"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
A long time ago, people didn't have language. That meant that whenever a saber-toothed tiger or other flesh-eating thing was headed toward the village, the caveman who knew it was coming had to try to communicate the threat to the others through the use of grunting, screaming, and primitive charades. This didn't work out really well, and lots of people got eaten. Then one day some genius realized that if he yelled "Run! There's a big-ass tiger coming to eat our faces!" and the other cavefolk knew what it meant, it reduced the chances that the entire village would be reduced to tiger poop. That's how language began [needs citation].
In order for language to work, words need to have consistent, widely accepted meaning. Otherwise, language is no better than grunting like a caveman. While word meanings can change over time--for example, until recently "teabagging" referred to giving somebody a mouth full of nutsack; now it refers to a political movement--this requires a general consensus of those who speak the language. If you just make up your own meaning for a word and start using it, you'll just sound like an idiot. Which, of course, brings us back to the teabaggers, who have turned the misuse of language into an art form. Whether they are actively trying to change the meanings of these words without consulting the rest of us or are simply ignorant of the words' actual meaning isn't clear. Regardless, there are a number of words that the teabaggers use in ways that don't match up to their commonly accepted definitions. In order to prevent the English language from devolving back into a series of pre-historic grunts, I'm going to give you the actual meanings of some of these words, and how they differ from the teabagger usage.
Communism/Socialism
What They Think It Means: Atheism; Tyranny; Any form of Taxation; The welfare state; Taking money away from white people and giving it to black people.
What It Really Means: Both of these economic systems seek to eliminate economic classes by putting the means of production into the hands of the workers. The main differences between the two is that communism is a political as well as an economic system, distributes more according to need than contribution to society, and tends to vest the decision making power into the hands of a small group of people, usually in the form of a single, self-perpetuating political party. This inevitably leads to the kind of corruption found in the old Soviet Union.
Socialism, on the other hand, is purely an economic system that typically places emphasis on one's contribution to society for purposes of wealth distribution and attempts to keep power in the hands of the people, often by employing democracy as the accompanying political system. While most people view socialism as the antithesis of capitalism, many forms of socialism not only allow but embrace many free market ideals. In such cases, the emphasis is on providing all citizens with equality of opportunity (equal access to things like education, health care, and other basic necessities) rather than equality of outcome (an equal division of resources and political power between all citizens).
Fascism
What They Think It Means: The same thing as communism and socialism, only with a Hitler mustache, from what I can tell.
What It Really Means: In his book The Anatomy of Fascism, Columbia University's Robert O. Paxton defines fascism as:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
For a more straightforward and in-depth definition of fascism, take a look at this article by Dr. Lawrence Britt based on his study of fascist regimes in Germany, Italy, Spain, Indonesia, and Latin America. I suspect you'll have a "Holy Shit!" moment.
Libertarianism
What They Think It Means: Dismantling the government, except for those parts of it that promote the Christian religion, prevent women from making their own reproductive choices, and keep gays from marrying each other (which would, of course, cause your next-door-neighbor to fuck a turtle). Also, according to Rand Paul at least, in a truly libertarian society, the darkies would know their place.
What It Really Means: According to dictionary.com, a libertarian is "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state." According to most libertarians, that "maximizing individual rights" bit includes allowing people to choose their own religion, determine what reproductive decisions are best for them, marry who ever the fuck the want, and be allowed to use the bathroom in public places regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, or favorite Stooge. While I personally believe that libertarianism takes a naive view of human nature (especially as it applies to corporations) and places the right to one's pursuit of wealth above basic human rights of others, at least real libertarians (like the Kentucky Libertarian Party, who recently distanced themselves from Rand Paul) have a consistent belief system.
Unbiased Journalism
What They Think It Means: The kind of journalism practiced by Fox News: screaming about fascism, drawing elaborate conspiracies on chalk boards, covering astroturf political movements that you're sponsoring, and occasionally boiling a live frog on national TV.
What It Really Means: Presenting all of the facts (and in some cases fact-based opinions) about an issue to the audience and letting them make their own decision.
