Hesse's book is a re-telling of the story of the Buddha. First Siddartha starts out as an ascetic who renounces the world. He decides that it is B.S, and showings the head Ascetic he has mastery of that path. Then he hangs out with a courtesan and gets laid a lot. He has success (mastery) in the business world, but ultimately determines that it is B.S. as well, just as the Courtesan always knew he would. Ultimately there is the Banyan Tree, for which I have nothing to say.

Thus the middle way, which is neither this nor that. If Palin is on this path, it must take a Siddhi master to tell. It's beyond your (not) humble Fester. I must ponder this over BBQ.

Siddhartha sez I can think, I can wait, I can fast. What does Palin say?

P.S. We may not agree, but I appreciate the attempt at civil discourse, an essential attribute of civilization.

A good fourth of July point. I found myself wanting to agree with this , but then I realized it didn't mean anything. America now, as in the 1980's, bears little resemblance to the fledgling country of the late 1700's. And the founders themselves had very different visions for America.

Perhaps Hamilton would be the happiest with the rise to domination of Bankers and Merchants. Washington admonished us to beware foreign entanglements; by the time of Reagan we literally had military bases around the world. We became the foreign entanglement as we strove with the USSR for world dominance. Jefferson wanted us to remain an Agrarian society. Now we are predominately urban, and most of the remaining farmers are but part of a vast industrialized food chain.

What would they think of the end of slavery, the rise of Corporations as powerful as sovereign nations, women voting, let alone running for high office? What would they think of our Sarah? Most of them despised the growing influence of political parties in their time. What would they think of the Celebrity Era? Would they find Sarah's resignation good political strategy?

Would they like the fact that we have abandoned the gold standard and delegated responsibility to a semi -private institution (The Federal Reserve)? The Founders didn't like the historical track record of direct democracy. What would they think of common citizens voting for President?

Finally let's talk Reagan. Would they have admired the way he ballooned the national debt? The Founders distrusted the concentration of power, and sought to limit the Executive. It was a necessary evil and Congress was supposed to do the heavy lifting. I don't think they would be down with this vast expansion of executive authority since the founding, let alone this Unitary Executive crap.

What would they think about the Reagan administration's violation of Congress' War Power act? That Iran-Contra scandal where we traded hostages in Iran for Arms to the Nicaraguan Contras, in violation of legislation? Would they be more or less re-assured that Reagan maintained plausible deniablity; it was just a rouge operation within the Executive branch that the president knew nothing about?

Happy Fourth of July!

Always enjoy reading your posts guys.

Reader, you know you have definitely made an impression here. But expecting to actually convince people is ambitious. I figure if I can get one out of a 1,000 to stop and think WTF for a second or two, I'm ahead of the game.

Faulkner, always enjoy your posts as well. You've been spot on about Sarah in this thread, in my (always) not humble opinion.

I disagree with youse guys (and Jon Stewart, bless his pointed little head) and Red (etc) about Obama and the economy. It's not Obama's stock market. That would be socialist. Judging the health of the economy based on the stock market is a good way to lose money. And red, if we have a Japanese style missing decade, that's not the worst outcome; that beats the 1930's hands down.

The reality is that any stimulus plan is going to take more than 2 quarters to show up. That's why many economists don't like government spending. It's crude and shows up late. Also, we are dealing with giant asset bubbles (many trillions) that go at least back to the late 1990s. So it takes willful ignorance to blame Obama for that. We can (and should) hold Obama responsible for any remedies he advocates, but we have to understand that it's going to take awhile. And Red, do you really think people will stop trying to make money, just to prove Obama wrong? That sounds really un-American.

I'm looking at the man with the mirror, and asking him if he can change his ways. Apparently not. You're not doing too well with the Turing test. Have fun with your John the Baptist shtick. Maybe we can chat again the night before Samhain.

I just don't know where. Reading my prior posts might give you that idea. You seem to be into these grand hand waving gestures about how deluded we are all and how your stuff is oh-so tight.

Are you writing your posts from a teleprompter? In the Western tradition the righteous man is supposed to turn us all on. But you just want to moon us, apparently. I thought at least you could man up and belly up to the bar with some details. In my experience Goldman Sachs and Marxism are contradictory states of existence. And in my opinion, we're in this current mess due to a fatal mixing of ignorance and greed. More P.T. Barnum than Trotsky.