Write my blog for me in the comments section below as I prepare for my guest-hosting appearance on 96.9 WTKK in Boston on Saturday from 8-10 a.m. Say anything about anything. The world awaits your words.

Some feel it valid to fault Palin because although Palin espouses Christian values her daughte is pregnant.

What abouta man who in his acceptance sppech said, "I am my brother's keeper," yet his brother lives in squalor in Africa?

Does this garbage really matter?

Whatever happened to the issues?

I would submit that most Obama haters have never looked at the specifics of his economic plan. Those who fault Palin/McCain for "cutting taxes on the rich" have never looked at an impartial study of those policies.

What ever happened to the issues?

It is no wonder that our government is sinking into the cesspool of other failed regimes.

We do not bother to look at where a candidate stands, we just HATE the other guy.

I have read some of Obama's writings. He seems like a decent guy who really does love is country. Thing is, he wants to take this nation on a path I do not agree with.

Dan, what about, over the next few weeks doing a 'side by side' of the candidates position papers on the issues?

By the way, my criticism of the "average voter" does not include posters here, as we all seem to take the time to learn information from more than just soundbites.

Be well,

Sponge

People are impressed when they hear the name of an Ivy League school and sometimes give the graduates of those schools more credit than they might deserve.

Thus, one of Obama's claims to fame was that he went to Harvard Law. For many, this seems to impress and be enough to elevate him to the pure.

But, consider this: Ivy Leaguers are no doubt, for the most part, pretty smart people. But they are also people who either started out in life removed through affluence or contacts from the 'everyday'. Or they are people who once they got into college were insulated with like minded students and faculty influences that were typically one minded. Often times, they graduate knowing the theory but not the practical. And due to their associations throughout their college career, they further insulate themselves on the outside in their chosen life career with people of their own ilk

Meanwhile, the majority of us, get some education, work, pay taxes, have household budgets, may run a business and typically fall in with our own. We learn through experience and develop common sense through brushes with reality.

I'm not convinced that just because somebody had the fortune to attend an Ivy League school makes then anymore ready for the world than we with the common sense.

Joe Biden is as advertised. He’s got a big mouth, shoots from the hip and appears to be not that bright.

Before the Palin pick, Obama seemed confident (read: cock sure) that his cult-of-personality was enough for him to win the election and that he would overpower the ticket.

Could it be that the Dems are thinking now of using the Eagleton Option to remove Biden? And who would they put in place as the new V.P. nominee if they did?

1) I don't hate Obama. 2) Perhaps not here, but in my casual conversations, I've given him credit for what he avoids saying.

3) Although, in acceptance to Socialism, I am closer to him than many who post on this board, he doesn't do anything to reverse the trend toward sneaking socialism in the back door and disenfranchising the people and weakening the idea of social compact. Including 4) appointing oligarchical judges to continue the trend of re-defining what everybody's rights "really" mean from their last conversation with the Constitution at some holistic food deli in the village.

His economic plan doesn't even enter into it. Yay, Obama's going to buck up consumable goods by breaking into the Oil companys' treasure chest and distributing the booty!! Yay, I get free healthcare!!

Meanwhile the idea of self-governance goes further down the tubes, because we can't trust the people to agree with the "experts".

I don't like Marxian socialism. Marx was dead wrong. The role of the Capitalist can be filled by the Bureaucrat or Expert when given the force of law. Besides, as Dan points out in IM, Marx thought anything post-Capitalism was better simply because it was not capitalism. Thus, Sovietism is "better"--ala Marx--simply because it was not capitalism.

Now, I'm no great populist either. If the people want to abdicate, then the people should formally make that declaration: "We don't think self-governance works anymore, it's so 1700s; we didn't go to Harvard or Yale, we're not smart enough; we leave it fully in the hands of the Experts." Self-governance is too central to the idea of what the political plan of America was in order to hand it over for the right to sodomy, being in-tune with the world, $1,000 of booty per man from the Oil Companies (when we can't summon a simple boycott).

