Archive for the ‘Tea parties’ Category

Get your authentic Boston Harbour Tea here!

BostonHarbourTin2011Dislike the Tea Party? Then buy some of this Boston Harbour Tea! 16 chests of fine tea from tea merchants, Davison Newman & Co. Ltd. of London, were part of the tea that was tossed in Boston Harbour on that dreadful night.

The Company is still in business and the tea is for sale here!

Drink it knowing full well that the Tories were right as sequestration hits the American public.  Or as George Washington put it:

“The picture which you have exhibited, and the accounts which are published of the commotions, and temper of numerous bodies in the Eastern States, are equally to be lamented and deprecated. They exhibit a melancholy proof of what our trans-Atlantic foe has predicted; and of another thing perhaps, which is still more to be regretted, and is yet more unaccountable, that mankind when left to themselves are unfit for their own Government. I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned upon any Country. In a word, I am lost in amazement when I behold what intrigue, the interested views of desperate characters, ignorance and jealousy of the minor part, are capable of effecting, as a scourge on the major part of our fellow Citizens of the Union; for it is hardly to be supposed that the great body of the people, tho’ they will not act, can be so shortsighted, or enveloped in darkness, as not to see rays of a distant sun thro’ all this mist of intoxication and folly.

You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government. Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.”

Christmas Oldies

The Moody Blues: Don’t Need a Reindeer

I like the sentiment.

This one is appropriate to the Occupy Protests. I dedicate it to all those people who say the US is a Christian nation, yet are the most unchristian people I know. Unfortunately, they don’t know who they are.

As the song says:

Once in Royal David’s City stood a lowly cattle shed,
where a mother laid her baby.
You’d do well to remember the things He later said.
When you’re stuffing yourselves at the Christmas parties,
you’ll laugh when I tell you to take a running jump.
You’re missing the point I’m sure does not need making;
that Christmas spirit is not what you drink.

So how can you laugh when your own mother’s hungry
and how can you smile when the reasons for smiling are wrong?
And if I messed up your thoughtless pleasures,
remember, if you wish, this is just a Christmas song.

Hey, Santa: pass us that bottle, will you?

Another Christmas Song

Hope everybody’s ringing on their own bell, this fine morning.
Hope everyone’s connected to that long distance phone.
Old man, he’s a mountain.
Old man, he’s an island.
Old man, he’s awaking – says,
“ I’m going to call, call all my children home.”

Hope everybody’s dancing to their own drum this fine morning –
the beat of distant Africa or a Polish factory town.
Old man, he’s calling for his supper.
He’s calling for his whisky.
Calling for his sons and daughters, yeah –
calling, calling all his children round.

Sharp ears are tuned in to the drones and chanters warming.
Mist blowing round some headland, somewhere in your memory.
Everyone is from somewhere –
even if you’ve never been there.
So take a minute to remember the part of you
that might be the old man calling me.

How many wars you fighting out there, this winter’s morning?
Maybe it’s always time for another Christmas song.
Old man he’s asleep now.
Got appointments to keep now.
Dreaming of his sons and daughters and proving ,
proving that the blood is strong.

The Tea Party Theme Song!

Posted 27/07/2011 by lacithedog in Tea parties, Tea Party, teabaggers

Holy Astroturf, Batman!

This photo has been reblogged from Liberals Are Cool and Look At This Fucking Teabagger

If we listen to the USMSM (which includes US Public broadcasting), the “Tea Party movement” is truly a viable, grassroots movement rather than astroturfed horseshit.

2,000 people were expected at a Tea Party rally in South Carolina, just 30 showed up after Donald Trump cancelled his appearance with Gov. Nikki Haley (R), according to the Columbia State. The picture above from the rally is truly priceless for showing how much the “Tea Party” is a creation of US MSM.

The problem is that US MSM refuses to acknowledge the progressive viewpoint. How many people have heard of “the People’s Budget” proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus for Fiscal Year 2012? Instead of heading on a crash course for a US Default, the “the People’s Budget” eliminates the deficit in 10 years, puts Americans back to work and restores our economic competitiveness while protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and responsibly eliminates the deficit by targeting its main drivers: the Bush Tax Cuts, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession.

Why do we hear about the Tea Party initiatives, but not the “the People’s Budget”? Might it have something to do with US MSM being controlled by a few large corporations?  They even control “Public Broadcasting (USPM=US Public Media)” through underwriting so that even that avenue may provide more in-depth coverage than Fox News,  USPM is nearly as biased as Fox when it comes down to coverage.

