Sarah Palin addressing the Tea Party Convention

[Selene]

http://www.c-span.or.../C-SPAN_rm.aspx

Still a very white movement though.

Adam

You go girl!

"This movement is bigger than a charismatic guy with a teleprompter!"

First standing ovation ...on our Constitutional rights!

She still needs a bit of speech practice - she got a little rattled and lost her pace, she just recovered it

with we need a commander in chief

2nd standing ovation...

This is a serious foreign policy and national security speech.

In the last year, Washington has made private irresponsibility, public irresponsibility...

Now she is turning to the domestic agenda...

This is her state of the Union address - classic style...being employed.

We are drowning in national debt and we "have had enough ??"

Standing O 3rd

We need a pro market administration ....

and then they need to get government out of the way.

4th standing O

it is the Constitution...

5th and 6th troops and special needs!

Great speech - great lady

Michael: Her answer to the last question hit the trust and openness of our "institutions" and she also felt that this was critical in importance to reset.

If you are not going to be bi-partisan, then do not fake it!

Adam

Edited February 7, 2010 by Selene

[Peter]

I saw some of it already, Adam, but thanks for the links. I may review it. I thought her speech was pretty good. She took hold of the reins while saying no one owned the movement. I think she knows the subjects she addressed, but I also think someone else wrote a lot of the speech, which then leaves her as a mere “performer.”

I think a briefer, from HER notes speech, would have been more affective. I guess Ronaldus Maximus only comes around once every other generation. I still think of her as a very affective VP candidate, but not as President. My wife disagrees, about her Presidential gravitas but even she has her doubts about Sarah holding down two jobs.

I think the Republicans get it. There needs to be an ideological merge but not necessarily a union into one party. The Tea Party is more affective as a pure symbol of freedom. The Republicans are encumbered with Blue Blood incumbents, with dash, cash, and staff, and they need to be challenged. If not it 2010, then in 2012. We need a majority, but if a Republican and a Tea Party candidate are both running?

"Earl Grey with Lemon and sugar please. Engage!"

Jean Luc Picard

Semper cogitans fidele,

Live long and prosper,

Peter

[George H. Smith]

If the Tea Party people can get this excited over a boilerplate conservative stump speech, with some Christian evangelism thrown in for good measure, there isn't much hope for them. The movement may have started out as fairly libertarian, but those days are long gone.

Yes, Sarah, let us become a "God fearing nation" once again and seek "divine intervention," by all means.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I wouldn't be so glum.

This kind of discourse (not that I agree with it all) was good enough for the Founding Fathers, and look what they did against even greater odds than now.

Pure libertarianism may not advance, but I do believe the country will be much, much better off if some of tea party ideas take effect.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George,

I wouldn't be so glum.

This kind of discourse (not that I agree with it all) was good enough for the Founding Fathers, and look what they did against even greater odds than now.

Pure libertarianism may not advance, but I do believe the country will be much, much better off if some of tea party ideas take effect.

Michael

I am not talking about "pure" libertarianism. I would be happy with something approximating libertarian ideas and values -- i.e., a principled defense of individual rights and freedom -- but these won't be found in mainstream conservatives.

The attempts by conservative politicians to co-opt the Tea Party movement are well known. I had a conversation with a local Tea Party organizer just a few weeks ago, and she has gotten so disgusted with this tendency that she has quit. She also told me that her disgust is shared by other early activists, many of whom were libertarians.

I don't dislike Sarah Palin, but she is a conventional conservative politician who happens to be better looking and more charismatic than most. She was the Republican VP candidate, for crying out loud, and she still praises John McCain to the skies. If the Tea Party protesters are seeking to break free of conventional politics and politicians, they missed the boat with Sarah Palin.

In her speech, Palin called repeatedly for the election of true conservatives to Congress, and the audience applauded. (She should have been booed.) Why should any libertarian and/or Objectivist waste his or her time helping to elect even more of these statists?

As for the call of Sarah Palin and other conservatives to return to constitutional principles, anyone who believes this deserves what he gets. For example, conservatives often appeal to the doctrine of enumerated powers to brand Obama Care as unconstitutional. Fine -- but where, I would like to know, is the enumerated power that authorizes the federal government to prohibit the use of certain drugs?

Blank out, as Rand would say.