I'm not voting for Cap'n Obama.

asdf's opinion is congruent with Bill Buckley's who said he would rather be ruled by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. Though this looks like anti-intellectualism, these sentiments are based in sound political theory--the theory shared by the Framers, in fact.

Being ruled by a group that has a unified worldview is dangerous to security and liberty. Whether the group is called a faction, a class, or ideological compatriots, such shared worldview tends to become narrower and narrower, ending in “groupthink.” As Dan Flynn has pointed out so well, such thinking makes smart people act stupid. Having been certified as smart by some group soon comes to mean mostly that the certified one shares the group’s political perspective. Voters who use such certification as a primary criterion for choosing leaders will likely end up creating a disaster.

The solution the Framer’s endorsed was to build a system that would maintain a diverse set of political perspectives. A large part of that system was federalism. The progressives set out to undermine that system and have largely succeeded. So now we have an elite that is on the verge of continuously perpetuating itself in power because they have convinced a large part of the populace that their certification as “smart” is needed before one should be elected to an important position.

This grab for continuous power was behind the ridiculous, and largely successful, caricature of Bush as stupid even though Bush has degrees from Harvard and Yale. He didn’t have the kind of degree the elites recognize as certification that one has been properly indoctrinated into their worldview.

The existence of an elitist groupthink also provides a key to understanding the answer to Sponge Daddy’s question “Whatever happened to the issues?” A discussion of the issues requires a common language. The progressive faction controls so much of the media that they now often refuse to recognize concepts from other perspectives as valid. How can we rationally discuss the issue of global warming when a large part of the media acquiesce in the assertion that global warming deniers are equivalent to holocaust deniers? How can we discuss abortion rights, when the elite media will not disassociate the concept from “reproductive rights” or from “judicial review” and when no progressive will engage in a serious discussion about where rights come from.

That is why Obama’s answers at Saddleback (including “that’s above my paygrade”) were so inadequate and why he doesn’t do well at Townhall type meetings. He has never “reached across the aisle” to even try to understand the concepts used by those who don’t share his progressive worldview. Because adherents of that viewpoint control so much of the discussion they believe they don’t even have to try to build a common language with those of us who are not adherents. That is why most times they say they want to discuss the issues they end up lecturing others about the superiority of their ideological perspective in a language the unbeliever finds incoherent.

Besides, the major issue in this campaign is not an “issue” (as the media defines that term) at all. Obama talk about being “your brother’s keeper” is an attempt to redefine America and remake history. In March (in the famous speech defending Rev. Wright, not the one abandoning him) Obama attributed the phrase “We are our brother’s keeper” to “scripture.” By the time of his acceptance address in August someone must have convinced him that he really didn’t have the authority to rewrite scripture, so he took the phrase and said the fundamental belief in this idea was “the promise of America.” I guess rewriting American history has been a progressive tradition for so long that he felt he should engage in it as well. His oratory is about much more than specific policies, bad as they are. It is about remaking America into something it never was. In fact, it is about remaking America into something earlier generations would have seen as foreign, remaking it into a state that coercively imposes the majority’s vision of benevolence on all its citizens. No wonder the Europeans love him.

Excellent comprehensive an@lysis Doc.

I applaud intellectuals and have a great respect for them as I am certainly not one of them and am more of a meat and potatoes common sense and experience kind of guy.

But I see the problem with most is that they reject many different or considered lower points of view and become prisoners of their own intellect, i.e. associating with only those who they think can understand their high-minded logic and theories. I think this is dangerous. But as human nature travels, understandable.

This seems to be the nature of many Ivy League intellectual types.

In other words, for a group of so-called smart people, they are not smart enough to see that there are others in the world who lend to the process by contributing whatever their abilities allow.

I tell my kids all the time that they can learn from ANYBODY. Sometimes the old man or woman or the occasional idiot has something relevant to say. We progress through life successfully only by building on the ideas and actions of others. This is true also for intellectuals but many limit their choices or chose poorly.