What It Definitely Doesn't Mean: Giving equal time to both sides of the issue, regardless of the veracity of each side's arguments. This is actually a misunderstanding by lots of Americans (including nearly all of our major news agencies), not just the teabaggers. Don't get me wrong, if each side has valid, factually based arguments regarding an issue, then both sides should be allowed equal opportunity to express those arguments. However, when one side's argument is based on fundamentally flawed facts and wild speculation, it should be discarded. For example, if one side claims that the latest Senate proposal on financial regulation ignores fundamental problems that led to the financial meltdown, and can underpin that opinion with facts and logic, they should be allowed the same opportunity to express that opinion as the side supporting the proposal. If, on the other hand, the side opposing the proposal claims that the bill will allow the New World Order and the Trilateral Commission to send every American's first-born child to Alpha Centauri, where they will become Matt Damon's sex slaves and spend all day re-enacting scenes from Manos, The Hand of Fate for the amusement of Jabba the Hutt and Micky Mouse, they should not be allowed anywhere near a news studio. In fact, they should be encouraged to remain in their homes where their tin foil hats can provide them with optimal protection from Ringo Star's mind control lasers.
While there are plenty of other words and phrases that many American people in general (and teabaggers in particular) frequently misuse--"Clear Skies Initiative," "enemy combatant," and "Must See TV" come to mind--the ones mentioned above are among the most abused in the English language. Before you start spouting these or other words at the political rally, around the office, or in your Facebook status, please take a moment to consider whether they actually mean what you think they mean. If you're not sure, you can always consult that most wondrous of inventions, the dictionary. Since it doesn't have a political agenda, investment portfolio, or upcoming re-election campaign, it's unlikely to lead you astray.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Robin Hood: Prince of Teabaggers?
As I sat through Ridley Scott's new Robin Hood movie, I thought the main problem with it was the fact that, except for the characters, it had absolutely nothing to do with the Robin Hood legend. It wasn't a bad medieval war flick, it just wasn't really a Robin Hood movie. Since bad Robin Hood movies are made with alarming frequency, I wasn't too upset. That is, until I realized on the drive home that this one actually subverts the Robin Hood legend into a sort of teabagger fairy tale.
The movie begins with King Richard the Lion-Hearted leading his men (including his trusted adviser Robert Loxley of Nottingham and the archer Robin Longstride) back from the Crusades, sacking castles in France along the way. Richard has his flaws, but is basically a good guy: the kind of king you'd want to have a beer with. When Longstride questions the rightness of Richard's adventurism in the Middle East, he and his men are rightly detained as enemy combatants. They are willing to accept their punishment until King Richard is killed in battle, at which point they escape (presumably due to some sort of Promise Keeper-style vow).
As Robin and his men try to beat all the other soldiers to the coast so they can get a cheap ride home before boat prices explode (as dictated by the invisible hand of the free market), they discover that Loxley and his men, who were returning the crown, have been ambushed. The dying Loxley asks Robin to return his sword to his father, who he didn't part on good terms with. Then, in the creepiest Horatio Alger story ever, the merry men loot the bodies and become nobles, proving that everyone can become members of the privileged class if they're clever and hard-working enough.
Posing as Loxley, Robin returns the crown to the royal family and Barack Obama--I mean Prince John--is crowned king. John states that "Loxley" deserves to be rewarded for returning the crown, but then suddenly remembers that Loxley's father hasn't paid his taxes, and keeps the reward as an initial payment to help fill the coffers of Big Government. Just like a Democrat.
From London, Robin goes to Nottingham to return the sword. Upon arriving, he meets Maid Marion, Loxley's widow, who has been forced to do much of the work of running the manor herself due to downsizing resulting from harsh taxes. Fortunately she, like most wealthy land-owners, is up to the task of harsh manual labor. Robin also meets Loxley's father, Sir Walter, who has a proposition for him. With Robert dead, Loxley's lands will go to the Crown when Sir Walter dies, leaving Marion a pauper. If Robin will pose as Marion's husband, she'll be able to avoid this inheritance tax. Sir Walter also intimates that he knows a secret about Robin's background.
Robin agrees to become Loxley, and as he's getting "re-acquainted" with his lands, he discovers that all the seed grain in the village is about to be sent to York as property of the church, meaning no crops and more starvation. Upon learning from this, Robin and his men engage in the only instance of robbery (other than the previous corpse-looting) in the whole movie: stealing the grain. Do they, as the legends say, give it to the poor? Of course not, in part because the poor are merely background scenery in this film--the focus is the down-trodden, overtaxed corporations--I mean nobles. Besides, the poor would just spend it on crack. Instead, they use the seed to sow Loxley's fields, because that's how trickle-down economics works.
