NORTH KOREA: The Weekly Standard has a fine article on whether N. Korea is trustworthy.

THE AMERICANIZATION OF ISLAM?: Two good articles today on the subject. The prognosis is not optimistic.

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES: An article by Orlet outlines attempts by the Obama crew to stifle free speech. Continetti and Saunders also have good articles on the Democrats.

THE ECONOMY: I liked Hassett's article on the "Sale of the Century". Austin Hill repeats much of what we have heard previously about who is paying all the taxes, but still a good article.

AMERICA: The best article in some time tells why we should be worried about the future of America. I subscribe to most of these worries.

INTERNATIONAL COURTS: The author talks about the legalities of chasing terrorists into sovereign nations.

Have a great Sunday.

We've revised the Home Page to include only the highly ranked articles (as determined by me) and given you links to all the current articles. Let us know how you like the new version.

Travel again interfered with the "almost daily" newsletter yesterday. But we were able to catch up today. You will find all the article from our usual sources for both yesterday and today.

BAILOUT: The bailout of GM is garnering a lot of attention. A couple writers are driving toward what should be a good solution. A bailout, but with major concessions from the unions. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy would do the same thing but might be too dramatic for customers. Who will buy if they are not sure whether the warranty will be honored. Of course, the same might be said right now. The IBD has a fine article on the subject as does George Will. Boortz also has a good article. Liberals have mixed feelings in their writings, but conservatives are mostly consistent on the need for structural changes in the auto industry, meaning unions.

GLOBAL WARMING: The IBD has a fine article on global cooling. Turns out that Hansen of the "world is coming to an end" crowd cooked the books on temperature data. Maybe that qualifies for global warming.

Have a great Tuesday.

THE MARKET: As I write this piece, the market is marginally up. A few months ago, the 38 point rise in the Dow would have been a huge increase, but now we've gotten used to 400 point swings. Since the election, not counting today, we've only had one up day and we've lost well over a 1000 points.

Nobody that I've seen has tied this to the election. But why in the world would the market be happy with threats of increasing the capital gains tax rates? Why would government bailouts be in the interest of the market? Ok, Bush started that fiasco, but when you start to see bailouts for everybody who have made bad past mistakes, the free market stock owners know that there is trouble ahead.

I'm no expert on the financial institutions and structure of this country. Maybe we were in a tremendous crisis where something had to be done. But bailing out mistakes? There must have been a better way. Bailing out the auto industry is a horrible idea. They need to be taken into Chapter 11 where the union contracts and everything else is renegotiated. Some say that management needs to be changed. Quite possibly but Ford has a respected former Boeing executive at its head. How come he hasn't solved the problems?

Because he is saddled with union contracts that make Ford uncompetitive with even other manufacturers in the USA, let alone overseas. Labor costs per hour are approaching twice the competition. Try that in any other business and you will fail.

Mistakes were made many years ago in the auto industry. Each company could not "afford" to stand up to the unions, because the unions were using each company against the other. If one company forced a strike, the other two would settle and get the short term benefit. But they also suffered the long term consequences. Blame them on short–sightedness, but we weren't standing in their shoes. The real problem was the strength of the unions. And the unions were short–sighted as well. They got short term gains, but now the international companies are putting the US companies at risk, and therefore the union workers.

Stock owners are savvy people. They understand that free markets work and government directed economies don't. So why should the market go up given this election. All I can say, there is no reason for the market to be happy. Maybe there are other reasons for it to be unhappy, but the election only makes things worse.

IRAN NEWS: The best article in terms of analysis today is the one from Stratfor.

Have a great Thursday.

The Republicans (and some Democrats) are trying to figure out what is wrong with the GOP. Some are pushing for a return of Reaganism while others say the GOP needs to move to the middle. I think we should not be worrying about the GOP or the Democratic Party for that matter. We should be worrying about issues.

Suppose by some black magic, we came up with an ideal solution for the insolvency of Social Security. Would we care who proposed it? For Republicans, if the Democrats proposed it, it must be wrong. And vice versa. Surely, I might say the GOP positions are closer to mine in general on many subjects than the Democrats'. But experience has shown that the GOP hasn't represented me very well on a lot of issues, either. So instead of supporting the GOP or the Democrats, why don't we all study the issues in enough depth to understand the specifics. Once a problem is truly understood, the solution is often obvious. And we all, no mater our political persuasion, would say that such a solution is correct.

Understanding a problem in depth is not always easy for the average guy and gal with a job or children to raise and lots of other commitments. We at NewsBalance are trying to help by presenting the best liberal and conservative thinkers. Over time, we hope to condense the arguments into a single paper on each subject that will ease the education process.

