Constant Conservative

I’ve not read any other reports on the Tea Party to ensure that I was not unduly influenced by other perspectives (not that they would be wrong, they just wouldn’t be mine).

First, with reference to the numbers, I would guess that this event, while better organized and run (in comparison to the Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th) had fewer attendees overall. While the reasons for that are no doubt complicated, the single biggest one was that the level of outrage and disgust with government’s handling of the stimulus bill was not duplicated in yesterday’s event. But, I was talking about the numbers. I would estimate the attendance somewhere between 500 and 1000 people. Since the event was all afternoon (and part of the morning for some) people did come and go throughout the event, making exact numbers difficult to nail down. There was a registration process for the attendees, but that tended to count adults who came through the primary entrance to the grandstand (and didn’t slip in one of the other doors so as to avoid the greeting committee). Some petitions were in evidence (medical marijuana and secret balloting) as well as a postcard campaign (to request Senator Johnson to vote against the current hate crimes bill). Outside of the Tea Party organizers, tables were set up for everything from abstinence advocacy to open MRI to the the 9/12 group.

A  few friends and I had procured a couple hundred copies of the Heritage Foundation’s pocket-sized copy of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We had no difficulty in giving these out (except for some reserved to our family, friends and coworkers) to a largely receptive crowd. I was asked a few times if I was representing the Constitution Party, but replied honestly that I hoped I was representing the Constitution.

In talking with 100 or so people, with perhaps 20 at some length, I very much received the impression the attendees at this event were more homogeneously conservative than those who came to the Tax Day assembly. Granted, my sampling may well have not been indicative of the whole, but the general response of the crowd to the various speakers seemed to bear this out.

Speaking of those who presented, one can find a list of them at the site linked to above. There seemed to be a good variety of perspectives on display. Most of the speakers managed to stay on the topic of the day, though there were one or two who took opportunity to leap aboard a hobbyhorse and ride it for a bit.

Unlike the event at Terrace Park a few days ago, I’ll not give detailed reporting on the speeches/presentations themselves since I was in and out of listening range throughout the event, and so would tend to provide a rather disjointed narrative.

Once again, as was pointed out in the last Tea Party, conservatives do not tend to the demonstrative–so it is somewhat against nature to actively protest. Most of the folks sat sedately in rows in the grandstand and applauded at the appropriate times. There were protest signs in view, though none of the ones I saw were being actively handled by protesters. Instead, they were stuck in the ground or printed on tee shirts. I think the venue had somewhat to do with that, with many people seeing the structure of the presentations as making this much more of a seminar of sorts than an active protest.

Did yesterday’s Tea Party achieve its goals? I do not know. Since I was not an organizer of the event, I do not know what the goals were. I would guess that the turnout was less than desired. Nonetheless, I am glad that I went and was able to encourage a few people to read what is still a very important, foundational legal document.

It is by remembering (and by teaching a new generation) what is and what is not the legal responsibility of the federal and state governments that we will be able to properly decide issues, such as health care, which are currently in the public forum.

Update

The Argus provides its take on the event. Title of article not indicative of paper’s politics.

KELO writes it up then tells us that Herseth Sandlin has assured us that Congress is not considering nationalized health care.

Bounty increased for Brookings burrowers.

Workers uncover ancient animal/vegetable burial site in cemetery in Wyoming.

Signatures for ballot initiative to be reviewed. Supporters wonder if opposition is smoking something.

Johnson and Herseth Sandlin talking health, but say system needs “reform.”

Took this afternoon off from regular work to attend the Tea Party in Sioux Falls. As a consequence of the human interactions and the heat, I’m wiped out and will write a full report tomorrow. Rest well, and dream . . . .

Johnson says Franken ready to be taken seriously. Confirmation from Franken unavailable at this time.

Lennox finds wastewater stimulating after bet pays off.

SD hunters not very interested in standing in icy water with shotguns while birds perform mocking flybys.

Casino visitor unable to wait for luck to kick in. Robs place instead.

Shikha Dalmia gets right to the point:

President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office with a veritable halo over his head. In the eyes of his backers, he could say or do no wrong because he had evidently descended directly from heaven to return celestial order to our fallen world. Oprah declared his tongue to be “dipped in the unvarnished truth.” Newsweek editor Evan Thomas averred that Obama “stands above the country and above the world as a sort of a God.”

