're filled with hatred, like Dean seems to be.  Wow, hate, slander, lying - is this what Obama will bring us?

Point 3 also makes no sense.  First, trickle-down economics have been shown to work.  Second, greedy people will always exist, no matter what the economic system (even Communism).  And third, the current economic mess has nothing to do with trickle-down economics, it goes back to Bill Clinton ordering Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/etc. to lower mortgage standards so poorer people could qualify for homes.  Unsurprisingly, it turns out poorer people sometimes have a hard time making loan payments.  Incidentally, Obama was one of the top recipients of campaign funding from Fannie and Freddie.

Point 4, surprisingly has a few nuggets of truth buried in a lot garbage.  I agree that using torture is unacceptable.  If America wants to be the "good guy" in the War on Terror, it should act like a good guy.  Jack Bauer aside, good guys don't torture people.  But in a mind-blowing exhibit of inconsistency, Dean decries torture while giving the thumbs-up to killing babies in abortuaries.  How do you defend one and oppose the other?  If you can say a human child does not have rights, why can't the US government say a terror suspect also doesn't have human rights?  Your numbers of Iraqi deaths are also wildly exaggerated, and you fail to mention that the vast majority of those deaths were caused by Islamic militants.  While I might agree that the Iraqi invasion was unjust, the reality is that the US has been fighting there for almost 20 years.  Even Bill Clinton, who I'm sure is another of your heroes, was constantly lobbing missiles over the Turkish border.  And ridiculing McCain's 5+ years spent in a prison camp - that's just despicable.  On top of your dishonesty, slander, and hatred, you've added a total lack of class to your resume.

From a Canadian point of view, he was probably lying when he promised to scrap the Free Trade Agreement, but since then, the economic situation has devolved to the point where it's a possibility.  Protectionism tends to rear its ugly head in times like these.  The problem is, it only makes the situation worse, as the Great Depression illustrated.  Once one country takes that path, others respond in kind, and soon international trade grinds to a halt.

Sorry about the long post (the thread is pretty much done anyway), but that garbage needed responding - especially considering the obvious baiting that started it.  For the record, I agree with the poster who stated that both choices were pretty weak.  There are problems with both Obama and McCain, but at least discuss those problems honestly, not with slander and lies (if you feel a need to even bring up American politics on a Blue Jays fan site).

And that is why science has lost so much credibility over the years, because they are asserting things as fact that they have not yet proven.  Evolution and man-made global warming are the two prominent examples right now.

There are no credible proponents anywhere for the idea that global warming is not man-made.  Even Bush has conceded this.  I challenge you to find even one example of what you claim as truth.  This argument would've been worrisome 10 years ago when it was debatable, now that this issue is undeniably the challenge of our lifetime, this statment is deeply disturbing.

I know and deeply respect many conservatives, and share many conservative ideals.  The current American administration in no way resembles a true conservative government, and I am offended by their claim to the label on behalf of sane, logical and progressive thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum.

For Americans to turn the page on an administration that has burned through a 200 billion surplus, turning it into an over 400 billion dollar deficit, an administration that is married to the DEEPLY DISCREDITED notion of trickle down economics (again, please point to even one actual example of a country where this has benefitted the majority), an administration that has divided the world along religious lines while sparking fanatacism (both at home and abroad) and costing thousands of innocent lives, an administration that would like to restrict the invidividual rights of gays and women, an administration loathed worldwide, is wonderful, wonderful news. 

Congratularions Obama.  I hope your conciliatory, non-partisan gestures in your speech last night are the first steps in unifying a deeply divided America.  The world needs it. 

Oh, I don't blame you for responding, 92-93.  I just thought it would be fitting if everybody completely ignored it, and hopefully he wouldn't bring his politics in again.  But at the same time, there's also justification in answering that kind of thing, especially the ridiculous claims in his "four points".  I think it's great that America was able to elect a non-white to its highest office, but like you, I wish it was someone of more substance and accomplishment.

Jerjapan:  I could name you many scientists who dispute the idea of man-made global warming, but like Al Gore, you would simply dismiss them as "flat-earthers".  I can't find "credible proponents", as you ask, if you simply dismiss them as non-credible for resisting the theory.  But there are many climatologists, meteorologists, etc. who dispute man-made global warming, and many others who would, except for the threats against their careers coming from the proponents of the theory.  Global warming "science" is actually more of a religion, demanding belief and adherence to doctrine, and excommunicating any heretics that go against it.  That being said, I still think it's a great thing to reduce pollution, recycle, etc.  I drive a very fuel-efficient car myself, and recyle whatever I can.  I just think schemes like the Kyoto Protocol, and the Canadian Liberal party's "Green Shift" plan are a huge and expensive mistake.  Some scientists are already detecting a weakening trend in solar activity, and predicting a significant cooling period coming soon.  It may not be long before we're wishing for global warming.

