The Tea Party

It's interesting to me that the new Tea Party, which takes its name from the Boston Tea Party (of renown to those of my generation, and all generations before it), stands for many of the same concerns as the original. Those concerns are freedom from oppressive government, oppressive taxes and, in the case of the new tea party, adherence to constitutional principles. The Tea Parties are not partisan, and in fact, all parties are represented as well as all religions and races. If Republicans are overrepresented, perhaps it's because they have a greater sensitivity to oppressive government, taxes and adhering to constitutional principles. If blacks are underrepresented, perhaps it's because they are less likely to be Republicans. Certainly those black Americans in the tea party movement are passionate about their beliefs.

So the interesting point is that Democrats, who ordinarily laud grassroots efforts, or so spooked by the Tea Party. To them it's dangerous, nutty, right wing. To a smaller extent the Republican Party is spooked as well. At least the professional elite in the Republican Party is rattled by this amateur approach to their profession. It will be interesting to see the results of next week's election.

Al Qaida Develops Winning Strategy

They've finally done it - developed a winning strategy. "We'll fight the Americans until we win" didn't work very well, since the Taliban fell in about 4 weeks in Afghanistan (the country that had never been conquered, even by Alexander the Great), and the whole country of Iraq, with the 4th largest army in the world with all manner of Weapons of Mass Destruction, fell in even less time. So their next strategy was "we'll kill so many Americans you'll have to leave." that didn't work so well either, since the American president didn't cave in the way they expected. So now their strategy is "we'll kill OUR OWN PEOPLE until you surrender." The Pelosi-Reid-Murtha crowd, add Jim Webb to that, don't need a strategy to surrender.  They're ready to admit defeat anytime America is fighting.  Al Qaida's new strategy has really energized them.

The Science That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Global Warming, a thousand blessings on Your Name, has finally reached the level that makes all scientific inquiry into its existence, and reasons for its existence, more than unnecessary: it is unhelpful. The idea that Global Warming, may Your Name be glorified, might not be due to man’s sin is no longer to be questioned. This does not mean, however, that Global Warming, live forever, can be said to be due to Original Sin. That kind of sin is a foolish concept that smacks of religion, and as modern people, we rely on the human capacity to understand science, rather than be guided by the unquestioning faith required by superstition.

We are talking here of the sin of white, male Europeans. They are the culprits who have put their comfort and amusement above the health of the planet. And they are the ones who continue to ask for scientific verification of Global Warming, all honor to Thy Holy Name.

WE DON’T HAVE TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS! Just look at the recent post on Apple’s website: (http://www.apple.com/pro/sessions/globalchange/)

“Over the past several decades, satellite data have revealed the gradual shrinkage of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean. This image shows the extent of ice in September, 1979 (yellow line), compared to its extent in September, 2005. This is a reduction of more than 20 percent.”

Since 1979 the ocean levels increased, . . . why, I can’t tell you how much the levels have risen! Thousands, perhaps millions of have been affected. I’m sure of it. Just as sure as I am that a glass full of ice will overflow when the ice melts. Right?

The sky isn't falling!

Thank goodness. My understanding was that if the Nuclear Option had been voted on the Capitol dome would explode. Literally.

An odd emotion for the press to promote, since a quick scan of the Constitution and Lexis-Nexis, not to mention a rudimentary understanding of politics and government would expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats on the issue.

For instance, the filibuster is not enshrined in any document, much less the Constitution. It was first employed in 1806, and first curtailed in 1917, when cloture (Senate Rule XXII) was introduced. Tradition being important to the Democrat’s position, let us note that the filibuster was used to slow legislation through extended debate. Using it as a tool to block the Advise and Consent of the Senate happened first 2001 (the Abe Fortas “filibuster” can be argued either way). So the Democrats’ use of the filibuster to block judges flouted Senate tradition.

Another silly notion was the claim that we would lose a check on the Executive branch. There was never an issue of “checks and balances,” since the term refers to branches of government, of course, not political parties.