A couple of articles of note today:
THE DRUG WAR tells us how serious things are South of the border and on the border.
THE ECONOMY, Stossel talks about how we are losing our liberty in trying to prop up the economy. Well worth reading.

Have a great Wednesday.

Apparently Tymann's and my article on how to move forward in America has generated a lot of debate. Our plea was to eliminate emotion from decisions and start working on facts. This article would have been appropriate no matter who won the election.

Have a great week.

IRAN NEWS: One of the best recent articles is by Rubin on the outlook for dealing with Iran. No simple solutions.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Shelby Steele has a very well thought–out article on the election.

FOREIGN POLICY: Stratfor has a good article on the challenges facing Obama in the international scene.

AMERICA: Jack Tymann with a little help from me has a super article on our next steps with an Obama presidency. Like it or not, Obama is our President for the next four years and we need to figure out ways to make progress rather than lay out stumbling blocks. Jack rightfully professes that the right approach is to cooperate. But that doesn't mean capitulate.

Jack and I both feel that deep down, Americans are reasonably close on many issues. The problem is that we let winning and personalities get in the way of making progress. How many times during the debates and all the electioneering did the relationship of tax rates and tax receipts get discussed? Never, as far as I can tell. Yet, both Democrats and Republicans would agree on the goals of a balanced federal budget and a growing economy.

So why wasn't that issue part of the election debate? Because emotions got involved. People would rather be concerned about the Rich vs. Poor issues than whether a certain policy might help everybody.

Jack and I over the next months will attempt to cover some of the major issues on a non–partisan basis. We won't care who among the politicians gets credit for a solution and we won't care who gets elected in 2010. We will only worry about whether progress is made on an issue. We do think that if the people are educated properly, they will make the right decisions at the ballot box.

We have great faith in the American people. When they know the facts, they will make the right decision for the country.

Have a great Sunday.

LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS: Several good ones today; I think the best is by Victor Davis Hanson.

MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS: The must read article of the day is from the CATO Institute. This has all the statistics that should convince anyone of the fallacy of mass transit.

Have a great weekend.

Best article of the day is by Llimbaugh under America. A couple other great ones are also there, one by our Jack Tymann.

SARAH, DON'T BLAME YOURSELF FOR THIS FIASCO
Some conservatives will blame you for the election loss. The liberals might also but only because they are afraid of you. The truth is that the cards were stacked against you and John.

First of all, the media have been unrelenting over the last 4 years. They have blamed Bush and the Republicans for all that is wrong, both here and across the World. Bush was blamed for the prolonged battle in Iraq. Yet when the situation turned and we have a real chance of a Democracy in the Middle East (basically the only one except for Israel), the press totally ignored the situation. They took their shots at Bush when the going was rough, but nary a complement when success is at hand.

It was Bush's fault when the oil prices were nearing $5 per gallon, but no kudos since they've dropped back to the $2 range. What happened? Well, the economy slowdown helped prices, but all the talk of drilling no doubt affected the speculators. No longer could they be sure that oil prices were at the mercy of dictators throughout the world.

The economy was Bush's fault according to the media, yet all the studied analyses show that it started with housing and that started with Democrats forcing banks to lend to unqualified poor and minority borrowers. What irony. They screw up and yet they win.

So, Sarah, you have the media belittling the incumbent President unfairly. That is a huge mountain to climb by itself. But worse, they not only attacked the incumbent, but they mercilessly attacked you. Had they spent a fraction of the time searching for tidbits on you investigating Obama's background, he could not have been elected.

A Democrat has admitted that the media in the past have affected elections by about 15%. I submit that in this election, the number must be closer to 20% or more. What states would you have won with an extra 20% margin. Virtually all of them.

And your partner, John McCain. Obviously, John has a lot of character, but was he a true conservative? Some of his alliances in the Senate were far from conservative. The Republican base never really got behind him and only when he chose you, did many of us reach into our pocketbooks.

I wrote early in the year that the best strategy was to donate to Republican Senatorial candidates. With either a Democrat in office or even John, the real savior would be to have a Senate minority block large enough to stop bad legislation. I even said then that McCain's history of compromise with the Democrats could get us into more trouble than a Democratic President. I'm not sure I had in mind Obama at the time because I didn't know how socialistic he really was.

And finally and maybe most importantly, Sarah, you were bucking Affirmative Action. The country elected a man whose only reason to be elected was because he was black. Haven't we learned that affirmative action was a mistake all along.

