SPEAKING WORDS OF WISDOM...........

FROM RASMUSSEN REPORTS:
In his first inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan delivered a line succinctly capturing the sentiment that elected him:

“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

A generation later, that attitude still resonates with a solid majority of Americans. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of voters agree with Reagan, and just 28% disagree.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/59_agree_with_ronald_reagan_government_is_the_problem

Based on the results of last weeks vote on the "bailout bill" it's too bad that 59% of the House and Senate don't recognize this sentiment.

Once again, we see how by creating a chicken-little like crisis and demonizing a select group of bad guys, our leaders can shape the agenda and transfer huge amounts of money and power from one select, favored group to another. SIMPLY AMAZING.

Once again, as usual, some of the same players who failed miserably and worked to create the huge hole we are in are rewarded by having more money thrown at them. But isn't that how government traditionally works? If the initial solution doesn't work, just keep throwing more money at it until it does work. A gross violation of the simple but elegant Rule of Holes:

Rule #1 - When you're in a hole, stop digging.

And so we are left with the poor choices of a candidate on the one hand who advocates a Robin Hood-esque tax policy and a socialist model as the mantra of the kind of change we need. Which is to say: the government to the rescue. And on the other hand, we have a more of the same policies approach that got us to this point in the first place. IT'S INSANE, ISN'T IT?


Maybe I'm the crazy one, but it seems to me that the one person on either ticket that the media likes the least--that the establishment feels is the least qualified to be the VP, much less President--is the one I would most like to see in charge.

And they are giving her the same dismissive treatment they gave to Ron Paul in the primaries. Why? Because both are candidates that the party-elitists on both sides fear will shake the establishment to its core. They will excise the dead, useless tissue from the bloated, necrotic bureaucratic body of our federal government and move power closer to the people where it belongs.

And the elitists fear this result greatly and will do everything they can to avoid it. Don't kid yourself, every candidate has tipped his cap to the "little people" who live on "Main Street" as part of the playbook to get elected. But not one of them achieved their status or feel they can maintain it, without continually prostituting themselves to the so-called "seat of power" in this country.

They may tip their caps to you every four years and pat you on the head and say "There, there now, don't worry. I'll take care of you when I get in". Then they give you a cookie and figuratively expect you to go away and leave them alone for four years so they can take care of the people that put them in their positions of power in the first place.

And trust me, there are no "little people" in those meetings. Nobody that lives on "Main Street". And they don't go to PTA meetings or soccer games or hockey games for that matter either. Have you ever seen them there? I haven't. That's part of the problem and it needs to be worked into the solution.

What we need eventually need is a ticket that is more dedicated to and capable of delivering KICKS to the seat of power and less is likely to have to deliver KISSES to it.

Then maybe we can talk about REAL CHANGE in this country and not the phony artifice we have been getting and will continue to get--REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS.


I get sick when I hear this CHANGE mantra from both sides, because neither side represents real change. And it's silly to hear one side parrot "More of the same" when anyone with slightly more brainpower then a parrot can see that regardless of the eventual winner, we will get a healthy dose of more of the same. There will just be a different name on the White House stationary.

Maybe we need something radical--like a Jesse Ventura-Ron Paul third-party ticket in 2012.

Yeah, that's the ticket!!!

My only fear is that by the time this option is available to us, the powers that be will not only continue to dig us deeper into the hole we find ourselves in--but instead of stepping back and figuring out how to get out of the hole they've dug--will blunder their way into burying us all with the dirt they have excavated.
--------------------------
UPDATE - Once again from Rasmussen Reports polling:
Coming Soon:
59% Would Vote to Replace Entire Congress

Much like that old lawyer joke, this would be a good start. It would change the tone and the atmosphere in Washington and get these knuckleheads acting like the public servants they are supposed to be.

When you see some of these tools speak to you through the media, do any of them sound as if they view their role as one of "serving the public"? Maybe in the old Twilight Zone - "To Serve Man" episode sense (a truly classic episode), but not in the sense most of us expect that phrase to be applied.

Think of that quality in your elected official the next time you vote and remember one of the popular definitions of character: doing the right thing even when you think nobody is looking.
--------------------------
HOW WASHINGTON WORKS O'REILLY VS. BARNEY FRANK:


---------------------------
NOTE TO SARAH PALIN AND THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN STAFF - STOP CRYING:




Katie Couric didn't really engage in a gotcha question by asking you to provide an example of historical Supreme Court decisions other than Roe vs. Wade that you did not agree with. She actually teed one up for you to respond as follows:

The worst Supreme Court decision ever and the one that illustrates the philosophical difference between the two tickets would have to be Helvering v. Davis (1937) which redefined the General Welfare clause of the Constitution and upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

This allowed the federal government to engage in the type of redistribution of wealth policies which we see today in our opponents tax and economic policy.

James Madison argued the the General Welfare Clause was not an additional power granted to the government but a restatement of the powers enumerated in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution which were to "provide for the common Defense and General Welfare."

Alexander Hamilton held that the General Welfare clause was a distinct source of additional authority which allowed Congress to "lay and collect Taxes" and spend the proceeds for purposes including, but not limited to the enumerated or stated powers. Essentially, this view holds the Congress' powers are nearly all-inclusive.

