Vice Presidential Debate

Two opposing sides of an issue always see different things when discussing an issue. If Mother Jones is used to understand what happened in the VP debate, then you are going to get a very different story than you are when reading The American Spectator.
Mother Jones discussed how everyone was waiting for Sarah Palin to sound like a complete moron and make a significant blunder, but ended up holding her own in the debate. Palin has stopped being an ulcer to McCain's campaign and now all of the media is centered on McCain. They also discussed how Palin agrees with VP Cheney and wants to give more power to the Vice President. Isn't it convenient that the Republican decision for VP wants to give the Vice President more power? They discuss how Biden has a stronger grasp on the issues, but Palin has a style that let her connect to the average American. The debate was basically an equal praisal of their running mates which really didn't change anyone's viewpoint.
The American Spectator chose to focus on how Palin did a good job in the debate while not really discussing Biden. It discussed how the VP debate doesn't really solve anything, but other than that didn't really talk about the issues at all. The article thought that it was wise of Biden not to attack Palin directly and said that he was wise for treating her differently because she was a woman. That is an interesting way to look at the debate. The American Spectator is extremely slanted towards Palin and seems to let her get away with not knowing about certain issues just because she is the Alaskan govenor. Is it fair to make excuses for the next possible Vice President? Why should we treat Palin differently than any other politician?
Look at how differently the two sides look at things. This really shows why we shouldn't believe every work we read. Every American should make their own judgements when voting for the next President.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/10/10062_veep_debate_an.html
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13994

Command Economy II

The problem with a command economy is that there is no individual. Everything is controlled by the government which leads to the two entirely different opinions forming. The first is that every person is insignificant because the government is in everything and that there is absolutely no control in the individuals life. The latter is that every human and thus I am flawed, so instead of making mistakes, I can let the government make all of the decisions. The problem with this is that the government is run by people which are flawed so the perfect system is really not perfect at all.
The market economy is complete freedom without regulation. This economical structure gives way too much freedom to business and the individual. This leads to competition and competition results in people doing whatever they can to make a profit. This is not only animalistic, but also horrific for it creates a few alpha males and a lot of small pawns. This would be the relationship big businesses have to small businesses today.
So far we are batting zero for a great economical structure, so why not take a balance of each side. This would be titled socialism and in essence is a great idea. Although, it could just be another good idea just like the last two. Where do you stand on this economical line? Are you landing in the black, the white or the grey area?
http://www.progressiveu.org/105434-command-economy-vs-market-economy

Command Economy

A command economy would work perfectly if it were possible for an uncorrupted government to run it. The basic idea behind the command economy is that the government should regulate price and supply rather than the market. How they do this is by directing businesses on every aspect of producing the finished good. The problem with this is that people don't want to work under these circumstances. Also, workers when striving for a specific volume of the good, tend to make the product poorly so they can make a greater volume of it. Another problem with the command economy is that government leaders tend to not spread the wealth equally and fill their own pockets. That is when the command economy starts to look not so perfect.

A command economy sounds promising, but it can become the government manipulating the people to meet its own needs. People will always put themselves before others and this is why the command economy is flawed. If a country could act as one body instead of individuals striving for personal success, then the economy would work, but this will never happen. I don't think there is one perfect economy and I don't believe there ever will be. We must make the best of what we are given and fix what we can.

http://www.economywatch.com/economy-articles/command-economy.html