So it is over. Time to look ahead. Sarah, you are one of the brightest stars in the Republican ranks. We will need you in 2012 so don't change anything, just because you lost. It wasn't your fault, not the clothes you wore or the TV interviews with extremely hostile liberal hosts. You are genuine and that is an attribute found in few politicians. Between you and Bobby Jindal, we have the makings of a real comeback, Reagan style. Keep the spirit.

TODAY'S BEST ARTICLES: Under ETHICS IN POLITICS, catch Michael Medved. Under FREE ENTERPRISE AND SMALL GOVERNMENT, Jeffrey has a great article.

Have a great Wednesday.

MY THOUGHTS ON THE ELECTION: Today is the day. VOTE, but only if you understand the issues and the candidates. Otherwise, stay home. If you haven't taken the time to understand, then your vote is not worth anything. In fact, it is counterproductive. Are you voting on emotion? Are you voting based on what the media tells you to vote? (They are 90% liberal.) Are you voting on gut instinct? Don't trust it.

Too much of the election news that should educate you does anything but that. It is nothing but sound bites and zingers. Shouldn't you really understand the relationship between tax rates and tax receipts before deciding who to vote for? Few of us do. Virtually, none of the liberal news people understand and not too many conservative ones do either.

Our media is letting us down. They are not educating us. What we get is a nation headed for disaster. It started largely with the Great Depression. FDR gave us Social Security, but what is the security of bankruptcy? Johnson gave us Medicare, supposedly security against medical problems. It too is going bankrupt. Bush II gave us prescription drug coverage. Same answer, bankruptcy. The media have let all this happen over the years without telling us the consequences. They keep letting us believe there is such a thing as a free lunch. There isn't.

This election is no better; in fact, it is worse. Both candidates are pandering for votes with give–aways. Reagan was right: Government is not the solution, it is the problem.

Will we find out in two years, or four years? Probably not. I'm afraid we will not find out until it is too late. Too late for our grandchildren, maybe for our children. It is a house of cards which will come falling. The actual government deficit is so huge that it is unimaginable and intractable. There is no simple solution. We are headed to being a third–world country, like those in South America.

We must take non–government functions which are now performed by the government and give them back to the people. Retirement should be a personal matter where each of us takes responsibility. So should medical care. So should welfare. Protection of our citizens is the only real legitimate function of government. Oh, how far we have strayed.

TODAY'S ARTICLES: Several four star articles today, but the best might be Cal Thomas' discussion of the media and Samuelson's rich vs. poor article.

Have a great Tuesday. GOD HELP US.

CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT: Our Jack Tymann has an excellent article on the reasons to vote for John McCain. Jack says, "...it’s still very possible that Barack Obama will win. That’s because millions of voters just don't get it! They are voting on hypnotic rhetoric rather than on serious thoughtful reflection. They are voting on Obama’s undeniable ability to talk coherently into a teleprompter, rather than on the issues and principles that are at stake." Truer words were never said. People are voting on emotion, not reason, not logic. That's why we have NewsBalance. To try to put both sides in front of our readers. And we emphasize facts, not name–calling or soft thinking.

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES: The CATO article asks how in the world can Obama afford all his programs. HE CAN'T. And read some of the articles on Rashid Khalidi. As the election goes on and on, we find more reasons why Obama's friends are all scary.

AMERICA: We have two good articles on the future of this country. Both are worrisome, but the one by Paulson is top–notch. Make sure you read it.

If you know the issues, vote tomorrow. If not, stay home and save us.
Have a great week.

CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT: Henderson has a good article on the tax plans of both candidates. Nichols has a good article on polls and what they mean.

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES: Atlas has a good article on Obama's health care plans. Stokes talks about all the promises.

THE ECONOMY: Laffer has a great article on steps being taken by the government, which he believes might takes us to the Hoover/FDR era.

Have a great Sunday.

Still lots of election articles.

CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT: The liberal Ignatius has a good article on the need for a strong leader.

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES: Ferrara has a great article on Obama's claim of tax cuts. Ain't necessarily so.

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES: Despite Obama's claim of McCain tax increases on health care, it ain't necessarily so either. Menefee lays out the facts.

HOUSING: Recently, we had a long article on the history of the housing crisis. Today, we have a shorter version by the same author, Wells.

TAXING THE RICH: Best article of the day, or maybe week. This is a fundamental article about how money really works. And it shoots down any idea that the rich owe the rest of us anything. Take that, Helen Thomas, in her article under THE ECONOMY. Liberals are just emotional, not rational or logical when it comes to money.