While all this is going on, Sir John's Treasury Secretary Godfrey (who happens to be half-English and half-French, and therefore probably isn't even a native-born Englishman) is fomenting revolution by brutally enforcing John's tax law. Of course, since he's not even really a real American--I mean, Englishman, he's got a secret agenda: by turning the nobles against the King, he'll make it easier for his French allies to invade England.
The nobles, unaware of the French plot, rightly protest the egregious taxation and, with heavy hearts but realizing that the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots, plan to rise up against the King. It is important to note here that the corporations--I mean nobles--are not part of the government and only have the best interest of the common people at heart. If the wealthy--I mean nobles weren't taxed so heavily, everyone would be better off (the magical unicorn hoof of the free market again).
Meanwhile, Robin Hood discovers that his father was Joe the Plumber (only his name wasn't Joe and he was actually a stonemason), who invented the Magna Carta. When Robin suggests constitutional monarchy and liberty to King John, John rightly assumes that Robin is suggesting a welfare state where all men live in castles. Robin quickly points out that every Englishman's home is his castle, and that those who have not pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps to become wealthy (hereditary) land-owners will be perfectly happy with whatever hovel they end up in, as long as they don't have to pay taxes.
John agrees and we get to see the invasion of Normandy--I mean Dover. After the British win the day and the French, as usual, run away, King John (being a traitorous public servant) goes back on his word, refuses to sign the Magna Carta and (FUCKING FINALLY) declares Robin an outlaw. Robin joins the Michigan Militia and in the final scene we get something that actually resembles a Robin Hood movie.
I'll give them the Boston Tea Party, since the typical public education version (if not reality) actually fits the teabagger agenda. But Robin Hood? Seriously, we can't let them have that one.
The movie begins with King Richard the Lion-Hearted leading his men (including his trusted adviser Robert Loxley of Nottingham and the archer Robin Longstride) back from the Crusades, sacking castles in France along the way. Richard has his flaws, but is basically a good guy: the kind of king you'd want to have a beer with. When Longstride questions the rightness of Richard's adventurism in the Middle East, he and his men are rightly detained as enemy combatants. They are willing to accept their punishment until King Richard is killed in battle, at which point they escape (presumably due to some sort of Promise Keeper-style vow).
As Robin and his men try to beat all the other soldiers to the coast so they can get a cheap ride home before boat prices explode (as dictated by the invisible hand of the free market), they discover that Loxley and his men, who were returning the crown, have been ambushed. The dying Loxley asks Robin to return his sword to his father, who he didn't part on good terms with. Then, in the creepiest Horatio Alger story ever, the merry men loot the bodies and become nobles, proving that everyone can become members of the privileged class if they're clever and hard-working enough.
Posing as Loxley, Robin returns the crown to the royal family and Barack Obama--I mean Prince John--is crowned king. John states that "Loxley" deserves to be rewarded for returning the crown, but then suddenly remembers that Loxley's father hasn't paid his taxes, and keeps the reward as an initial payment to help fill the coffers of Big Government. Just like a Democrat.
From London, Robin goes to Nottingham to return the sword. Upon arriving, he meets Maid Marion, Loxley's widow, who has been forced to do much of the work of running the manor herself due to downsizing resulting from harsh taxes. Fortunately she, like most wealthy land-owners, is up to the task of harsh manual labor. Robin also meets Loxley's father, Sir Walter, who has a proposition for him. With Robert dead, Loxley's lands will go to the Crown when Sir Walter dies, leaving Marion a pauper. If Robin will pose as Marion's husband, she'll be able to avoid this inheritance tax. Sir Walter also intimates that he knows a secret about Robin's background.
Robin agrees to become Loxley, and as he's getting "re-acquainted" with his lands, he discovers that all the seed grain in the village is about to be sent to York as property of the church, meaning no crops and more starvation. Upon learning from this, Robin and his men engage in the only instance of robbery (other than the previous corpse-looting) in the whole movie: stealing the grain. Do they, as the legends say, give it to the poor? Of course not, in part because the poor are merely background scenery in this film--the focus is the down-trodden, overtaxed corporations--I mean nobles. Besides, the poor would just spend it on crack. Instead, they use the seed to sow Loxley's fields, because that's how trickle-down economics works.
While all this is going on, Sir John's Treasury Secretary Godfrey (who happens to be half-English and half-French, and therefore probably isn't even a native-born Englishman) is fomenting revolution by brutally enforcing John's tax law. Of course, since he's not even really a real American--I mean, Englishman, he's got a secret agenda: by turning the nobles against the King, he'll make it easier for his French allies to invade England.
