The country is divided, but the TEA Party is growing in influence.
WASHINGTON — Just about as many Americans want Tea Party-backed members of Congress to take the lead in setting policy during the next year as choose President Obama, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
In a survey taken Friday through Sunday, 28% SAY OBAMA SHOULD HAVE THE MOST INFLUENCE on government policy next year while 27% SAY THE TEA PARTY STANDARD-BEARERS SHOULD. GOP CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS ARE CHOSEN BY 23%, Democratic congressional leaders by 16%.
The results reflect the strength of the Tea Party movement as the GOP prepares to take control of the House of Representatives in January
Rocks in the river
As always, Jonah Goldberg is very entertaining and very insightful.
In the spring of 2005, Pope John Paul II died. My father, who passed away that summer, watched the funeral and the coronation of the current pope, Benedict XVI, from his hospital bed. My dad, a Jew, loved the spectacle of it all (the Vatican, he said, was the last institution that "really knows how to dress").
From what he could tell, he liked this new pope too. "WE NEED MORE ROCKS IN THE RIVER," my dad explained. He was saying that CHANGE COMES SO FAST, IN SUCH A RELENTLESS TORRENT, THAT WE NEED PEOPLE AND THINGS THAT STAND UP TO IT AND OFFER RESPITE FROM THE CURRENT.
I loved the literary quality of the expression "more rocks in the river," even though the imagery doesn't quite convey what my dad really believed. Dad was a conservative, properly understood. By that I mean he didn't think conservatism was merely an act of passive and futile defiance of what Shakespeare called "devouring time." Unlike human institutions, the rocks do not fight the devouring river of time. MY DAD BELIEVED THAT CONSERVATISM WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT, A CHOICE OF PRUDENCE AND WILL. In the cacophonous din of perpetual change, the conservative selects the notes worth savoring and repeats them for others to hear and, hopefully, appreciate
Eugene Robinson asks the right question, but gets the wrong answer.
If we only search people who "LOOK LIKE TERRORISTS," AL-QAEDA WILL SEND PEOPLE WHO DON'T FIT THE PROFILE. It's no accident that most of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; at the time, it was easier for Saudi nationals to get U.S. visas than it was for citizens of other Arab countries. If terrorists are clever enough to hide powerful explosives in ink cartridges, then EVENTUALLY THEY'LL FIND A SUICIDE BOMBER WHO LOOKS JUST LIKE YOU, ME OR GRANNY.
Eugene seems to think profiling would be based on what a person looks like rather than how they behave. Israel has kept terrorists off El Al for over 30 years and they have the problem that Arabs look just like Jews.
More on TSA
But the question isn't whether enhanced security measures are needed -- given the rash of recent airline bombing attempts, clearly they are.Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/pat_downs_vs_profiling_zmskpLyrrFEHL8mSXJlpdK#ixzz1673WFOKE
And most passengers doubtless agree.
But does the TSA's choice of X-ray screenings or physical groping actually PROVIDE THE KIND OF SECURITY THAT PROTECTS AIRLINE PASSENGERS AS FULLY AS POSSIBLE?
PROBABLY NOT.. ….
And Israel -- gasp! -- profiles.
THOSE WHO FIT A RECOGNIZED PATTERN OF WOULD-BE TERRORISTS GET SPECIAL ATTENTION.
That makes total sense.
And finally one more on Israeli security at airports
NO COUNTRY HAS BETTER AIRPORT SECURITY THAN ISRAEL-- and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/23/airport_security_108037.html
Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs?....
If anything good comes out of the airport "security" outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people.
THOSE WHO MADE EXCUSES FOR ALL OF CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA'S LONG YEARS OF ALLIANCES WITH PEOPLE WHO EXPRESSED THEIR CONTEMPT FOR THIS COUNTRY, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, MAY FINALLY GET IT WHEN THEY FEEL SOME STRANGER'S HAND IN THEIR CROTCH.
It’s a spending problem, not a taxing problem
We've updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 EACH DOLLAR OF NEW TAX REVENUE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH $1.17 OF NEW SPENDING. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620502560925156.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
With politicians, spending is an addiction.
Remember how Obama was going to restore competence?
It appears things aren’t working out how he said they would anywhere
KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the repeated appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.
But now, it turns out, MR. MANSOUR WAS APPARENTLY NOT MR. MANSOUR at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say THE AFGHAN MAN WAS AN IMPOSTOR, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.
“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “AND WE GAVE HIM A LOT OF MONEY.”
Healthcare promised and healthcare delivered
Barack Obama is only halfway through his term, but it's not too early to ask: WHAT IS THE BIGGEST WHOPPER HE HAS TOLD AS PRESIDENT? So far, the hands-down winner is:Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/11/empty-promises-health-care-will-haunt-obama#ixzz1672KWJnS
"No matter how we reform health care, WE WILL KEEP THIS PROMISE to the American people. IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP YOUR DOCTOR, period. IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH CARE PLAN, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO KEEP YOUR HEALTH CARE PLAN, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
For example, we know that the government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has found that THE NEW LAW WILL INCREASE HEALTH CARE COSTS, rather than reduce them, in the coming decade. We know that CUTS IN MEDICARE, with the money saved going to pay for expanding coverage to the poor, WILL JEOPARDIZE SENIORS' ACCESS TO CARE. We know the law will make it impossibly expensive for companies that currently offer bare-bones health coverage to low-income employees to keep doing so. We know several corporations are taking giant write-downs because the bill will increase the cost of providing prescription drug coverage to retired employees. And perhaps most important, we KNOW THE LAW OFFERS AN ENORMOUS INCENTIVE FOR EMPLOYERS WHO CURRENTLY PROVIDE COVERAGE TO WORKERS TO STOP DOING So, sending those workers to buy coverage in government-subsidized health care exchanges.
Why Unhappy People Become Liberals
. . . and why liberalism makes them even unhappier.
According to polls — Pew Research Center, the National Science Foundation — and studies such as Arthur Brooks’s Gross National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal Americans.http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253768/why-unhappy-people-are-liberals-dennis-prager
Liberals respond this way: “If we’re unhappier, it’s because we are more upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves.”
But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
For one thing, CONSERVATIVES ON THE SAME SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL AS LIBERALS GIVE MORE CHARITY AND VOLUNTEER MORE TIME THAN DO LIBERALS. And as regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least half a century conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure and American blood (often their own) for other nations’ liberty.
An interesting perspective on this.
Fat. What is it good for? Stem cells, as it turns out
Here's something many of us can tell ourselves the next time we look in the mirror. "GOD MADE LOVE HANDLES FOR A REASON."Read more: Fat. What is it good for? Stem cells, as it turns out - FierceBiotech Research http://www.fiercebiotechresearch.com/story/fat-what-it-good-stem-cells-it-turns-out/2010-11-23#ixzz169Jo2RYw
And this comes from one of the leading researchers in the field of fat-derived stem cells, according to The Washington Post. Flying in the face of a widely publicized obesity epidemic, fat may not be something all that bad, according to Stuart Williams, scientific director of the Cardiovascular Innovation Institute, a partnership between the University of Louisville and Jewish Hospital & St. Mary's HealthCare.
That's because there's a kind of Cracker Jack surprise inside your fat--STEM CELLS THAT RESEARCHERS SAY COULD LIMIT THE LOSS OF HEART FUNCTION AFTER A HEART ATTACK AND FIX DAMAGE AFTER HEART FAILURE. Research into fat-derived stem cells began about eight years ago, when about 300 scientists from around the world formed the International Federation of Adipose Therapeutics and Science Society. Yes, that acronym is, indeed, IFATS.