Ghs

[Reidy]

I get a bad impression of the people who put the Nashville event together; they appear to be hijacking a spontaneous movement, with mixed libertarian and conservative origins, in the service of their own lowbrow religious conservatism. Thus they invited Tancredo to rant against immigrants (if anyone wanted to hear it he'd still be in office) and that judge from Alabama who got fired (whatever the proper phrasing is) for refusing to take the 10 commandments out of his courtroom. They want to identify the entire anti-statist in initiative with their organizaztion and their agenda. This reminds me of the way the left used to claim spokesmanship for college students, blacks, working people, women, etc. when nobody had ever given it to them. To paraphrase Limbaugh, I hope they fail.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Reidy

[Selene]

George:

Assuming that the following is accurate,

The attempts by conservative politicians to co-opt the Tea Party movement are well known. I had a conversation with a local Tea Party organizer just a few weeks ago, and she has gotten so disgusted with this tendency that she has quit. She also told me that her disgust is shared by other early activists, many of whom were libertarians.

As a libertarian, ideally an anarcho capitalist, I believe we will not see any candidate that can make the grade to being nominated that is even close to what we want.

The conundrum and the co-opting issue is a constant in politics.

I worked full time for Goldwater. Was he a candidate that you could have supported?

Adam

[George H. Smith]

I worked full time for Goldwater. Was he a candidate that you could have supported?

I don't know. I liked Goldwater, but I don't recall his position on some key issues.

For me, the litmus test is where a conservative stands on the issue of drug legalization. Nothing is more fundamental to the principle of self-ownership than the right to control one's own body, which subsumes the right to consume whatever substance one chooses. A conservative who claims that she is a champion of individual freedom, while calling on the state to imprison people for taking substances that she doesn't approve of, is a liar, a hypocrite, or a fool.

Ghs

[Selene]

I worked full time for Goldwater. Was he a candidate that you could have supported?

I don't know. I liked Goldwater, but I don't recall his position on some key issues.

For me, the litmus test is where a conservative stands on the issue of drug legalization. Nothing is more fundamental to the principle of self-ownership than the right to control one's own body, which subsumes the right to consume whatever substance one chooses. A conservative who claims that she is a champion of individual freedom, while calling on the state to imprison people for taking substances that she doesn't approve of, is a liar, a hypocrite, or a fool.

Ghs

George:

Agreed as to the hypocrite. Unfortunately, the battle to just decriminalize ganja has been a Herculean effort. There are now fourteen (14) states in the category of having medical marijuana available [NJ being the last one to move to the med "Maryjane" side].

Therefore, as a litmus test, it will eliminate almost anyone who is even close to electable. I have always been for the complete legalization of all drugs and weapons.

Even when I ran for the school board and got elected, I made it clear that those were my positions. However, it would get progressively harder to even effectively compete as you rose through the ranks to even a county officeholder position.

I share your anger, but as a practical political consultant and revolutionary, we will have to work with incrementalism.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

I share your anger, but as a practical political consultant and revolutionary, we will have to work with incrementalism.

Adam

This may have been posted on OL before, but my attitude on these matters is expressed, if somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in this YouTube video, which was made over two years ago.

Ghs

[Selene]

I share your anger, but as a practical political consultant and revolutionary, we will have to work with incrementalism.

Adam

This may have been posted on OL before, but my attitude on these matters is expressed, if somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in this YouTube video, which was made over two years ago.

Ghs

George:

Very clever. Were you involved, like I was, in the League of Non Voter efforts? None of the Above movement?

Adam

Post Script:

We have a few chess players here, Christopher, myself. I inquired of Michael whether we could start a "chess tournament thread" and he had no problem with it.

[Peter]

MSK wrote:

I wouldn't be so glum. This kind of discourse (not that I agree with it all) was good enough for the Founding Fathers, and look what they did against even greater odds than now.

End quote

Well said, Michael. The best offense is optimism . . . or is it a good defense?

George Will is doing some conjecturing in an article I got from Town Hall, to which I subscribe.

Charting Our Way to Solvency

George Will

Sunday, February 07, 2010

WASHINGTON -- In 2013, when President Mitch Daniels, former Indiana governor, is counting his blessings, at the top of his list will be the name of his vice president: Paul Ryan. The former congressman from Wisconsin will have come to office with ideas for steering the federal government to solvency.

