Dr. Williams' article brings to mind that much of the lack of scholarship among blacks can be attributed to the push into sports and entertainment ... good money, but no brains required.

(continued) To paraphrase an old anti war dictum ... what if the government did something and nobody cared ... no headlines? I think I could in a small way summarize Tom's main point ... be Reaganesque ... believe that you can do and then do it.

Dr. Tom makes so many great points in this article that's hard to know what comment to make. I think the most important is the notion that in this land of opportunity INDIVIDUALS don't stay in fixed places ... the economic hierarch is NOT STATIONARY. Robert Reich ... Clinton's Sec. of Labor and now a professor of eco at UC Bezerkley has public stated that "if you're at the bottom, you're screwed ... nowhere to go". Categorically wrong (and he's smart enough to know that). I'd add a subtlety to Tom's writing. We ALL spend too much time being fixated on what's going on with government. We're the problem ... we should go about our lives ... go underground ... go around them, etc. In other words, best if we make government irrelevant.

The mistake that you make "None" is assuming a stationary economic hierarchy. In fact, the low return that an INDIVIDUAL person makes while at the bottom is a strong positive incentive to move up the hierarchy.

The Fed is printing and printing and printing ... and we're told again and again not to worry ... no inflation on the horizon. Then the idiot Prez. wants to raise the minimum wage which is guaranteed to stoke inflation because product prices are largely driven by labor costs. Couple that with increased capital gains taxes and its obvious that seniors will be screwed big time. So ... dry up investment by drying up investment income, raise unemployment at the bottom of the economic hierarchy, and raise prices across the board. Who among us is going to continue pissing into the wind ... working our @sses off to have nothing?? Net, net, economic activity will go underground ... cash transactions and/or money for investments will leave the US.

You're right ... AND maybe the fact that this idea is even floated and your worry about it will give the government pause. Maybe the monkey should be on THEIR back for a change.

What if a million gun owners showed up on the Mall in Washington, DC. and held up their guns in defiance of DC's gun control laws. A million people couldn't be put in jail!!! What then? Tiananmen Square reprised.

Hey guys ... please forgive the multiple posts/corrections ... my head is still sleeping (ha).

Corrected post: Why do we on the Right always argue defensively ... i.e. from a position of weakness? The Left proclaimed early that "if one child's life were saved by increased gun control, then that justifies the additional control". That logic is flawed. Example ... Let's give them that maybe 100 children lives might be saved. Then let's ask if the additional controls cause a few thousand deaths of defenseless people (including children), would they still advocate for additional gun controls. When, as expected, the Lefties diss the notion of the increased deaths, we could/should simply say "prove it". Let's put the monkey on their backs for a change. Let's remember that "offense is the best defense".

Corrected post. Why do we on the Right always argue defensively ... i.e. from a position of weakness? The Left proclaimed early that "if one child's life were saved by increased gun control, then that justifies the additional control". That logic is flawed. Example ... Let's give them that maybe 100 children lives might be saved. Then let's ask if the additional controls cause a few thousand deaths of defenseless people (including children) , would they still advocate for additional gun controls. When, as expected, the Lefties diss the notion of the increased deaths, we could/should simply say "prove it". Let's put the monkey on their backs for a change. Let's remember that "offense is the best defense".

In fact, I'm not sure that "good cause" would be sufficient to allow breach of ant part of our Constitution inasmuch as the people do have recourse to changing the document through its amendment process. Remember that the Courts are constructed to UPHOLD the Constitution, not to decide whether breach is to be allowed.