Unfortunately for McCain, some members of his own party agree with Obama that McCain is quickly running out of time. According to Sen. Jon Kyle, McCain's fellow Arizona senator, “Unfortunately, I think (that) John McCai0n might be added to the long list of Arizonans who ran for president, but were never elected”. Hey, this fits McCain's image/reputation as a maverick. The only difference is that Kyle doesn't agree with McCain.

Meanwhile, Obama continued to hammer away at McCain, repeating that “For eight years, we've seen the Bush-McCain philosophy put our country on the wrong track and we cannot have another four years that look just like the last eight”. This is yet another response to McCain's scornful remark in the final presidential debate that “I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago”.

McCain meanwhile played the fear factor again, first accusing Obama of acting like a dictator: “He's measuring the drapes…I prefer to let voters have their say. What America needs now is someone who will finish the race before starting the victory lap”. Is McCain seriously going positive? If we look at this statement, it doesn't sound very positive.

Next, a t a rally with 5000 people in attendance in Zanesville, Ohio, McCain once again depicted Obama as a tax-spending liberal: “You can imagine (President) Obama, (Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid and (Speaker of the House Nancy) Pelosi. Tax and spend”. Again, this isn't true. Under Obama's tax plan, 95% of people will get tax deductions/cuts.

Obama's campaign responded with fresh commercials in battleground states that depicted McCain as a man with “no plan to lift our economy up” and using “scare tactics and smears”. It also depicts McCain as someone who is “running out of ideas” and is “out of touch”. Remember the question about how many houses/properties McCain owns? He couldn't answer that question while most people are drowning in debt trying to keep up with their mortgage payments.

On top of everything else, McCain continues to defend running mate Sarah Palin: “I don't defend her. I praise her. She is exactly what Washington needs”. There was a report out earlier that Palin was a liability and dragging McCain down. Obviously, McCain doesn't see it that way. Otherwise, he certainly would not have chosen Palin on such short notice (the Friday before the GOP convention) that even made conservative Republicans (the faction to which McCain belongs) scratch their heads and perhaps cringe.

Then, McCain again tried to evade Bush: “The fact is I am not George Bush. Do we share a common philosophy of the Republican Party? Of course”. This reinforces how desperate McCain is just 10 days away from perhaps the most monumental election of our lives. Otherwise, why is he repeatedly distancing himself from Bush?

Obama pounced on that comment like Jason Kidd going for a steal against Denver Nuggets' guard Allen Iverson: “I guess that's John McCain finally giving us a little straight talk and owning up to the fact that he and George Bush actually have a lot in common”.

Obama continued: “We're not going to let George Bush pass the torch onto John McCain”. In other words, Obama will, in all likelihood, 'intercept' the White House from McCain.

                The White House has pressed the ‘panic button’, to warn us all that some urgent needs to be done, to save America the world economies from the effects of a collapsed US financial system.

                One wonders why the problem was not cited at a time when the bailout could have cost America just 50 Billion.

                Couldn’t the world leaders have protected us, before the waters reached neck-level?

                This issue didn’t begin today, but in the past years. It all started when the bankers and mortgage companies made a decision to lend money to people who were very risk borrowers. Because of their poor choices, the world is being held at ransom.

                The take-over of some US banks by the government and the now enormous 700 Billion Dollar Rescue Plan leaves economists and the ordinary citizen with some questions to answer.

                Must capitalism be modified, or we can leave it in its current state? This is a big question.

                Must guys like Hugo Cheves, Evo Morales, who nationalize industries in the computer age be supported or we must go the same way we have been going.

                With all these questions, we must not make a mistake about this. Capitalism, is surely, the way to do business.

                The form, in which it is today, is the issue that requires some emergency thinking, by economic professors, citizens, and above all, by the governments of the world.

Benefits of Capitalism

                Capitalism has really made a huge contribution to the world by encouraging enterprise among citizens of the world. People are free to make their own money, hence they work hard and in the end, the world benefits.

                Government controlled enterprises are normally characterized by political, not purely business decisions and this often leads to serious inefficiency. The appointees in these situations end up choosing directors who will put their interest, not business interests at heart.

The Need for Modification

                At a time of a crisis like the one the world is faced with, most people may accept a re-think of the way the world does business today.

The collapse of multinationals like Enron and several other examples leaves the question. Is the unchecked pursuit of profit dangerous to the world?

The unprecedented financial failure by companies like Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaves some questions to be answered.

AIG, the world’s well known insurance company has gone the same way, leaving insurers worried that they will be left in the cold, like experienced by the XL holiday company. When the collapse  of this company came, holiday makers were disappointed, and others, stranded.

For those of us who have not followed the happenings of the financial markets, Northern Rock, a very successful UK bank, before the woes befell them, is also an indication that the extent of the problem is wide.