Not that Daniels has ever been bereft of ideas. Under him, Indiana property taxes have been cut 30 percent and for the first time, Standard & Poor's has raised the state's credit rating to AAA. But in January 2010, Ryan released an updated version of his "Roadmap for America's Future," a cure for the most completely predictable major problem that has ever afflicted America.

Some calamities -- the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 -- have come like summer lightning, as bolts from the blue. The looming crisis of America's Ponzi entitlement structure is different. Driven by the demographics of an aging population, its causes, timing and scope are known.

Funding entitlements -- especially medical care and pensions for the elderly -- requires reinvigorating the economy. Ryan's map connects three destinations -- economic vitality, diminished public debt, and health and retirement security.

To make the economy -- on which all else hinges -- hum, Ryan proposes tax reform. Masochists would be permitted to continue paying income taxes under the current system. Others could use a radically simplified code, filing a form that fits on a postcard. It would have just two rates: 10 percent on incomes up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers; 25 percent on higher incomes. There would be no deductions, credits or exclusions, other than the health care tax credit (see below).

Today's tax system was shaped by sadists who were trying to be nice: Every wrinkle in the code was put there to benefit this or that interest. Since the 1986 tax simplification, the code has been re-complicated more than 14,000 times -- more than once a day.

At the 2004 Republican convention, thunderous applause greeted George W. Bush's statement that the code is "a complicated mess" and a "drag on our economy" and his promise to "reform and simplify" it. But his next paragraphs proposed more complications to incentivize this and that behavior for the greater good.

Ryan would eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains, dividends and death. The corporate income tax, the world's second highest, would be replaced by an 8.5 percent business consumption tax. Because this would be about half the average tax burden that other nations place on corporations, U.S. companies would instantly become more competitive -- and more able and eager to hire.

Medicare and Social Security would be preserved for those currently receiving benefits, or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today). Both programs would be made permanently solvent.

Universal access to affordable health care would be guaranteed by refundable tax credits ($2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families) for purchasing portable coverage in any state. As persons under 55 became Medicare eligible, they would receive payments averaging $11,000 a year, indexed to inflation and pegged to income, with low-income people receiving more support.

Ryan's plan would fund medical savings accounts from which low-income people would pay minor out-of-pocket medical expenses. All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs -- tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses.

Ryan's plan would allow workers under 55 the choice of investing more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan long available to, and immensely popular with, federal employees. This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose every dollar they put into these accounts.

Ryan would raise the retirement age. If, when Congress created Social Security in 1935, it had indexed the retirement age (then 65) to life expectancy, today the age would be in the mid-70s. The system was never intended to do what it is doing -- subsidizing retirements that extend from one-third to one-half of retirees' adult lives.

Compare Ryan's lucid map to the Democrats' impenetrable labyrinth of health care legislation. Republicans are frequently criticized as "the party of no." But because most new ideas are injurious, rejection is an important function in politics. It is, however, insufficient. Fortunately, Ryan, assisted by Republican representatives Devin Nunes of California and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, has become a think tank, refuting the idea that Republicans lack ideas.

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[Selene]

Well folks...here we go:

The day after her return to national politics with a barnstorming attack on President Obama in a speech in Nashville, Mrs Palin was shown a poll yesterday ranking her the top Republican candidate for 2012 and asked if she would run.

"I would," she said without hesitation. "I would, if I believed that that was the right thing to do for my country and for my family."

http://www.timesonli...icle7018587.ece

This is going to be an amazing twenty (20) months.

However, Ms Palin, who took a fee of $100,000 (€71,400, £62,500) for the speech, which she said she would donate to the “cause”, has also hinted that her association with the Tea Party movement, a large chunk of which boycotted the Nashville convention because it charged $549 a ticket, could open the way to a third-party candidacy along the lines of Ross Perot’s 1992 and 1996 presidential bids. “You’ve got both party machines running scared,” she said.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6395e3fc-1427-11df-8847-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=c59753ec-d316-11db-829f-000b5df10621,print=yes.html

Gulch, you should have run for that Congressional seat in Massachusetts.

