NON ILLEGITIMI CARBORUNDUM. Watch the whole thing; the post title will make sense at the end.

MY COUNTRY, ‘TIS OF ME: Michael Kinsley believes the Tea Party Patriots are all about me.

[A] third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing?

For the Tea Party supporters, yes, as a matter of fact, we do. And if Kinsley had ever attended an event, he might as well. In comparing the Tea Party movement to the anti-war 1960’s, Kinsley writes:

[T]he 1960s were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people. If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it’s less charming.

Hmm. When young people riot in the streets, vandalize private property, and plot to blow up people, it’s being “a bit overwrought.” When adults hold peaceful protests, it’s “less charming.” Did Kinsley and I live through a different 60’s?

The antiwar movement and the 1960's changed America in numerous ways forever. The Tea Party Patriots will be an answer on Jeopardy or a crossword-puzzle clue.

Kinsley might want to revisit that claim on November 3.

The essence [of the 60’s] was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place.

Kinsley’s half-right: the methods were entirely wrongheaded, and the Tea Party movement is largely about fixing those mistakes.

The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested.

Well, yes, if by “self-interested” he allows us to include our children and grandchildren. We’re less interested in our retirement than their retirement, our Medicare than their healthcare, our debt than their debt. We believe that less government, not more government, is the better “solution to what ails America.”

“I like what they’re saying. It’s common sense,” a random man-in-the-crowd told a Los Angeles Times reporter at a big Tea Party rally. Then he added, “They’ve got to focus on issues like keeping jobs here and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.” These, of course, are projects that can be conducted only by Big Government [emphasis added].

Could it possibly be that those are issues precisely because of “Big Government”? In Michael Kinsley’s world, of course not.

REVIEW CITES FLAWS IN U.S. ANTIMISSILE PROGRAM. Dr. Theodore A. Postol, a former Pentagon science adviser and M.I.T. professor who forcefully criticized the performance of the Patriot antimissile system in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, is now casting doubt on the reliability of the Navy’s SM-3 ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptor, saying “The system is highly fragile and brittle and will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever.”

Postel has long been of the opinion that no defense is better than an imperfect defense. I prefer the view that something is better than nothing. Improvements will come.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON on the Marine Corps.

Best comment: “Maybe we should send them to Washington DC.”

MORE NANNY GOVERNMENT. This came to me in a company email:

On May 6, the Department of Labor and Securities Exchange Commission released a primer on target date funds for investors and plan participants. The primer contains background on the funds along with a list of considerations for possible investors to take into account; the considerations include:

Whether or not a hands-off investment approach
is favorable
Whether the fund has an appropriate risk level
Whether the fund's glidepath is appropriate
Whether the fees are acceptable

Question: how much longer until the government requires 401k and 403b plans to invest only in target-date funds? I’m betting not long.

OBAMA DOUBLES DOWN ON ARIZONA. President Obama, May 19th: “[I]n the United States of America no law-abiding person, be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant or a visitor or tourist from Mexico, should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”

PowerLine comments: “If many people suspect that those around them who appear to be Mexican might be illegals, maybe we should blame the 12 million or so Mexicans who are, in fact, illegals, rather than accusing the people of Arizona of bigotry.”