But when it comes to health care reform, with every passing day, Obama seems less God and more demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies. Here are the top five lies that His Awesomeness has told–the first two for no reason other than to get elected and the next three to sell socialized medicine to a wary nation.

Go read the whole article. But first, here are the five things (with a bit of inline commenting):

1. No one will be compelled to buy coverage (well, maybe not for a while, as such).
2. No new taxes on employer benefits (not taxes that anybody really pays attention to or cares about, anyway).
3. Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector (just like everything else we do like . . . uh . . . hey . . . uh, work with me here, people).
4. A public plan won’t be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly (trick you all like that? right, c’mon we’re all friends here).
5. Patients don’t have to fear rationing (well, not fear exactly, more like understand what we all have to contribute to the common good of society without being so selfish).

Last evening, I attended a public gathering at Terrace Park in Sioux Falls which was sponsored/organized by Patients United Now. The location was excellent, with the exception of the rather loud party which started up a couple hundred yards away during the event. Though given the opportunity, Mr. Mogen (of Mogen’s Heroes) did not get up on stage to lead a battle of the bands.

The meeting was attended by somewhere between 100 and 200 people. Todd Schlekeway was the chief organizer and did a pretty good job of moving things along and staying on schedule.

HyVee provided burgers and tubesteaks and corn syrup bubbly for those who came. The audience was largely comprised of those in the over-60 demographic, though there were several couples with small children and a sprinkling of students/young professionals. Outside of the presenters, several other local politicians (present and past) were in attendance.

While we were munching on supper and waiting for the main events to begin, one young man somewhere behind me remarked (in reference to the jazz which was being broadcast over the PA system) that “We are in the political minority right now. They should be playing “Rage Against the Machine.”

The first speaker was Craig Dewey, who had the experience of living in Canada for several years and dealing with his mother’s health issues (including cancer) under the Canadian system. His story was well laid out and served to establish a useful context for the rest of the evening.

The second speaker was Lawrence Hunter, the founder and president of The Social Security Institute. He pointed out that he had dealt with/helped to defeat expanding government health care coverage in the 80s (when seniors were to get expanded coverage) the 90s (when Mrs. Clinton was going to save us all) and is still working on it now in its current guise as Obamacare. From his talk, I took away two key things:

1. The promises haven’t changed. It boils down to “We are going to get everything we need, cut costs, save money, and do it all without raising taxes.”
2. The American citizen is largely on his/her own this time around. The pharmaceutical companies and large medical providers are thinking that this move toward socialized medicine is inevitable. As a result, they want to be at the table–no matter what the patients might be thinking.

The final speaker was Blake Curd, another state representative as well as a practicing orthopedic surgeon.  His part of the presentation focused on the numbers, as he put it. This included the fact that the health care legislation that is being talked about would cost many times what we’ve been told, the fact that the 46-48 million uninsured really aren’t, etc.

Both Dr. Hunter and Dr. Curd talked about how beneficial current health care is, touching on the fact that it has become increasingly expensive (a in terms of the percentage of their incomes which patients spend on health care). They both gave  reasons for the expense: (bearing the cost of R&D for much of the rest of the world, for example) but neither addressed the role which essentially unrestricted malpractice litigation has in increasing costs for the patients. I found this a surprising oversight, but also realize that time did not allow in-depth coverage any particular sub-topic.

All in all, a good way to spend a couple of hours. I’m guessing that more people were not there because they saw the program as being very similar (in terms of message) to what will be occurring tomorrow at the Tea Party in Sioux Falls.

The Argus Leader was there. KSFY was also there.

Mark Steyn lays out the case for non-interference of government in our lives very pointedly in the following statement:

Would it even be possible to hold the American revolution today? The Boston Tea Party? Imagine if George III had been able to sit in his palace across the ocean, look at the security-camera footage, press a button, and freeze the bank accounts of everyone there. Oh, well, we won’t be needing another revolt, will we? But the consequence of funding the metastasization of government through the confiscation of the fruits of the citizen’s labor is the remorseless shriveling of liberty.

The article (actually a book review) also has an extensive piece on the cost of building a bridge and who should pay for which is well worth reading.