GAY MARRIAGES: One of the better articles on the morality of gays. Well worth reading.

Have a great weekend.

Back from some travels. And close to the election. Maybe next week we can start talking about real issues instead of personalities.

CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT: Krauthammer has a good article, as does Dick Morris and others.

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES: Buchanan has a good article as well as Malkin.

LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS: We have several good articles on leftist bias in the media; I liked Limbaugh and West.

I'm absolutely convinced that if the media were fair, McCain would be winning in a landslide. The United States is not a socialist nation in its deepest beliefs. If the media were doing their job, we would all know how leftist Obama really is. Instead, the media is just as leftist as Obama.

The nation is at a tipping point. A socialist takeover of our country is indeed possible today, something that would have been laughed at 10 years ago. But when you look at the ACORN antics, the absolute leftist bias of the media, it is indeed possible to have elections rigged like South American countries. Put Obama and Democrats in control of Congress and a move by these parties to shift the courts, we are in extreme danger. Can you imagine this country being a Chavez partner. WE ARE CLOSE, AS CLOSE AS NEXT TUESDAY'S ELECTION.

Despite these remarks, I have hope that this election will turn out differently than the polls and the opinion writers suggest. But I'm scared for our country, even more than the days when Better Red than Dead was a popular saying at Universities.

God help us.

Have a great weekend.

Travel interrupted some of the efforts yesterday and the day before. Hopefully, we'll be mostly on track for the rest of the week.

I thought the best articles of the day were ones by the IBD on Deficit Hypocrisy, Stokes article on Reagan, and the interview of McCain by Gizzi.

The five star ranking system.

FIVE STARS: An article that will be informative and timely, even years from now. A real fundamental article that is based on principles. You won't find many "five stars".

FOUR STARS: An article definitely worth reading, but these might be more appropriate in the context of today's news compared to a long–lasting five star article.

THREE STARS: Many good articles will end up with three stars, either because they are not particularly relevant to today's news or their arguments have already been covered adequately. You might consider these articles as POSSIBLES. If you have the time, or you like a particular author or want to delve into a particular subject, you probably should scan the three star articles.

TWO STARS: An article is relegated to two stars even though well–written and appropriate for today's news IF it contains what I consider inaccuracies, illogic or uses name–calling instead of facts.

ONE STAR: Don't bother. Like five stars, you won't find many of these because if they are that bad, I shouldn't be including them anyway. But sometimes I include a one star to show the readers how ridiculous some writers or their thesis really are.

Have a great Friday.

The star ranking of articles seems to be working now. So I will discontinue listing here all the articles that I think are particularly worth reading. You can simply scan the articles and look for those with a four or five star ranking.

Here is how I decide on my rankings.
FIVE STARS: An article that will be informative and timely, even years from now. A real fundamental article that is based on principles. You won't find many "five stars".

FOUR STARS: An article definitely worth reading, but these might be more appropriate in the context of today's news compared to a long–lasting five star article.

THREE STARS: Many good articles will end up with three stars, either because they are not particularly relevant to today's news or their arguments have already been covered adequately. You might consider these articles as POSSIBLES. If you have the time, or you like a particular author or want to delve into a particular subject, you probably should scan the three star articles.

TWO STARS: An article is relegated to two stars even though well–written and appropriate for today's news IF it contains what I consider inaccuracies, illogic or uses name–calling instead of facts.

ONE STAR: Don't bother. Like five stars, you won't find many of these because if they are that bad, I shouldn't be including them anyway. But sometimes I include a one star to show the readers how ridiculous some writers or their thesis really are.

BIAS? The site claims to be balanced, hence the name NewsBalance. I'm conservative so you might ask does bias creep into the rankings of articles? ABSOLUTELY. I try my best to include all liberal and conservative articles that I find. I scan a couple Conservative sites daily and three liberal newspapers. I also find a number of other sites which I often include on the weekends to fill up to a full edition. Overall, the number of conservative vs. liberal articles is not far out of balance.

But my assessment of these articles can be biased. For my readers, especially liberal ones, they should not compare my ranking between liberal and conservative articles. Within either category, the ranking should have some relevance, but I won't claim to be totally unbiased in my ranking of articles between opposing sides. This is natural as my world–view gives less credence to the liberal side. At least I admit my bias, as opposed to the main–stream media who would have you believe they are unbiased when in fact they are far from it.