The nobles, unaware of the French plot, rightly protest the egregious taxation and, with heavy hearts but realizing that the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots, plan to rise up against the King. It is important to note here that the corporations--I mean nobles--are not part of the government and only have the best interest of the common people at heart. If the wealthy--I mean nobles weren't taxed so heavily, everyone would be better off (the magical unicorn hoof of the free market again).
Meanwhile, Robin Hood discovers that his father was Joe the Plumber (only his name wasn't Joe and he was actually a stonemason), who invented the Magna Carta. When Robin suggests constitutional monarchy and liberty to King John, John rightly assumes that Robin is suggesting a welfare state where all men live in castles. Robin quickly points out that every Englishman's home is his castle, and that those who have not pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps to become wealthy (hereditary) land-owners will be perfectly happy with whatever hovel they end up in, as long as they don't have to pay taxes.
John agrees and we get to see the invasion of Normandy--I mean Dover. After the British win the day and the French, as usual, run away, King John (being a traitorous public servant) goes back on his word, refuses to sign the Magna Carta and (FUCKING FINALLY) declares Robin an outlaw. Robin joins the Michigan Militia and in the final scene we get something that actually resembles a Robin Hood movie.
I'll give them the Boston Tea Party, since the typical public education version (if not reality) actually fits the teabagger agenda. But Robin Hood? Seriously, we can't let them have that one.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Giant Douche Vs. Turd Sandwich: Kentucky's May Primaries
This article appears in the current (May 2010) issue of Bazooka Magazine. I usually wait until the next issue is out to re-post articles, but am making an exception since the primaries will be over by then. I freely admit that there are several "homages" here to the Barefoot and Progressive blog. Check it out for great coverage of Kentucky politics.
On May 18th, a tiny percentage of our state's citizens will actually remember that there's a primary election. A few of them will even vote. Since I like to think that Goat Head Gumbo readers are politically active (we also like to think that Goat Head Gumbo readers are super rich and enjoy giving me money, but so far you have been a huge disappointment), it seemed like a good idea to give you a brief rundown on the upcoming ballot. Since they don't sell booze on election day, you'll probably have some extra time on your hands anyway.
The big race this month is for the position of U.S. Senator. The winner of the November election will fill Jim "Grampa Simpson" Bunning's seat. So no matter who wins, there's an excellent chance that our state will be made fun of on The Daily Show a lot less. While there are several candidates in both the Republican and Democratic primaries, all but four end up in the "other" category on most polls, so we're going to focus on the four guys who actually seem to have some chance of winning.
In the red corner, our first candidate is Rand "Ron Paul's Son" Paul. He enjoys hanging out with overweight old guys in pseudo-miliatary uniforms who want to overthrow the government, hiring campaign staffers who think lynching jokes are HI-larious, and being named after noted libertarian sociopath Ayn Rand. Paul has been endorsed by both Jim Bunning and Sarah Palin, so he should have the wingnut vote in the bag.
Paul's most serious opponent in the Republican primary is Secretary of State Trey Grayson. With the exception of illegally removing 8,000 Kentuckians from the voter registry during his first term, Grayson's only real selling point is that he's an incredibly boring, vanilla Republican. So if you're registered as a member of the GOP, it's ultimately a question of whether you think Paul's crazy will attract more voters than it repels when November rolls around. If you're not sure that nutty will win the day, you might want to go with Grayson and his total lack of personality.
On the Democratic side of things, the two main contenders are Lieutenant Governor Daniel Mongiardo and Attorney General Jack Conway. Mongiardo's campaign ads tend to focus on what a manly man he is and how much he enjoys killing things, and this, combined with his right-leaning stances on things like abortion and mountaintop removal might play well with moderate, non-teabagging Republicans and Independents if the November race comes down to Paul vs. Mongiardo. In addition to being as far to the right as most Republicans, Dan Mongiardo's greatest hits include calling his boss (Governor Steve Beshear) the worst governor in Kentucky history, misusing state housing funds, and spending over $30,000 in taxpayer money for trips and meals, including $50 steaks and lots of the creme brulee that his child bride just can't get enough of.