However, I do agree with you that there's been fiscal mis-management in the US.  I suspect most of that is the result of the decision to invade Iraq though.  Would there still be a large budget deficit without the costs of the war?  I don't know; I'm sure the numbers are out there, but I'm not planning to look for them tonight.

But I do have to dispute your claim that Bush divided the world along religious lines.  I think there are some imams who may have a little more to do with it than Bush.  Remember, a terror attempt was made on the World Trade Center long before Bush showed up.  Bush has also not restricted the rights of gays.  Nobody is saying they can't be together, and many jurisdictions give them benefits similar to those of common-law couples.  Bush (and many others) are opposing gay "marriage" because there is no such thing.  That is not what marriage is.  You can no sooner claim a right to gay marriage than I can claim a right to defy the laws of gravity.  Gay couples can make up whatever name they want for their relationships, but the word "marriage" is already spoken for.  The attempt to co-opt the word is an attempt to force people to not just tolerate homosexuality, but to approve it.  In the past, homosexual lobbyists promised, just leave us free to do our thing, and we won't bother you.  But the promise was broken.  People are being forced to approve.  Any criticism of homosexuality is now forbidden.  Religious organizations are being force to allow gays couples to use their facilities for their ceremonies, etc.  The promise was broken, and people are resisting that.

The same goes for the rights of women.  Bush has done nothing to restrict those rights.  Women have all the same rights men have in America (as opposed to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan before the US invaded).  Now if you're talking about abortion, there is no legitimate right to that, because it violates the natural rights of another, namely the child being killed.  As I pointed out previously, if you can declare any group (such as unborn children) exempt from human rights, then you can't complain that another group is deprived of its human rights by someone else.  You have to be consistent.  By denying children their fundamental human rights, you've lost your ability to criticize the KKK (who dehumanized African-Americans), the Nazis (who dehumanized Jews, priests, gypsies, homosexuals), the Stalin regime (who dehumanized anyone who disagreed with them), and countless other atrocities.  Denying anyone their humanity, and their human rights, is never a good thing.  It's always a precursor to bloodshed, whether it be the blood of children, or of blacks, or of Jews.  So no, there are no threats to the rights of women.  There is an attempt to assert the rights of a class of people that is too weak to defend itself.  A just society should defend the weak, not destroy them.

As somebody not emmersed in this stuff, I will thrown my 2 cents in, as someone who might represent "the regular voting joe" albeit a Canadian one.

First off, 92-93, I take offence to your using the term crowd at the end of your statement in a debate you are having with 1 individual. It reduces the credibility of your post as you decide to paint us all with the same brush, and makes you come across as a major "I'm a republician and i'll always be a republician" rather then a free willed individual who can independantly and without bias evaluate all the politicial parties and candidates every election.

Now, onto the actual policital stuff going on: I don't know a ton about politics, but I will take issue with the comment "Clinton forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce their mortgage standards..", implying that this is the reason for the mess the USA is in. This is false. I don't follow politics but I do understand economics (it's my life). Buddy above me alluded to it - the financial mess right now is the result of years and years of running unsubstantiated budget deficits. IE, deficits so unbelievably huge it's only the fact that it's the US Economy that it took so long for the economic shit to the fan. And why are they running such large deficits...  (Someone to do with something going on overseas, maybe perhaps?).  We actually this discussed this very issue 7 years ago in an advanced macroeconomic issues course I was taking during my undergraduate. My prof at the end of this particular discussion on the US said "it might not be for 5-10 years, but eventually this overspending WILL catch up to them, these deficits are not sustainable".  

And finally, onto McCain and Obama. Something that has been lost, or at least not mentioned at all in this debate is a leader's ability to inspire. As much of leadership is about the decisions YOU make as it is about the decisions you inspire other people to make. Obama has the ability to change the world for better, this is the ace of his sleeve that McCain lacks - to inspire people to get off their ass and do something different. Look at the unprecedented number of new voters this election. McCain cannot inspire people to action the same way Obama does and hopefully will continue too (although John McCain wouldn not have been a bad president, he just ran at the wrong time). He is the kind of president you roll the dice on.  For all his "pomp" and "fluff", that's what most election campaign's seem to be. Now, it's time for him to put his money where his mouth is. If he can surround himself with smart people who can guide him through this recession, he has the ability to inspire people to believe in whatever policies/theories are established to get out of this financial crisis. 