See also:
6 Tips For Spotting Astroturf
The Corporate Accountability Project
Look At This Fucking Teabagger


I have always thought that Libertarianism was right wing anarchism from when I first encountered it as a teen.  This came from my research on Anarchy and Libertarianism. It’s funny, but makes some fairly serious points.


I {we} have been criticized on these grounds: Why are aliens interested in American politics? Again for your benefit human I will try to answer this criticism and again warn of the consequences of human, and in this case specifically American stupidity, and of the consequences of your actions. The so called liberal wing of American politics is accused of reckless spending and increasing the reach and power of government – this is a valid criticism sometimes! BUT you must understand it is based not only on the greed of government but also on the greed of the rich and powerful who would be more than happy to eliminate as much government as possible and take control of you, your economy and ultimately of your entire lives – and true they sometimes use government for this purpose – BUT as long as the power remains in the hands of government there is some control by the people of this power – When it moves completely to the so called private sector money {as a function of power} will completely be in control – YOUR SO CALLED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WILL BE COMPLETELY OWNED BY MONEY AND WILL NO LONGER EXIST FOR INDIVIDUALS.

To some extent this is already happening as the United States of America is already deeply in debt to The Peoples Republic of China {The Chinese Communists}. So you might say right wing Republicans {the so called Tea Party} are going to help when in fact an objective view will show they will cause just the opposite – IF THE REPUBLICAN TEA PARTY WINS IN THE COMING ELECTION THEY WILL CAUSE COMPLETE GRIDLOCK TO OCCUR – YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL BECOME POWERLESS AND THE CHINESE WHO YOU BOUGHT OFF IN VIETNAM WILL BECOME THE WORLDS PREMIER ECONOMY – AMERICANS YOU WILL BE WORKING FOR THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS WHO YOU WILL AGAIN HAVE TO BUY OFF AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ANARCHY PRODUCED BY THE TEA PARTY!

Remember Americans THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is the largest employer, biggest
business and greatest source of money to MILLIONS OF AMERICANS and to dismantle or damage your government now, even if it is out of line, will lead to the greatest depression the so called ‘free-world’ has ever seen and THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A ‘FREE-WORLD’ – YOU WILL BE WORKING FOR THE CHINESE!!! Think about it before you vote!!! AND ASK YOURSELVES AMERICANS WHO IS FUNDING THIS TEA PARTY AND WHAT IS THEIR REAL AGENDA??? Is it ANARCHY, CHAOS, AND THE TRIUMPH OF SPECIAL AND VERY SINISTER INTERESTS?!?!

-Alien Commander Omd I

[ link to]

see also:
The Right’s New Left–The Tea Party movement has two defining traits: status anxiety and anarchism.
Tea Party Anarchists?
The New Anarchists
Are Libertarians “Anarchists”?

Thom Hartmann: Must see! The TRUE story of the Tea Party

From MikeB, who got it from Norwegianity who got it from Crooks and Liars

Nothing I haven’t written about here before. This post is the best: Comparing the Modern Tea Party to the Original By Barbara Smith

Now, that’s what I call a tax protest

It seems that Romania has decided to tax its witches, something that has caused a furore in the Romanian Witch Comunity. Not so much because they have to pay taxes, but they don’t believe they are going to receive anything in the way of benefits from the state.

The Queen witch, Bratara Buzea, has cursed the minister responsible for this action.

In addition, driving instructors will also have to pay tax, but they aren’t as interesting.

Comparing the Modern Tea Party to the Original By Barbara Smith

Barbara Smith is the author of “The Freedoms We Lost: Consent and Resistance in Revolutionary America,” just issued by The New Press.

In light of the recent anniversary of the original Tea Party, shouldn’t we consult history to clarify what the Boston brouhaha of 1773 was really about? Here are some things we would do well to remember today:

* There was little that was “conservative” about the event. A mob seized and destroyed private property. Conservative interests at the time deplored it, and the respectable descendants of the Revolutionary generation did their best to forget it when they wrote up their official accounts of the Revolution.
* It was not all about taxes. The colonists who dumped tea in Boston harbor did not oppose taxation by representative governments. They routinely voted in town meetings to support the poor and pay for common goods such as roads or public schools. From time to time they dug into their pockets to pay off public debts created by expensive wars. They did not worry much about the likelihood of taxes going to “freeloading” poor people or immigrants, because they knew that government is rarely controlled by the poor or the newcomer. Far more likely—far more dangerous—was an alliance between government and the already wealthy and well-connected.
* It was about the power of private interests. As colonists saw it, Parliament had been corrupted by the influence of money. First, opulent West Indies planters had promoted the Sugar Act to boost their profits. Wealthy Britons had supported the Stamp Act in order to cut their own taxes. Now shareholders of the East India Company hoped to reap a windfall off a monopoly on the tea trade. All these measures served special interests at the expense of ordinary colonists in North America. Rather than defending the tax breaks of the wealthy or the monopoly privileges of private companies, the original Patriots championed the wellbeing of middling households.
* It was about the obligation of government to regulate economic transactions. Eighteenth-century Patriots assumed a principle of public activism. Samuel Adams explained in a Boston newspaper: Governments might oppress the people by grabbing too much power, but oppression also occurred when governments were too weak. Government existed precisely “to protect the people and promote their prosperity.” In normal times, people expected government to limit monopolies and excessive profit-taking. In the imperial crisis, Patriots insisted that countless transactions—not only tea sales—should come under public scrutiny and serve the common good. What justified destroying the East India Company’s tea was the principle that public good trumped corporate profit.
* It was about the distribution of wealth. Americans’ ancestors had been uprooted from the British countryside as great landowners amassed more and more of the land. In North America, many English settlers had achieved a sort of middling security. Now that security was threatened. Parliament was taking the side of the rich, and some rich Americans were taking the side of Parliament. The danger was the impoverishment of everyone else. The Patriots believed that a rough economic equality was necessary to maintaining liberty.

Viewed accurately, the original Patriots would sadly disappoint today’s Tea Party activists, who promote a far different political philosophy. Of course no one today needs to agree with eighteenth-century ideas, and we know that the Patriots had their profound flaws. But we must object when present-day interests sidestep good-faith discussion of the merits of their position by misappropriating the founding generation. The principles of today’s Tea Partiers may (or may not) be correct, but they cannot establish it through sleight of hand, blithely invoking the founders while ignoring those founders’ ideas. The rest of America should not be intimidated by unfounded claims that Tea Partiers are the “real America” or that their values are the ones that originally won American freedom. Those claims fly in the face of history, and they contribute little to our ability to address the massive problems that we face as a nation.

See also: By Jill Lepore’s Boundless promise and grave peril

Sorry, Barb, but…

The social services are necessary.

As is family planning, including the ability for a woman to have abortion.

And don’t give me the shit about “right to life” since a right to life implies that a person’s life is sacred:

a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.

On the matter of health, it almost goes without saying that the “pro-life” person would refrain from smoking, oppose government subsidy of domestic tobacco production and sale to overseas markets, encourage physical fitness, and donate blood for transfusions to people whose lives might thereby be saved. Also, insofar as a surplus existed, one might also expect the society to provide relief to needy people in other societies in the form of nonmilitary foreign aid, directly providing goods or teaching developmental skills.

So, don’t come pro-life to me if the right ends at birth. A child shouldn’t be punished for the parents’ mistakes.

As for head start, it was a lot more than just education. It included meals and other things to make sure that the children weren’t disruptive. I add in that children have a right to an education, which they won’t appreciate if they are starving. Perhaps that is why they are disruptive.

The charter schools can be just as corrupt as the public ones, but public schooling is a lot less expensive than housing people in prisons. Although, I know you prefer private schools since they are not run by the government. So, they can cost far more than the public alternative, but you prefer them.

Sorry, Barb, but your policies COST society far more in the long run. It’s pretty obvious that the policies you advocate have bankrupted the US.

So, as I have said before, don’t bother posting here as you only prove you are an ignorant cow who would prefer to live in a world where there was child labour and deep poverty because they deserve to be poor.

Liberalism and populism in the US.

I have to admit that I find the blog American Creation to be really interesting and informative. Which leads to their credit for having a post about William Hogeland (Hysteriography), which is a name I’ve encountered before since we share interests: in particular, early American insurrections and populism. Although, I have to admit his pieces in the Boston Review, Real Americans, and at New Deal 2.0, Liberals and Populism: An Uneasy History, really struck a chord with me.

The left is often left wondering why its message is lost on the people. For example, I read a blog which made some wild claims about progressives being against “freedom”. Of course, the blogger in question probably has a different concept of the word freedom than I do if he dislikes the changes that progressivism has brought about: such as the pure food and drug act, the clean air and water acts, child labour laws, laws about safety in the workplace, and so on. Or is it a person’s right and freedom to want to be a slave?