Adam

Edited February 8, 2010 by Selene

[galtgulch]

<<<"Gulch, you should have run for that Congressional seat in Massachusetts.">>>

Adam,

I live in the 3rd District in MA which has been represented by The Honorable James McGovern who is reputed to be in the pocket of the unions. The district extends from Worcester all the way down along Route 495 to include enough of Fall River to guarantee the seat for the Democrats.

Since the Scott Brown extravaganza due to the disenchantment of many dems and independents who voted for Obama, an unknown to me Republican has announced that he will run against McGovern in 2010. I have no idea as yet who he is or where he stands on anything. I suppose he is probably a traditional conservative, more than likely pro life, anti drug, pro antitrust, unprincipled and ignorant of Austrian economics but hope I am mistaken.

The thought of running against him in the Republican primary has occurred to me. I am still working full time plus with an hour commute each way. The C4L in this district is invisible, although enough showed up who were registered Republicans to have chosen a delegate to the nominating convention. He buckled under to the goon squad there though and supported McCain so as not to alienate the party faithful for the future.

The idea of getting signature to run as an independent also occurs just to get the Objectivist/Capitalist/Libertarian ideas into the debate or dialog. That might just assure that McGovern gets re elected however.

Not to mention that I don't have the kind of money necessary for such an endeavor to be successful.

Looks like there might be an Atlas Shrugged miniseries on TV contemplated to be produced before the end of this year by LionsGate.

[Selene]

<<<"Gulch, you should have run for that Congressional seat in Massachusetts.">>>

Adam,

I live in the 3rd District in MA which has been represented by The Honorable James McGovern who is reputed to be in the pocket of the unions. The district extends from Worcester all the way down along Route 495 to include enough of Fall River to guarantee the seat for the Democrats.

Since the Scott Brown extravaganza due to the disenchantment of many dems and independents who voted for Obama, an unknown to me Republican has announced that he will run against McGovern in 2010. I have no idea as yet who he is or where he stands on anything. I suppose he is probably a traditional conservative, more than likely pro life, anti drug, pro antitrust, unprincipled and ignorant of Austrian economics but hope I am mistaken.

The thought of running against him in the Republican primary has occurred to me. I am still working full time plus with an hour commute each way. The C4L in this district is invisible, although enough showed up who were registered Republicans to have chosen a delegate to the nominating convention. He buckled under to the goon squad there though and supported McCain so as not to alienate the party faithful for the future.

The idea of getting signature to run as an independent also occurs just to get the Objectivist/Capitalist/Libertarian ideas into the debate or dialog. That might just assure that McGovern gets re elected however.

Not to mention that I don't have the kind of money necessary for such an endeavor to be successful.

Looks like there might be an Atlas Shrugged miniseries on TV contemplated to be produced before the end of this year by LionsGate.

Gulch:

This is my area of expertise. First, you should run. A campaign, especially today, has a completely new dynamic. Your time can be multiplied with the right surrogates.

Print up the petitions. You need two thousand signatures of registered voters in the district** . You should also print up petitions for an independent line. So that is only forty (40) signatures a day for 100 days. Piece of cake.

**

United States Representative

• Must be at least 25 years of age.
• Must be a registered voter.
• Must be a U.S. citizen for at least 7 years prior to the date of the election.
• Must be an inhabitant of Massachusetts when elected.
• Requires certified signatures of at least 2000 voters registered in the district.

We can worry about whether you run to win or run to inform. Someone always has to breech the barbed wire. You, being a Doctor type person, has automatic ethos.

Now if you are willing to stay on message, you would be surprised at what you could accomplish within the time frames you would be willing to invest.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

Very clever. Were you involved, like I was, in the League of Non Voter efforts? None of the Above movement?

No, but I ghost wrote most of Sy Leon's book, None of the Above.

Ghs

[Selene]

Very clever. Were you involved, like I was, in the League of Non Voter efforts? None of the Above movement?

No, but I ghost wrote most of Sy Leon's book, None of the Above.

Ghs

George:

My compliments.

It is an honor to know you.

I pushed that concept everywhere and I still push it today.

Adam

[DavidMcK]

George, I recall you writing about being an anti-war protester early on (against Vietnam); I would think that someone's position against an unnecessary and unjustified war would be even more critical than their drug policy. Granted that seeing the connection of libertarian principles and doing something to your own body is more obvious than foreign policy, but war is a far greater threat...we've seen that war is the health of the state over and over.