Jerjapan:  I could name you many scientists who dispute the idea of man-made global warming, but like Al Gore, you would simply dismiss them as "flat-earthers".  I can't find "credible proponents", as you ask, if you simply dismiss them as non-credible for resisting the theory. 

My question is actually serious, and please don't compare me to Al Gore ;)

I teach high school for a living and often the civics course - I don't try to convince my students to think my way, but rather to make critical evaluations and decisions on their own.  As such, It would be useful for me to have the names of credible scientists who dispute global warming - I am not familiar with any, and continue to dispute your claim, but I won't judge any names in advance and would happily be proven wrong.  In fact, while others don't like mixing politics and pleasure (fair enough, it is a baseball site) I personally can't resist the opportunity to debate with well-informed conservatives, as my friends generally have similar views to me. 

But I do have to dispute your claim that Bush divided the world along religious lines.  I think there are some imams who may have a little more to do with it than Bush. 

I am in no way letting corrupt and immoral imans who use hatred and violence for political gain off the hook.  But I know first hand from my extensive travels around the world and the numerous Islamic students I teach, many of whom are wonderful, open-minded young people, just how widely hated the Unites States is outside of North America - and in some cases, quite legitimately so.   

Bush has also not restricted the rights of gays.  Nobody is saying they can't be together, and many jurisdictions give them benefits similar to those of common-law couples.  Bush (and many others) are opposing gay "marriage" because there is no such thing.  That is not what marriage is. 

I think this semantic argument is vaild, and I would NEVER insist that a religious institution conduct ceremonies that run counter to their beliefs, but I think  you are ignoring the symbolic value of giving gays equal rights.  Gay people are still beaten and discriminated against, fired from jobs and harassed in our schools.  Gay teens are far more likely to comitt suicide.  The word 'fag' routinely slips off the lips of otherwise educated, moral people.  Allowing gay marriage does no harm to anyone opposed, but it does a heck of a lot of good for those who've been discriminated against for much of their lives. 

By denying children their fundamental human rights, you've lost your ability to criticize the KKK (who dehumanized African-Americans), the Nazis (who dehumanized Jews, priests, gypsies, homosexuals), the Stalin regime (who dehumanized anyone who disagreed with them), and countless other atrocities. 

this is your one point I would dismiss as ill-conceived and not worthy of your very cogent arguments.  Obviously, what is being disputed is whether or not unborn children are 'people' - you insist that this is axiomatic, I disagree.  And then to imply that their's a link between pro-choicers and the KKK, nazis, etc. is just a ridiculous example of the straw man fallacy.

I actually respect pro-lifers for their committment to what they believe to be right.  But when abortion doctors are being murdered by these same 'pro-lifers' (the irony!) for helping teenage mothers who are not ready to be parents, or when we consider that women who are raped may lose their rights to have an abortion, or when we look at choice in the context of women's rights and the feminist movement, the issue is far, far more complex than you give it credit for being. 

"I've got a website to invite you to where I believe you will find some really enjoyable such debates (not that it's without its trolls) if you are interested. I've seen links several times there to lists of scientists who dissented from the Climate Change claims. And it's not a hard right site either, there are probably more lefties than hard right folks ...anyway, let me know if you are interested, we're always looking for well spoken members.

But when abortion doctors are being murdered by these same 'pro-lifers' (the irony!)

Names? Dates? Totals?

EVERY idea has it's wackaloon nuts who go too far. It reflects not at all on pro-lifers that some 3 or 4 nutbars killed a doctor any more than it reflets negatively on all of Islam that "honor killings" take place (not as much even).

I think reasonable folks can disagree on the choice issue without citing the occasional nut as proof of anything."

Fair point Will - I should lead off with the concerns about women who are assaulted, or who face many challenges financially or emotionally (here I'm thinking of teens) and may not be equipped to be good mothers.  The wackos with guns are a rarity. 

I would love an invitation to the website you're talking about - that's exactly the kind of controversial, well-supported content I need to give my students for the full picture.  I'm not sure if there's a way to message members privately on this site?  If not, I'll post my email next time ...