CLOSING: I welcome your input on the changes as well as ideas as to further improving the site. Just write to Editor–in–Chief@NewsBalance.com

EDUCATION: The best article of the day is by Ladner talking about how Florida schools have succeeded in actually improving their scores. One of the facets: Pay for performance. Pay the teachers for high SAT scores, or some other measure. What a revolutionary concept. Of course, business people have been doing this for a long time. I've always thought that school choice would bring about ideas like this simply because choice implies competition among schools. And school choice is another element of Florida schools.

This is why having 50 states is such a wonderful idea. (Not 57 but 50.) If education were fully controlled by Washington, you would never get ideas like Florida's. It wouldn't be allowed by the bureaucrats. But Florida can try something which if successful, the other states can copy. Think Welfare Reform.

The scary thing about the election and the recent trends in the US is that the move is away from states' rights and toward a centralized political system. Wrong move. Competition is wonderful, whether it is between schools or companies or states.

OTHER ARTICLES OF NOTE: Try Coulter, Malanga and Will.

The star ranking of articles seems to be working now. So I will discontinue listing here all the articles that I think are particularly worth reading. You can simply scan the articles and look for those with a four or five star ranking.

Here is how I decide on my rankings.
FIVE STARS: An article that will be informative and timely, even years from now. A real fundamental article that is based on principles. You won't find many "five stars".

FOUR STARS: An article definitely worth reading, but these might be more appropriate in the context of today's news compared to a long–lasting five star article.

THREE STARS: Many good articles will end up with three stars, either because they are not particularly relevant to today's news or their arguments have already been covered adequately. You might consider these articles as POSSIBLES. If you have the time, or you like a particular author or want to delve into a particular subject, you probably should scan the three star articles.

TWO STARS: An article is relegated to two stars even though well–written and appropriate for today's news IF it contains what I consider inaccuracies, illogic or uses name–calling instead of facts.

ONE STAR: Don't bother. Like five stars, you won't find many of these because if they are that bad, I shouldn't be including them anyway. But sometimes I include a one star to show the readers how ridiculous some writers or their thesis really are.

BIAS? The site claims to be balanced, hence the name NewsBalance. I'm conservative so you might ask does bias creep into the rankings of articles? ABSOLUTELY. I try my best to include all liberal and conservative articles that I find. I scan a couple Conservative sites daily and three liberal newspapers. I also find a number of other sites which I often include on the weekends to fill up to a full edition. Overall, the number of conservative vs. liberal articles is not far out of balance.

But my assessment of these articles can be biased. For my readers, especially liberal ones, they should not compare my ranking between liberal and conservative articles. Within either category, the ranking should have some relevance, but I won't claim to be totally unbiased in my ranking of articles between opposing sides. This is natural as my world–view gives less credence to the liberal side. At least I admit my bias, as opposed to the main–stream media who would have you believe they are unbiased when in fact they are far from it.

CLOSING: I welcome your input on the changes as well as ideas as to further improving the site. Just write to Editor–in–Chief@NewsBalance.com
Two 5 star articles today, one by Walter Williams on Health Care, and the second by John Stossel on Free Enterprise.

Have a great Wednesday.

We are introducing another feature to help in your use of the site. This is a star system where the editor has ranked articles which in his opinion deserve higher recognition than others. Unfortunately, it was not working properly to begin with. Five stars were the worst and one star was the best. UGH. :) Anyway, it is fixed now and I'll say more about it tomorrow. bbm

WAR ON TERRORISM: Michael Yon has another great photo story from Afghanistan.

PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT: Great article by Young talking about how government only responds to crises.

CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT: Another fine article by Sowell.

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES: And Sowell does it again. Schafly tells us how education might look in the US if Obama becomes President and uses his friend Bill Ayers.

BUDGET DEFICIT: We better start worrying. The nation is too far in debt.

HEALTH CARE DEBATE: Hawaii tried children's universal health care for six months and figured out it was in trouble.

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM: Almost the same issue here except the government is forcing benefits on us.

THE ECONOMY: Some good articles here.

FREE ENTERPRISE AND SMALL GOVERNMENT: Cal Thomas hits the nail on the head.

FAIR TAX: Mona Charen tells us how Obama's fair tax is anything but.

Lots of articles today.

HURRICANES: A story about how the government really doesn't help.

CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT: Though there are many papers on the subject of taxes, Heritage's one is quite good.

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM: Great article on why we should still privatize SS, even in these market conditions.

HOUSING: The piece by Istook documents the Democrats guilt in this crisis.

PRESCHOOL: No study shows that preschool makes any difference, as related by an article in the SF Chronicle.

POLITICALLY CORRECT ACTIONS: I don't usually spend much time on homosexual issues, but the article today is worth reading.

Have a great week.