The problem is that there is a strong anti-intellectual streak in the American population. As Hogeland points out “the main populist assault (During William Jennings Bryan’s time), just as today, was on common liberal modes of discussion, debate, and expertise.” There was the disgust with the East Coast, Elites, which today would be termed the “Within the Beltway mindset”. Hogeland takes his premise even further back at Liberals and Populism: An Uneasy History going to the War for American Independence.

Liberals and Populism: An Uneasy History gets me thinking my usual question about how many of the founding fathers would have chosen to incite the masses had they known how hard the mob would be to control? As I said at American Creation, Especially since Samuel Adams wasn’t a populist! That is truly an interesting point. I know that he had made a comment about Shays’ Rebellion which would point to his being a strong denouncer of insurrectionism (“Rebellion against a king may be pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death.”). Given that Sam Adams was prone to stirring up mobs as happened in the Boston Massacre and Philadelphia, this is truly a revelation!

Of course, this post may tend toward the elitism for which overeducated people such as myself, but one has to wonder how much the people who wanted independence at any cost would view the effect on US Politics (as opposed to the Tories who wanted any change to be done through legal means)? The problem is that the mob is not a body which can be controlled or is reasonable. One needs leadership. Or to quote James Madison:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. Federalist #10

Tax protest in the UK

I have to admit that with the talk of austerity measures and people feeling taxed out that the news that there were tax protests in England caught my attention. Has the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party mentality hit the UK as George Monbiot has predicted? The US mind has been perverted by the idea that Independence was caused by excessive British taxes, rather than the actual meaning of “Taxation Without Representation” that means taxes must be levied by a body which represents the citizens.

No, these tax protests are about people who avoid their taxes. That’s quite a difference from the Astroturf Tea Party movement which works to ensure that the rich DON’T pay their fair share of taxes. UK Uncut, the organisation behind the protests points out that:

At the same time as making massive cuts to public services, this government is letting rich individuals and corporations avoid billions of pounds of tax. Join UK Uncut’s Big Society Revenue & Customs (BSRC) and become part of an army of citizen volunteers determined to make wealthy tax avoiders pay.

If we consider that the tax gap in the UK is an estimated £120 billion. £25 billion of that amount is due to tax avoidance by extremely wealthy individuals and big business, yet the government is barely lifting a finger to stop it. Instead, the talk is of cutting services.  Likewise, the US will be looking at similar tough cuts in programmes such as medicade and social security.   Cuts to these and other services that affect the population will have strong opposition.

The problem in the US is that there isn’t enough of a media outlet for opposing viewpoints.  That means that the message that people are overtaxed  remains unquestioned.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how much the people who are funding the US Tax protests pay from their billions.  Even better to see a list of US tax avoiders like this one.

They’re back!

Thanks to microdot for this story at alternet although it’s nothing I haven’t been saying for a while now that the Koch Bros. and Rupert Murdoch were behind the Tea Party movement.

It seems there is now a new mystery source for the megabucks behind this movement as well.

It never fails to amaze me as to how ignorant the US population is in regard to who really runs their government.

Maybe we might see some serious gun control if the guns were being used for a worker’s revolution.

It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, from Act 5, Scene 5:

I have been wanting to mention my US political insider neighbour for a while, but haven’t until now. The reason for this is that I asked him about the coming mid-term elections. His response was this quote from Macbeth:

it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

His main point was that people such as Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell are great for the one-liners, but don’t really stand up to scrutiny. But since the political insider is another media watcher, he pointed out that the elections are manipulated by sound bites. In other words, people hear what they want and don’t investigate any further.

A historical example is:

No taxation without representation

Which I think a lot of people have misinterpreted throughout the ages to be:

No taxation

But the real issue here isn’t taxes, it is the representation in the legislature that is the issue. Likewise, somebody such as a Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell can be edited enough so that they sound lucid and educated. On the other hand, they can’t stand scrutiny if there is a strong media magnifying glass placed upon them. The question is whether they will be presented “warts and all” or edited so that they are palatable to the voters.

Despite what some of the reactionary right would like to believe, the US electorate is pretty much in the centre of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the parties have worked to thwart people’s interests as I keep pointing out. In particularly, the conservatives have done a wonderful job with single issues (abortion, gun control, taxes, etcetera) in getting people to vote against their real economic interest. In fact, it’s amusing how some people are still true believers in the policies which have brought about the current economic collapse. Fortunately, some reason has prevailed in allowing for the Troubled Assets Relief Programme (TARP) and the bailout of the US motor industry. Had those two programmes not gone through, the economy would truly be in the shitter; whereas, now it can present itself as being somewhat viable.