Why then are companies, all over, and everywhere collapsing?

 And one wonders why the British government and the American government, both of them staunch supporters of CAPITALISM and GLOBALISATION, would start jumping in the financial markets for bailouts.

Doesn’t it then, show, clearly, that government influence in enterprise is essential? Yes, one may say essential because if a remedy is called upon in the most difficulty situation, then that remedy can work (it is the best).

Problems, do truly exist.

Do we then throw capitalism through the window, and join the school of thought championed by the Fidels, Hugos of this world?

The answer is a BIG NO. Yes, a BIG NO.

But seriously, we need, ‘TO PUT A HUMAN FACE ON THE BUSINESS WORLD TODAY.’

Get it from me, if this financial crisis didn’t come, if the banker s and mortgage owners did not shoot themselves in the foot, they would have been coming on TV screens, boasting that what they did is the way to do business.

Honestly, capitalism and globalization that does not hesitate to pre-think its consequences on human dignity is not serving the civilized world.  The purpose of all business and all human endeavors MUST be, to make the world a better place.

Businesses are very crucial for our everyday lives, but then the effect of business decisions on workers and customer s must, at all times be evaluated.

Therefore, the ongoing negotiations by the US senate (Democrats and Republications) on the bailout of the ailing US financial sector must go beyond the bailout.

The best way to ensure stability of markets and the wellbeing of all humanity is to ensure serious consideration of human dignity.

Though state corporations are political in their decisions, governments pursuing extreme capitalism have it wrong because in the final analysis, governments were created to protect the interests of the ordinary citizen.

Hence, this demands of policy makers, the world over, to ensure that profit makers are checked in what transactions they are doing. Otherwise it is the taxpayer, the ordinary citizen who is going to bailout the financial giants.

So, all must support good business ethics.

But it wasn't solely the economy that proved McCain's downfall. He seems destined to lose his bid to become president of these United States largely because of who he is, how he looks on TV and his lousy luck of being a Republican in a Democratic year.

Sure, adding Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, to the ticket was a stroke of genius, for awhile.

Unfortunately for McCain, it's not a Republican year. Period. This is the year of throw the rascals out. No Republican had a chance in hell of beating any reasonably attractive and articulate Democrat wanting to be president badly enough.

The reasons for this are obvious: two costly wars, one lousy economy and a bunch of mistakes, among other things.

We, the American voters, do not forgive those who screw up. And, man, have the Republicans screwed up!

President George Bush may turn out to be the worst president in 100 years, or more. From the evidence, his administration has been one big bungled affair. Too bad for us; we're still paying the tab.

The only Republican that might have had a prayer to win the presidency would have been someone like McCain, a so-called maverick. Somebody not quite like the other rascals we are throwing out.

However, as noted by the pundits, McCain does not look presidential enough to inspire confidence in us. Sadly, to Americans appearance counts more than substance and experience, especially in the age of TV.

McCain just does not look the part, which does not mean that if you look presidential and are a smooth talker-- also known as a good communicator--you will automatically become a great or even a good president. George Bush looked presidential and what did that get us? Enough said.

The way we vote for our presidents is based on popularity and appearances. Get us to trust you, and you get our vote. Piece of cake.

No wonder we get the president we deserve. It's good to know that things in politics haven't changed. I might be really worried if it were otherwise.

But my family alone cannot elect my choice for president, but that's not the issue. Why are we so stuck on being right, so convinced that the other guy would lead us to ruin, that we're consistently stupid in our choices? Pick the best man based on his record, for heaven's sake, not because he or she is a member of this or that party. I'd say abolish parties, but in no time each clique would have a following who echoes his or her views, and of course we'd have to tag him or her as this or that. We love our tags.

Vice presidential choices are a sticky mess as well. Is each qualified to lead? Do Americans even care that this person might assume the duties, as we make our presidential choices? We've proof presidents die in office, and Number Two better be someone we can trust as level-headed and intelligent to lead us for the duration of the incomplete term if this did happen.

My solution is to look closely at both parties, both candidates and their running mates, and choose without worrying about party name or affiliation. Review the issues and base your vote on how closely each pair concurs with you. No one expects perfection. Best of all, you don't have to register as Indepedent to do so.

So I, a stupid American, will try to choose the least objectionable candidate to lead my beloved America. Please do the same, even if the candidate from either party that we first identified with is not on the ballot. Anyone for less stupidity?

The President said that now is not the time for the blame game, but then who is really then the culprit behind the American country's problem. If we are going to think back all the events which the American country participated, we will see that the country would have most likely spent much of their resources. The most controversial and most talked issue in the world was the Iraq war where the American tried to defeat the worst terrorist in the world and promote democracy.  Other than the political issues, the hurricane Katrina also devastated the country, leaving many homeless. I will be quoting the early draft of his speech, but notice that it is almost the same as the earlier presidential speech he had:

"THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces taxpayers  are in the early stages of military operations getting screwed over to disarm Iraq bail out Wall Stree, to free its people CEO's from responsibility for their own incompetence and to defend the world them from grave danger not being as rich.

