An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
Rallying For Freedom
Tea Party rattles America’s educated class
Feared and mocked, movement has become wild card of U.S. politics
Barely a week into a new decade that will redefine America’s place in the world, the feisty yet fractious Tea Party movement is readying its next brew.
A landmark Tennessee convention in early February is aimed at transforming a year of caffeinated conservative rage into a political force to make heads roll.
I would have been going to the convention, but we’ll be in Jamaica until the 3rd, and odds are, I’m going to be totally worn out. We all know that us old folks have to recuperate after vacations.
As Tea time approaches, nerves are jangling. New York Times columnist David Brooks, a conservative intellectual, made big waves this week with a piece voicing fears that the “Tea Party brigades” have “the potential to shape the coming decade,” using hard times to push the United States hard to the right.
If you haven’t read this so called “conservative’s” column, it’s here.
Brooks’ analysis hinged on a succession of polls suggesting that not only are America’s natives more restless than ever, but that the grassroots fury is aimed at what he described as “the educated class” of Republicans and Democrats alike.
Why is that people like Brooks assume that this grass roots movement is made up of the uneducated? This assumes that those of us who attended Tea Parties aren’t educated? Now, I don’t know about you, but many of the people I met at these events were extremely intelligent, and many had, golly gee, college degrees! There were REAL practicing doctors, REAL practicing lawyers, and even a REAL Constitutional scholar! Even the Mr has a college degree. You know what they say about assuming, right? Mr Brooks’ assumption has made him a major ASS!
“The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.” And so on with foreign affairs, Brooks said, pointing to new Pew Research Center numbers showing a sharp rise in American isolationist sentiment.
“The educated class” evidently isn’t as smart as they’d like you to believe. I’ve known many extremely intelligent people, with a number of degrees from institutions of ‘higher learning’ who were dumb as a box of rocks. Oh, they could add 2 and 2, but they couldn’t reason. I wonder if he is calling those 31,000 scientists who are suing The Boracle ‘uneducated’? Do those ‘educated’ he is referring to believe that life is not sacred? Not real smart in my opinion. “Educated” believing in mass murder doesn’t make them intelligent, it just makes them mass murderers. I’m also guessing this so called “educated class” has never read the U.S. Constitution, since they aren’t aware that, by law, citizens are not only allowed to own weapons, but to actually use them for self defense. IMHO, that 2nd Amendment actually ENCOURAGES the citizens to do so.
Liberal blogger Bill Scher, author of the progressive political tome Wait, Don’t Move to Canada, went after him head-on at the Huffington Post, noting that despite a year of noisy protests, the Tea Party movement has proven itself capable of nothing more than snap, crackle and pop. Every element of the Obama agenda, from health care to climate to stimulus, is proceeding apace.
Oh yeah, all that unconstitutional crap is moving forward, alright, contrary to the will of WE, THE PEOPLE! This just magnifies the fact that those who were elected to work for us, no longer know their place….as OUR employees! Mr Scher is going to be REAL surprised when his preferred socialist agenda is stopped dead in it’s track, one way or another!
“The only way I can see the right-wing fringe actually metastasizing into something more would be for President Obama to be seen widely as a failure. And I don’t think the middle of the country is anywhere close to making that judgment.”
Clue….Obama IS being ‘seen widely as a failure’, and it’s not just what you are calling the ‘right-wing fringe’. Not just the right see him as a failure, but some on the left are finally seeing him for what he really is….an incompetent, lacking serious leadership skills.
Grassroots and populist, the amorphous Tea protesters comprise a hydra-headed amalgam of sensibilities, some undeniably ugly. But some, despite Brooks’ assessment, are actually extremely well schooled – and deeply offended by the notion that all opposition to Washington rests on ignorance.
Yep, there are some pretty smart folks on our side of the issues. People who believe in freedom, and are willing to fight for it too. Right now, we are fighting the takeover of our lives through protests, rallies, townhalls, and not supporting candidates that actually walk the walk, and not pay lip service. Come November, we’ll be voting, en masse, to remove those who have forgotten their bosses.
“You do have people in the Tea movement who are – let’s face it – insane. People who think Obama is the anti-Christ,” said John Mark Reynolds, a philosophy professor at Biola University and an active voice for thoughtful conservatism.
Oh, I’ll admit, there are a few serious fringe types that have been drawn to the Tea Parties. Unfortunately, a great many of them are Ron Paul supporters that make him look down right deranged. There are the ‘birther’ types, who are justified in asking the questions, but are taking it to extremes. But don’t forget the absolute crazies on the other side too. 