The reason why the libertarian movement seems to be so easily hi-jacked is that there aren't too many libertarian/Austrian/Objectivist types who seem to have the charisma and speaking ability of the hijackers. Ron Paul is about the only one who seems to be able to hold his own on television...who else is there out there to present the libertarian/objectivist point of view? Mostly the movement is still in a deeply reflective intellectual stage, and intellectuals don't like going around rabble-rousing...it seems beneath them.

[George H. Smith]

George, I recall you writing about being an anti-war protester early on (against Vietnam); I would think that someone's position against an unnecessary and unjustified war would be even more critical than their drug policy. Granted that seeing the connection of libertarian principles and doing something to your own body is more obvious than foreign policy, but war is a far greater threat...we've seen that war is the health of the state over and over.

As a matter of practical importance, you may be right, depending on the circumstances. When I said that drug legalization is a litmus test, I meant it in a philosophical sense. If someone doesn't understand the fundamental injustice of anti-drug laws, then his grasp of the principle of self-ownership (or personal autonomy, or the right to pursue happiness -- call it what you will) is tenuous at best and nonexistent at worst.

Ghs

[Selene]

From the nine figured thug ballerina from Cheecago to the cold little bitch witch from Wasilla.

http://latimesblogs....66d6b970c-600wi

This is one of the dumbest, but most merciless group of crooks to come out of Chicago - obiwan the diminished Frank Nitti.

Adam

Post Script: It would not allow me to use the first extension, so I just provided the link...They looked good together too!

Edited February 12, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I always look at what someone says and what someone does. And I go with what is done over what is said as a better indicator of character and what to expect in the future. It's not infallible since people can change or be deceptive, but it has worked well most of the time for me.

Here, from an older post of mine, is what Sarah Palin did. It is one of the reasons I like her, without, of course, endorsing everything about her:

From the very beginning, when still a member of City Council, she opposed a bill that would restrict bar commerce even though she was a member of a church that advocated abstinence. In my mind, this sums up the theme of her approach to politics.

That's good to hear. What's your source for that?

Chris,

The original thing came from the Wikipedia article on her, but it was referenced. Below is the quote (from The Boston Globe, see the original here):

She ran for office for the first time in 1992 at age 28, when she won a seat on the Wasilla City Council, defeating a local telephone company worker, 530 to 310 votes, on a promise to bring "my progressive, competitive attitude" to government, according to a regional newspaper, the Frontiersman.

In the council, she spoke out against a push by the city police to shut Wasilla's bars at 2 a.m. instead of 4 a.m., to prevent drunken driving by patrons who came after Anchorage's bars closed at 2 a.m.

John Hartrick, a former councilor who supported the measure, said she he was surprised by Palin's opposition because she was then a member of the Wasilla Assembly of God, an evangelical church that preached abstinence from alcohol. "The Assembly of God was very much opposed to drinking, but yet Ms. Palin became the spokesman for the bar owners," Hartrick said. "I felt this was quite wrong because we weren't trying to shut the bars down; we would simply say if they could possibly go ahead and close two hours earlier it would be helpful and would prevent accidents."

That sounds like principled defense of freedom to me.

Michael

[Peter]

I want to thank Michael Stuart Kelly for the link to that video showing the Political Spectrum. I sent it to a dozen people.

In my mind I have always been placing Anarchy on the left, as does Rand’s definition, because it is an interim stage that eventually becomes some form of government, usually beginning with gangs. However it does make logical sense to place Anarchy as the opposite of Total Government like Communist Russia under Stalin, until it changes.

Sarah Palin is not the enemy. In the Boston Globe article, she voted against changing the closing hours of bars from 4am to 2am, which shows her free market, pro individual rights view. Not to say she won't pay some respect to Religious Conservatives. I don't think she will ever endorse the legalization of drugs. She would NOT legally oppose states from legalizing marijuana. Still, I do not want to see religionists take over the Tea Party Movement. It will remain rational and secular.