Madison's view was that only those powers specifically stated or enumerated in the Constitution were intended by the founders and that if the General Welfare clause was intended to be all-inclusive, then the exercise of stating specifically enumerated powers to be granted to Congress would be useless, excess verbiage added to the Constitution.

The broader, Hamiltonian interpretation makes a mockery of the notion of a limited federal government intended by the founders and opened the floodgates for the type of redistributive, overreaching federal government we see today.

Further, this erroneous decision was made by the Supreme Court under the duress of FDR's attempt to pack the Court with New Deal supporters. The Supreme Court erroneously rewrote the Constitution with this decision, which highlights the need to have judges and Supreme Court nominees who would not stray from the Constitution and write laws from the bench.

You would have been able to highlight many of the fundamental differences between a McCain and Obama administration in regards to tax policy, economic policy and judicial philosophy.

In fact you were given a second bite of the apple with your interview with Chuck Cameron of Fox News the day after the VP debate and, although you did cite a couple of other grievous errors by the Supremes, this fundamentally flawed decision remained unmentioned.

I'm not sure who is running the campaign over there, but let me give you guys and gals a word of advice. The idea is to try to WIN. (Unless you are affiliated with the Chicago Cubs baseball team). OUCH!!

To quote Herman Edwards, "You play to win the game. HELLO!!"

HERMAN EDWARDS SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN:


I will say though, you guys forfeit the right to complain about "gotcha" questions from now on. Be better prepared and do your homework.

<"( );::::::;~ ~;::::::;( )">

America Divided over Bonds Chase

Divided along racial lines, duh. What have I been saying for years and years. I find it amazing that the poll reports 37% of fans would like to see him pass Aaron's record, that is certainly not the perception you get from the media, a group that is disproportionately white compared to the American population.

Also, interesting is the breakdown by those who feel Bonds is HOF worthy. 85% of blacks compared to 53% whites. In other, words if black America voted, Bonds would receive the necessary 75%, if white America voted he would not. Given that an overwhelming majority of the baseball writers who vote are white, you can see where the numbers will fall using basic mathematical skills (Don't ask Charles Barkley for help).

Clearly, race is a factor in the reporting and the perception of this issue. As the saying goes, White America needs to recognize that "denial is not just a river in Egypt". Just like any other significant life problem, recognition of the problem is ALWAYS the first step in correcting the problem. Anyone that wants to continue to argue against those two basic facts is an utter fool.

These poll figures clearly show that once again here is what the issue of race boils down to in this country today:

CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION-THE PROBLEM OF "TALKING PAST ONE ANOTHER": "Two persons, carrying on a discussion in the same universe of discourse-corresponding to the same historical-social conditions-can and must do so quite differently from two persons identified with different social positions. These two types of discussion, i.e., between socially and intellectually heterogeneous participants, are to be clearly distinguished.

"Ours is a world in which social groupings, which had hitherto lived more or less isolated from one another, each making itself and its own world of thought absolute, are now, in one form or another, merging into one another. Not only Orient and Occident, not only the various nations of the west, but also the various social strata of these nations, which previously had been more or less self-contained, and, finally, the different occupational groups within these strata and the intellectual groups in this most highly differentiated world-all these are now thrown out of the self-sufficient, complacent state of taking themselves for granted, and are forced to maintain themselves and their ideas in the face of the onslaught of these heterogeneous groups.

"How do they carry on this struggle? They usually do so with but few exceptions by 'talking past one another'; i.e., although they are more or less aware that the person with whom they are discussing the matter represents another group, and that it is likely that his/her mental structure as a whole is often quite different when a concrete thing is being discussed, they speak as if their differences were confined to the specific question at issue around which their present disagreement crystallized. They overlook the fact that their antagonist differs from them in his/her whole outlook, and not merely in the opinion about the point under discussion.

"This indicates that there are types of intellectual intercourse between heterogeneous persons. The differences in the total mental structure remain obscurely in the background in so far as the contact between the participants is concerned. Consciousness for both is crystallized about the concrete issue. For each of the participants the 'object' has a more or less different meaning because it grows out of the whole of their perspective frames of reference, as a result of which the meaning of the object in the perspective of the other person remains, at least in part, obscure. Hence 'talking past one another' is an inevitable phenomenon of the 'age of equalization'."

-Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia


Also, please stop with the argument that there is no racism involved because it's a black man eclipsing another black mans record. There was no love for Aaron as he approached Ruth's record.

As the numbers show, Bonds "personality" as a factor in his acceptance vis-a-vis Aaron is is more of an indictment of white America as it again indicates that there is a certain way blacks have to act in order to be "acceptable" to whites.

Ali was not very popular during the time he was dominating the boxing world, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was not popular while he was the most dominant force in the NBA. Both later became more palatable and acceptable, but both competed and endured intense levels of hatred and vitriol.

I would make the argument that Bonds is currently competing and challenging Aaron's record in a climate that is far filled with more hatred and risk then even Hank Aaron may have endured. If it could possibly be measured, I would bet that the risk of a death threat to Bonds being accomplished before he completes his record chase is far greater the level of risk Aaron may have competed under. And as we've seen with the Seles incident, and the various incidents of fan on player/coach violence on major league baseball fields recently, it cannot be denied that there is a heightened level of risk. Combine the climate with alcohol and you have a very volatile and combustible mix indeed.

The racism is more effectively covered up today than it was in the 1970's due to the politically correct environment in which we live in, but it clearly is in fact, still there.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2861930