You know the ones….the type who have nothing to back up their point of view so resort to calling names.
Most agree the movement is the wild card of American politics today – one that could evolve toward third-party status, but more likely will flex its muscle within Republican circles by pressing for the nomination of “core-value” conservative candidates over moderates. Several such battles are already underway, with Tea Party supporters rallying behind upstarts Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico.
Personally, I don’t understand why we are considered a wild card. When millions of Americans are interested in preserving the republic, intended by our Founders, I’d say that was a whole lot more than just a wild card!
There’s more you can read for yourself.
One of the arguments is that the Tea Partiers don’t have a ‘leader’ and perhaps Sarah Palin is trying to step into that role. Well, personally, I don’t believe we need a leader, Sarah, or anyone else for that matter. Mostly, we seem to work together quite well. Yes, there have been some dissension, but it’s to be expected that occasionally, egos get in the way. Over all, we are united in our desire to remain free. Free to succeed or fail, without government intervention.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
“Barely a week into a new decade” Wow, I couldn’t even get past the first sentence… The new decade starts at the END of 2010
mama sed I hads to go to collij tuh gets mah edja-ma-cation, instead o playin dat foosball.
Seriously, You hit the nail on the head. Ive found out that in this world theres 2 kinds of people: book smart, scientific types, and then theres the practical thinkers, the ones with the common sense.
It seems very rare indeed when you find someone that fits both categories. MOST people fall one way or the other. I think the booksmart peoples biggest problem is that they KNOW theyre intelligent, so they eventually think theyre smarter than everyone in the universe, even God.
You cant think your way around and through every problem in life, sometimes you have to just apply COMMON SENSE and leave the rest in Gods hands.
and people like John Mark Reynolds (2 bible names in one person?) make my point.
How does HE know that Obama isnt the anti-christ? He thinks because hes a professor, hes knows everything automatically. Maybe Obama is Satan himself?
@Axeanda Then why did you waste my time, and yours? I’m guessing it’s whether or not you start the count from zero or one.
Quick 12-question quiz to see how you stack up against the average bear.
http://pewresearch.org/sciencequiz/quiz/index.php
And your point? FYI….all 12…. see new post….just for you.
My point is, the author of the article you quoted on this post, who say’s the Tea Party is filled with uneducated people cant even read a calendar, and no, you do NOT start counting at zero, what kind of answer is that? How did I waste your time by pointing out this so-called “educated” person’s stupidity????
Read your original comment, and you’ll answer your own question.
Hey Axeanda…
Barack Obama said hes been to 57 states in the US, and has 2 more to go.
Are you going to call him out on that?
Youre nitpicking, because you have nothing valid to input.
And youre saying that the year 2000 was part of the “90′s”?
I know what youre saying, but you also know what THEY were saying.
Dont be an ass.
I see that it is no use to point out actual facts to you since you ignore them.(YES, the year 2000 IS THE LAST YEAR OF THE 90′s, geesh, do you start counting to 10 at zero and end on 9? Is that how you would teach a young child child to count? “come on honey, let’s count to ten….. Zero, One, Two….. ) , Yes O’l B, I was a little unclear in my first post, sorry, what I meant to say was, when I went to the linked article, he showed his ignorance/stupidity in the very first sentence, and then went about telling everyone how UN-Educated all those that attended Tea-Parties were. So, I couldn’t read much more because he had already shown he had no clue what he was saying, so why read it?
Shadow,
What has the idiot in chief got to do with this? Was he mentioned anywhere?
I am nitpicking by pointing out an actual fact? wow, I guess you are only allowed to lie in or attack people in the comments here…….
How does pointing out the author’s (not Ol’ Broad) hypocrisy not a valid point when HIS POINT was how UNEDUCATED those he was writing about are??????? Does showing he is an idiot not what Ol’ Broad did too? So, now I’m the only one nitpicking?
Since you are the one that claims 2000 was not one of the years of the 90′s, PROVE IT! Count to 2000, when did you end? 1999? what would be the last digit? If you know what I am saying, then don’t call me an ass.
So, if there was a typo in the first sentence, would you ignore the rest of the book? Just curious.