Sarah would occupy the same niche as Randian Government on the Political Spectrum.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

TIA Daily • February 9, 2010

FEATURE ARTICLE

A Swarm of Officers

Obama's Statism Boom

by Robert Tracinski

In the Declaration of Independence, one of our Founding Fathers' chief complaints against King George was that "He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

As the old saying goes, taxation without representation is slavery—but taxation with representation isn't that great, either. And so we find that we don't need a swarm of officer to come all the way across the Atlantic to eat out our substance. We can summon our own army of domestic parasites.

That is the unique achievement of the Obama administration. Mr. Obama has presided over an economic boom and a rising tide of prosperity—if you work for the government.

The numbers are ominous. Recently the news came out that, for the first time in America's history, the number of government employees exceeded the number of employees in manufacturing. So the number of people who make things are now exceeded by the number of government bureaucrats whose job is to prevent things from being made. And some of these government jobs are pretty plush: another report reveals that while the rest of us were in a recession, the number of government jobs paying more than $100,000 per year increased by almost 50%, while government jobs paying more than $150,000 more than doubled.

This will give you an idea of some of the outrage that's fueling the tea party movement. When I asked a local tea party organizer what got her started, one of the first things she mentioned was the contrast between what ordinary people were doing with their own budgets—cutting back, giving up on luxuries, trying to dig themselves out of debt—and what the federal government was doing: a spending binge financed by vast new quantities of debt that we will have to pay. People are outraged, and they are terrified of a future in which America's only growth industry is government.

But of course, it's not an industry, not really, because it doesn't actually produce anything. At best, this swarm of officers manages uneconomical public works boondoggles and outrageously subsidized "green" Potemkin projects. At worst, their job is to impose stultifying new regulations and collect taxes that drain more wealth from the private economy. The IRS has been hiring like mad, and President Obama's 2010 budget would provide an extra $400 million to increase the agency's tax enforcement—that is, to "harass our people and eat out their substance."

The most ominous part of this trend is the runaway growth of public employees' unions, which are now bigger than private-sector unions. This is partly the result of a long-term trend in which private-sector unions have proven to be self-liquidating. They drive up labor costs while imposing work rules that reduce an employer's ability to respond to market forces—thereby driving the employer out of business and killing all of the unionized jobs. But there is no such danger for government unions. Thanks to their ability to shake down the taxpayers, these unions can offer what has been described as "lifetime job security and benefits."

The whole concept of a public employees' union—an organization dedicated to draining the wealth of the American taxpayer—is repugnant. It should probably be illegal. But such unions are now a major pillar of political support for the Democratic Party and for the current administration. And they are the symbol of its policies. This is the Obama administration's economic "stimulus" in action—a stimulus for the parasites at the expense of the producers. This means a stimulus of non-productive, non-profit-making, and therefore non-self-sustaining activity—which is why it will fail to do anything but to further transform our country into a society in which a growing class of government insiders enjoys the privilege of living off of everyone else's efforts.

When King George sent a swarm of officers to eat out our substance, Americans had a tea party, and they kept going until they were able, in the words of the Declaration, "to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security."

And we're going to do it again.

One-Year Subscription — $74

Six-Month Subscription — $38

Subscribe now!

Copyright © 2010 by Tracinski Publishing Company

PO Box 8086, Charlottesville, VA 22906

[Selene]

Sarah showed her hand, here is one we should use:

Elitists of the world unite...you have nothing to lose but

your pedestals and we are coming for them!

Who knows? It might turn into a movement.

Adam

[Peter]

On 2/7/2010 at 10:27 AM, George H. Smith said:

If the Tea Party people can get this excited over a boilerplate conservative stump speech,

Remember the Tea Party? And Sarah Palin?

Ukraine. You crane. How about a fun fact? I like Twining’s Earl Grey Tea but didn’t try it until Jean Luc brought it up. Peter

Earl Grey Tea: A tea blend named for an Old Earth British nobleman was Jean-Luc Picard's favorite hot beverage. The tea is infused with bergamot and normally not taken with milk. In 2365 he ordered a cup from his Ready Room replicator and got a potted plant instead ... an early sign of the Iconian's shipboard computer virus. Picard's favorite was even known to Duras' scheming sisters during the Klingon civil war, probably thanks to Romulan intelligence, and was another personal secret Data told Kamala, the metamorph. Picard also offered some to Adm. Hanson upon his first visit aboard, on the eve of the Battle of Wolf 359.

[Jules Troy]

Where is Adam these days?  Anyone heard from him?