Cash for Clunkers gets new name. Still a bad deal for the American taxpayer.

Children surviving despite poverty. More can be done.

Herseth Sandlin’s bill to expand government care of military women passed. Taxpayers on the hook for the expense.

Al Franken is neighbor Minnesota’s newest senator. We are a strange country–which is not always a bad thing as it tends to keep out enemies on their toes with wondering what we’ll be doing next. Unfortunately, Mr. Franken is going to Washington rather than being deployed as a front-line physchocorps warrior in Afghanistan.

As Scott from PowerLine put it:

I saw Franken speak at an off-the-record event this past Sunday evening and asked a Democratic friend whom I greatly respect what he thought of Franken’s remarks. “Weird,” he said, with equal concision and accuracy.

When it comes to global warming/cooling/climate change (whatever weather-related news is being called these days), I would largely agree with the following:

Is the planet warming significantly due to human activities, and if so how much can it be expected to warm in the coming century? Frankly, I have no idea.

I would also apply a bit of simple logic to the matter. A friend recently put it along these lines: When one looks at the factors which influence the temperature of our planet we have the sun, space, and oxygen rich environment which enfolds the globe. Of these, it would appear as though the sun itself might have the greatest influence. Then, looking at the earth, we have the oceans, the continents, plant life, animal life and human life. To say that humans are the single most important factor in this equation (and that we have the power to change a planet by emitting less carbon) requires a serious dose of self-centeredness, in my non-scientific-expert opinion.

In another section of the above-quoted article, the author continues with his thoughts:

Just last week I heard a respected astrophysicist say to an audience of two hundred scientific laypeople, “Anyone who doubts that human beings are causing global warming and that it will have catastrophic consequences over the next century if we do nothing about it, is either stupid or ill-informed.” I am sure many in the audience were impressed; I was not. Lindzen is not at all stupid, and he is much better informed on this subject than the astrophysicist who made this bold claim. Physicists of the caliber of Will Happer of Princeton University and Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study have spoken out recently to express doubts about the solidity and genuineness of the scientific consensus on the subject. They also are not “stupid or ill-informed”.

To claim that there is consensus on the subject of AGW is outright untruth. To dismiss to their rooms any who would break the consensus is to strike at the very heart of the scientific approach: Hypothesize, figure out how to turn that into a testable theory, test the thing, get a bunch of other folks to test it, write up the results, compare notes, find a bit of truth, throw the rest back into the hypothesis hopper for another go-round.

Ahh, but that wouldn’t get all the government funding now, would it?

The carbon cap and trade bill is seen for exactly what it is: nonsense.

Okay, so in pursuit of a goal that’s nonsensical, for a problem that is international and that will not be addressed internationally (India and China, for example, are refusing to starve their people to death), we adopt legislation that either sets up an iron wall of tariffs or drives half the nation into poverty in about 15 years. This is the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Let’s hope it can be stopped in the Senate. Even if it is, our nation has lost something here, and that something is the principal legislative body’s grasp on reality. It is as if the House of Representatives suddenly passed a vote to reduce gravity by 10 percent in order to lessen the costs of obesity to putatively cut Medicare costs in the future. Truly amazing.

Don’t let the House know they can reduce gravity, it’ll be on the docket after they get back from their break.

It would appear that the President is indeed creating jobs–just not in the private sector. From Betsy Newmark comes the latest:

We’re up over 20 czars. Next week we’ll get one to deal with cbyer security. At some point isn’t Congress going to get jealous of its prerogatives and insist that the Senate should have the ability to confirm major appointments to the Executive Branch. They should want the same level of oversight over these appointments that they have over those administrators who go through the normal confirmation process. After all, why should he need someone outside of HHS to deal with domestic violence? Why can’t Homeland Security deal with cybersecurity? And if there is no budget or power for these individuals, are they anything more than just public relations gimmicks? And if they do have power will there be clashes among the heads of the various departments as they clash with czars who have overlapping jurisdictions.

While the expression is itself most certainly not PC, “too many chiefs and not enough Indians” comes to mind. I think the principle behind this is very simple. The President wishes to exercise greater control over the government via the Executive Branch than anyone else has been able to do since Teddy Roosevelt’s cousin.