More pernicious were the statements made by Sen. Russ Feingold on C-SPAN today. He made the point that the rules were being violated by the Republicans. Just how is changing a Senate rule a violation of Senate rules? It makes me wonder when an intelligent individual like Feingold lets his liberal bias lead him into making such a solecism.

Yes or No?

Widely reported is an ABC poll that purports to show that most Americans support the judicial rulings in the Terri Schiavo case. The poll was conducted with a sample of about 500 respondents. Do you believe it? Should you?

Let me help you on this. Without getting into the discussion of whether or not the media is biased, I'll go straight to the numbers. I won’t bore you with the background, but a poll of 500 is absolutely unreliable. The math employed in probability informs us that 1,100 to 1,500 is necessary for credibility.

Second, ask yourself the following question, one that fairly describes the Terri Schiavo situation:

“As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been disabled for 15 years. Some doctors who have examined her say it is possible that her condition is reversible with therapy. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be allowed to live. Her estranged husband wants her to die, but her parents want to take care of her and pay for therapy. In a case like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?”

Naturally, this is not the question ABC asked. Here’s how they phrased it:

“As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?”

Believe me, ABC did not tell us the question. Michelle Malkin (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050323.shtml) broke that story. In fact, it is not the story you see reflected in the mainstream media. It takes a minimal amount of effort to find out that Terri has never had her own counsel; that she never indicated her wish to die not named Schiavo; that her friends quote her as saying, “Where there’s life, there’s hope;” that she was leaving her husband when the “accident” occurred, on witnessed only by her husband; that he remembered she wanted to die some seven years later, after he received a large settlement for her injuries.

Of all the nonsense!

The Terri Schiavo case has had the marvelous effect of turning the lights on in the kitchen and letting us see the cockroaches for what they are.

The LA Times editorial takes the odd approach of dismissing any jurisdiction Congress may exert over the Judiciary, or States’ rights (as though racial integration was effected without the help of Congress and Federal courts), and then fulminating about how hypocritical and politically motivated the Republicans are for doing so. Pardon me? How does that bear on the case? Shame, Mr. Kinsley, you should know better.

A “bio-ethicist” from the University of Pennsylvania informs us that Michael Schiavo shouldn’t be castigated for living with another woman while being married, since remaining married preserves his standing in “fulfilling” her wishes. I would have thought that the ethical way would be to forego other relationships, like fathering children, until the marriage had ended.

This isn’t even a matter of whether Terri Schiavo is really in a persistent vegetative state. Want proof? How about this: let’s say you want to be kept alive as long as your mom and dad are willing. Still think a judge should be able to starve you?

This case is about whether we should believe the claim made by Terri Schiavo’s adulterous husband that she once said she would rather die. This claim was remembered by this man after he had become engaged to another woman and Terri had been awarded money, many years later.

Now for my bona fides on this. On the Saturday before the Super Bowl my family was told by my 94-year old mother’s doctor that Mom would not survive the night. I bought it, she bought it, we all bought it. She lived the next few days in hospice as we gently let her body shut down, and she stopped eating. Towards the end, some of us figured, what the heck! she ought to at least enjoy some ice cream, maybe soup. Yadda, yadda, yadda -- she is back in her own apartment, living alone and livid at the doctors and their opinions. We are thrilled to have her back with us. Amazing what a little food and therapy can accomplish!

Shall we raise taxes?

Think about it. What do you want? More revenue, or lower revenue. If history is any guide, lowering taxes will generate more revenue for the government (cf. Kennedy tax cut, Reagan tax cut, and, yes, the Bush tax cut).

Obviously, there are limits, but at the margin lower taxes mean higher revenue. The real issue is control (see my comment on Eric's comment on Social Security). People who lean toward raising taxes are really driven by their bias for control by the State. They know better how to steer your life than you do. You'll just blow the money on things you want, like a new Dodge Ram, whereas they will set it aside for things you really need, like new programs in education, or a new subway.

If you like being taken care of, turn Left. If you like cutting your own path, it's on the Right.