The ultimate upshot of this conversation was that political insider mentioned Jon Stewart’s rally on 30 Oct 10. It will be interesting to see how many people attend that rally.

Don’t increase taxes…

Increase the tax base.

What is the tax base? That is the group of people who pay taxes, which is part of the reason that this solution isn’t mentioned by the US political parties.

This solution would be considered “socialist” since what it proposes is getting more people working. Although, if you consider the actual alternative, progressive taxation, where the rich pay far more in taxes, this is more palatable. On the other hand, most tax proposals are regressive and effect the poor far more than the rich (e.g., increasing sales tax).  Preferably, the tax base should be increased in tandem with a good progressive income tax system.

Also, decreasing taxes has proven detrimental to society. Or, as I like to say, become unemployed if you don’t want to pay taxes. So, while people may decry “welfare queens” at least they have money to spend and are contributing to the economy. People who are out of work drain on the society in that they don’t contribute labour, they cut their spending 9or go into debt), and don’t pay taxes. Or to quote Time magazine:

Nearly everywhere, tax revenue plummeted as property values tanked, incomes dwindled and consumers stopped shopping. Falling prices for stocks and real estate have made mincemeat of often underfunded public pension plans. Unemployed workers have swelled the demand for welfare and Medicaid services. Governments that were frugal in the past are just squeaking by. Governments that were lavish in the good times, building their budgets on optimism and best-case scenarios, now risk being wrecked like a shantytown in an earthquake.

Many taxpayers might say that it’s about time spending dropped. But then they start hearing the specifics. Government budgets contain a lot of fixed costs and herds of sacred cows. K-12 education absorbs nearly a third of all spending from state general funds. Add medical expenses, primarily Medicaid, and it’s over half. Prisons must be maintained, colleges and universities kept open, interest on bonds and other loans paid. Real cuts provoke loud howls, and you can hear them rising in every corner of the country. College students have marched in California, firefighters have protested in Florida, and on June 10, Minnesota saw the largest one-day strike of nurses — some 12,000 — in U.S. history.

I am glad to learn that I am not the only voice out there mentioning this viewpoint, but increasing the tax base means:

To Build Tax Revenues, Build New Businesses and encourage growth in the businesses which already exist. There needs to be a tax system that doesn’t penalise business. For example, Philadelphia’s system of taxation is extremely business unfriendly. For example its Business Privilege Tax is most appropriately named since if Philadelphia treats doing business as a privilege, then it will discourage anyone wanting to come there. But the business privilege tax taxes both gross and net profit. This tax is then augmented by another Net Profits tax!

Get the picture?

If Philadelphia taxed business at one reasonable rate, it might just encourage people to do business in the city.

We can add in that Philadelphia has a sales tax which is 1% more than the neighbouring suburban jurisdictions. There are a myriad of complaints on that one. It might encourage people to do business in the city if there were no difference, but if you have a choice of buying at 6% or 7%, where are you going to go?

In other words, Consistent, competitive tax rates, investment incentives for businesses, incentives to venture capital, and the avoidance of one-time levies which cause financial planning problems for small businesses. Of course, one has to wonder why taxation is so skewed as to favour large business rather than entrepreneurs.

But the issue of equitable taxation goes beyond just creating jobs, this includes infrastructure and other aspects of social change. Economic growth is highly dependent on the quality of neighborhoods, educational systems, public transportation, and overall quality of life. of course the policies needed to address inequality (even if it means more jobs) “will always be controversial since they mean neutralising the advantages of wealth. A prospect that those with money and influence will fight hard against.”

The Tea Party’s Mad Hatter!

Julia Bovey of the Natural Resources Defense Council made a comment that “There is 200 times more mercury in each filling in Congresswoman Bachmann’s teeth than there is in a compact fluorescent light bulb.” This was in response to Bachmann introducing the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act (somebody say something about government waste?), to repeal the ban on conventional light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent light bulbs. She argued that the government has no business telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they can buy: “By 2012, incandescent light bulbs will be no more,” and “Fluorescent bulbs are more polluting because of their mercury content.”

Think of all that mercury in poor Michele’s teeth!

Given that Mercury is what made hatters mad…

Posted 01/09/2010 by lacithedog in Environment, Tea parties, Tea Party