Check out this Coleman political ad highlighting Al Franken's lefty lunacy....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/another_effective_gop_tv_ad.html

Dan, good show but not enough time. I too want my state back. But, at this point it's love it or leave it and if things don't change, I'll pick the latter.

Thank you all for responding to my post.

I just loathe the smearing from both sides about non-issues. I expect it from the left, with their panic at the moment.

However, I honestly think that there are enough issues to nail Obama. There is no need for those of us who support McCain to stoop to the level of smears we have seen from the left.

I believe that if their stances on various issues were presented, no clear thinking person could vote for Obama.

Too often both sides follow their hearts with what is 'right.' However, these are trying times which require thought rather than emotional responses to difficult problems.

The big one is their economic policies. The AP did a very good breakdown of both plans as to their effect upon the budget, etc.

The CBO sates that McCain's plan would indeed stimulate job growth. More than a "middle class tax break" Americans need a stronger job market.

Be well,

Sponge

For a church-going Catholic, traveling in Europe is generally depressing. Everywhere you look, you see the evidence of a great culture that seems to sort of, kind of exist, but in reality hasn't for quite a while -- at least in most places. In France and Italy, you have some of the most beautiful churches in the world, yet no one save the little old ladies ever attends. In the Nordics, the churches have all been repurposed for other things (bars, condos, strip clubs, etc.).

And here in London, some of the finest churches in the world are both stolen from their rightful owners, and empty due to the insanity of their current owners (plus you now have to pay for the privledge to visit them). There's a great line from G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown where he is speaking with an Anglican priest and tells him (maybe not the exact quote) "While I often think that we have the best Church, you have the best churches".

So you may ask what my point is (or you may not), and it is this: reparations. At what point does the statue of limitations run out on what some group that may or may not bear a responsiblity owe to a party they've wronged? My problem is that I had to pay 12 pounds (about 20 US Dollars) today to visit Westminster Abbey - built by Catholics almost 900 years ago and stolen by English protestants almost 400 years ago. I should point out that no operating Catholic Church (where the Eucharist is reserved) charges any fee whatsoever to visit.

Now, if I get pissed off by this fact of having to pay for what should rightly belong to me as a Catholic, very few people will take me very seriously. Even if they concede that I have a point, they won't consider it a very serious point. So explain to me again why I should consider any other such reparations (assuming, as in the case above, that all parties to the original wrong/injustice/etc are long deceased) seriously as well?

Homer, I agree with your anger, it is righteous anger.

As to reparations, I have to say that your point that if the parties involved are long dead, it should be a moot point. However, in YOUR case, the parties involved are 'going concerns' not individuals. There is something very wrong with that.

Now in this nation, at times the descendants of slaves call for reparations. I understand their frustration, but do not agree with it. I always shut those people up with the following statement...

"My father was a Lenape (Delaware) Indian. When we and the rest of our people get paid fair market value for the land that was stolen from us, then you can be next."

I of course, do not want that reparations for American Indians. All parties are long dead.

Be well,

Sponge

Anything about anything, eh? Let's hope my little contribution won't preclude other such experiments by our generous host in the future.

Random thoughts:

Suppose an antidiscrimination statute provided that "This statute applies only to businesses that employ fifteen or more persons." A court would never interpret "fifteen" to mean "five" just because that would go a long way to serving the legislative intention of stamping out discrimination. (Which is proper. The hypothetical statute says "fifteen" and "fifteen" it is.) But courts constantly misinterpret clear statutory words in order, they pretend, to give effect to what the legislature really intended. (Which is how discrimination against whites became legal under federal civil rights law.) Why do judges think it's okay to misnterpret clear statutory words but not clear statutory numbers?

Intellectual morons are my least favorite kind.

A federal statute that regulates activity that is neither interstate nor commercial has a very good chance of being sustained as a valid exercise of Congress's constitutional power "to regulate Commerce. . . among the several states." For shame.

The French Connection is a great movie depicting great cops (albeit heavily fictionalized). It's a very sad fact of our time that if there were a Popeye Doyle today, he'd be the defendant in a section 1983 action.

That is all! Hope you weren't offended by my random opinion-barfing.