On my orders, coalition forces taxpayers have begun striking selected targets of military importance bending over and grabbing their ankles to undermine Saddam Hussein's their ability to wage war pay their bills. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. 35 countries Millions of taxpayers are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases grocery money, to help with intelligence and logistics their mortgage and rent money, to the deployment of combat units money they'd use to pay their doctor. Every nation person in this coalition country has chosen must be forced to bear the duty and share the honor burden of serving our common defense richest citizens. To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East the peace of a troubled world the fate of the richest among us and the hopes of an oppressed wealthy people now depend on you. That trust means the rip-off is well placed on."

As an analysis to the current situation, I could say that the President Bush' plan might work considering that he is known to be a person who save dying economy in the end. Let us just see what he can do, else it is just months more and the administration will then be replaced by a better leader hopefully. You, what can you say about this issue?

Starting off, Bush remarked that “Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold. Ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession. We must not let that happen”. Notice the key words: “panic”, “distressing” and “long and painful”. However, Bush also said that “We must not let this happen”,without elaborating. A critical question remains. The government is already trillions of dollars in debt and has bailed out Fannie & Freddie, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG among others. Does it have sufficient capital to deal with other financial collapses before Bush leaves office, should there be one?

What is Bush's rationale for bailing out financial giants? “With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: to step in with dramatic government action or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions by some to undermine the financial security of all”. Here, Bush is saying that there are only a few corrupt bankers and that he can't stand back and allow banks to run out of money when ordinary, law-abiding citizens need money and banks don't have any money to lend because it has been stolen by crooks.

Here's the next big question. How did the two potential future presidents respond? They issued the following joint statement: “The plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail. This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe”. This sounds just like McCain's “never surrender” rhetoric that we've heard so many times. The key question for Obama and McCain is still “Can they put politics aside?”

Let's look at what was said by the FBI on the topic of the planes hitting the buildings: The FBI told the public that on September the eleventh two thousand and one, two Boeing 767s hit the twin towers; one each. Maybe they did, we may never know. But what we do know is that these planes were not piloted by suicide bombers but controlled completely by radio control. Where from? Building seven, this collapsed a mysteriously few hours after the other two. The many companies and organisations that had floors in the building included: the United States Secret Service, New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Department of Defence (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS. Does this not suggest to you they just may have controlled the whole thing from here? Because as far I could tell it simply fell for no reason. I say no reason. That is apart from controlled demolition.

Evidence shows that all three of the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. The FBI said that it was the shear heat of the inferno that brought these building crashing to the ground, but scientists have conducted experiments which prove this impossible. And as anyone who has watched the videos in detail can see small plumes of smoke billowing out of the each floor as it collapses. This is a sure sign of controlled demolition.

Only two companies would have been able too carry out controlled demolition on this scale, one of which was the John Galt Corporation. Strangely it was the John Galt Corporation who where hired to clear up ground zero after 9/11. Suspicious?

Which path do you choose intelligent person who can see through the rubbish George Bush throws at us or stupid person who believes anything they see on the news?

Still not convinced? Have a look at this.

The carcass is very decayed, bloated, bleached in the sun and has been in the ocean. The original picture has the carcass lying in the sand with its head turned on its side. It appears that the creature has a beak, with elongated fore arms and a mammalian body. Some people have claimed that it is a turtle out of its shell (turtles cannot live out of their shells, that's only in the cartoons).

Below is the original photo that is very popular on the Internet.

The problem with this photo is that there is more than meets the eye. The first question a person should ask is what is the size of this animal? Take a close look at the right shoulder and you'll notice a small black fly. This would mean this animal is about the size of a raccoon or a small dog.

The second question would be about what appears to be the beak. This is actually not a beak but is the frontal part of a skull of a canine animal. When a carcass is decaying in the sun or salt water, the softest material will decay first - the nose. That is what gives this animal such a weird appearance, the decayed nose.

The third question should be about the hair on the animal. Salt water will remove hair.

The forth question is the elongated forearms. This I can't explain. There does seem to be a piece of cloth around the forearm indicated that this animal might have gotten into something before dying. It does look like both arms are held together making the arms look longer than normal.

Below is another picture of this animal that shows it is most likely just a dead dog or raccoon.

There are many theories going around about this carcass. Especially since the location of Plum Island is very close to Montauk. Many people believe that this is proof of some genetic experiments gone wild at the USDA facility.

Personally, I believe it is a dead dog. One of George W. Bush's hell hounds here to take his soul away, but still a dog.