As for the zero, well, I don’t condemn anyone’s intelligence based on the place holder. Do you consider January 1 1900 the first day year of the century, or the first day of the last year of the century. I’m quite quite serious. We count the 1st century A.D. as year zero through 99, correct? That would make this the 21st century. 2000 started the new century. It’s really not worth quibbling about, IMHO, each person will see it as they will see it. If the author wants to see 2010 as the beginning of the decade, that’s his prerogative.
Other than that, I understand what you are saying, I’m just curious how you see it.
Did you not point out that he was wrong about some things in his article? Was that not what your entire article was written for, to point out where he was wrong? Are you the only one allowed to point out other’s mistakes? My first post was intended to bolster your opinion/article, to show that yes, this guy has no clue. Forgive me for saying it in a way that you all obv. did not understand, I don’t claim to be a writer, otherwise I would be linking to ya, lol
Now, to the counting aspect…………
I am sorry, 0 = nothing, not 1.
We do NOT count the first century as zero through 99, it is 1 through 100.
That first year, as in your example, when was it complete? when you said zero? or was it actually…. when you said 1? Let me put it another way…. this zero year you pointed out, how long was it? Was it zero days long, or 365 days long? So, when did it count as a full year, when it started, or when it ended? When it ended, would it be called the 0th year or the 1st year? What does the “number” zero represent? Nothing, it is void, nothing. If you have 1 dollar, do you actually have 2? Is that not how we count everything? We ALWAYS start with 1, never 0.
Math is an absolute or it won’t work, period.
(and please, I am not trying to be a smarta** here, just trying to explain it so there will be no doubts)
Look at it this way
1st yr, 2nd yr, 3rd yr, 4th yr, 5th yr, 6th yr, 7th yr, 8th yr , 9th yr, 10th yr
11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20
21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30
and so on until….
91st yr, 92nd yr, 93rd yr, 94th yr, 85th yr, 96th yr, 97th yr, 98th yr, 99th yr, and what would be the final year of the century? When would that final yr be complete? when would the century actually be over, the moment the 99th year ends, or the 100th?
There is only one right way in things like counting, otherwise there would be chaos! As I said earlier, math MUST be an absolute or it wont work, period.
I hope I havent ticked you off here, it was not my intention at all, I just want you to be properly informed about this. I read your blog nearly every day and enjoy it, we have almost the exact same principals, morals and beliefs (if your writing is a valid example of them). ( insert smiley here)
No ma’am, ya didn’t tick me off.
That’s REAL hard to do….well, most of the time. Like I said previously, I do understand your point, and it makes sense to me. Just some people count it different. If that’s what they want, so be it. 
Apologies for not responding sooner. Your comment got lost in the jumble of emails I’ve been trying to keep up with lately.
And MY apologies for not acknowledging your quiz results earlier. Been swamped.
The quiz told me I scored 11, but for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why I got the one wrong it told me I did. I ended up taking it again using the same answers and got a 12. I was using my iPhone, so my big fat sausages must have just poked the wrong dot the first time.
So here I am to solve the decade debate. The answer depends on how you state the question. There are three distinct ways of identifying a decade– cardinal, ordinal and nominal. As the names suggest, cardinal numbers coordinate things, ordinal numbers order things, while nominal numbers name them.
A cardinal decade counts 10 consecutive years — any 10 consecutive years. 1996 to 2005 is a cardinal decade.
There was no year zero, so the first ordinal decade went from 1 to 10. It follows that 2010 is in the 200th ordinal decade.
A nominal decade identifies 10 year spans that are similar in name. The ’90s all have “ninety” in the name, the ’80s eighty, and so forth down through the ’20s. The teens all have teen in the name except the first three, but these could be thought of as zeroteen (interestingly, 10 is not the tenth number — it’s the 11th), oneteen and twoteen. Only the first ten numbers, 0-9 have no commonality. That’s why we have such a problem pinning a nominal tag on the first decade of a century. I prefer the naughties. It should be noted that the first naughties consisted of only 9 years, since as mentioned above, there was no year 0.
The confusion arises from the fact that each nominal decade spans two ordinal ones. 2010, the first year of the teens, is in the 200th ordinal decade, while the other nine occupy the 201st.
There. Boom. Solved it.
And there’s the best reason I know not to take a quiz with your cell.
Yep, remember all that stuff from school. And yes, I did manage to learn a few things while I was taking up space. Frightening isn’t it.
Sorry, just thought of an easier way to say it using centuries. The ’1900s ended on 12/31/1999 but the 20th century continued to 12/31/2000.
Yeah, I know, but it just doesn’t sound right sometimes.