The Mongiardo campaign has leveled several devastating criticisms against the other Democratic front-runner, Jack Conway. For starters, he's one of those big-city "elite" fancy boys who don't own no truck or do no huntin'. If you actually look up the word "elite" in a dictionary, you might get confused and think being one is a good thing, but if you're opening a book you're obviously some kinda Latte-drinkin' Commie. Shoring up the "elite" argument is the fact that Conway graduated from Duke, which means he practically made that jump shot for Laettner back in '92. The other big criticism of Conway is that he had the gall to use a (very) mildly offensive phrase at the Fancy Farm Picnic, which no doubt corrupted young children and gave several womenfolk the vapors. In the "for" category, Conway seems to actually embrace the basic platform of the Democratic party. He also refused to waste Kentucky taxpayer money on the stupid Health Care Reform lawsuit and did a great job of defending his decision on Fox News. Bottom line: If you're a partisan Democrat who wants a party member to win regardless of their platform, Mongiardo might stand a slightly better chance against Rand Paul (if it's Mongiardo vs. Grayson, voter turnout will probably be very low since they're practically the same guy). If, on the other hand, you want to elect a Democrat who might actually act like a Democrat, Jack Conway is probably the way to go.
I was going to include a bit about the local Paducah/McCracken County races, but since I live out in the hinterlands of Ballard County, I haven't really been paying attention. From the signs, it looks like you'll be voting for Jailer and Constable. I tried to do some online research, but every apparent hit sends me to the county and city web sites, which don't say dick about the elections. This leads me to believe that either (a)even those in local government don't give a rat's ass who gets these jobs; or (b) the current administration are trying to keep the race as quiet as possible, which gives the upper hand to the incumbents. I'd recommend voting against the incumbents. It's usually a good idea to do so, and if the current administration indeed supports the current office holders, voting in somebody new reduces the chances of the jail being replaced with a big ass tent.
On May 18th, a tiny percentage of our state's citizens will actually remember that there's a primary election. A few of them will even vote. Since I like to think that Goat Head Gumbo readers are politically active (we also like to think that Goat Head Gumbo readers are super rich and enjoy giving me money, but so far you have been a huge disappointment), it seemed like a good idea to give you a brief rundown on the upcoming ballot. Since they don't sell booze on election day, you'll probably have some extra time on your hands anyway.
The big race this month is for the position of U.S. Senator. The winner of the November election will fill Jim "Grampa Simpson" Bunning's seat. So no matter who wins, there's an excellent chance that our state will be made fun of on The Daily Show a lot less. While there are several candidates in both the Republican and Democratic primaries, all but four end up in the "other" category on most polls, so we're going to focus on the four guys who actually seem to have some chance of winning.
In the red corner, our first candidate is Rand "Ron Paul's Son" Paul. He enjoys hanging out with overweight old guys in pseudo-miliatary uniforms who want to overthrow the government, hiring campaign staffers who think lynching jokes are HI-larious, and being named after noted libertarian sociopath Ayn Rand. Paul has been endorsed by both Jim Bunning and Sarah Palin, so he should have the wingnut vote in the bag.
Paul's most serious opponent in the Republican primary is Secretary of State Trey Grayson. With the exception of illegally removing 8,000 Kentuckians from the voter registry during his first term, Grayson's only real selling point is that he's an incredibly boring, vanilla Republican. So if you're registered as a member of the GOP, it's ultimately a question of whether you think Paul's crazy will attract more voters than it repels when November rolls around. If you're not sure that nutty will win the day, you might want to go with Grayson and his total lack of personality.
On the Democratic side of things, the two main contenders are Lieutenant Governor Daniel Mongiardo and Attorney General Jack Conway. Mongiardo's campaign ads tend to focus on what a manly man he is and how much he enjoys killing things, and this, combined with his right-leaning stances on things like abortion and mountaintop removal might play well with moderate, non-teabagging Republicans and Independents if the November race comes down to Paul vs. Mongiardo. In addition to being as far to the right as most Republicans, Dan Mongiardo's greatest hits include calling his boss (Governor Steve Beshear) the worst governor in Kentucky history, misusing state housing funds, and spending over $30,000 in taxpayer money for trips and meals, including $50 steaks and lots of the creme brulee that his child bride just can't get enough of.
The Mongiardo campaign has leveled several devastating criticisms against the other Democratic front-runner, Jack Conway. For starters, he's one of those big-city "elite" fancy boys who don't own no truck or do no huntin'. If you actually look up the word "elite" in a dictionary, you might get confused and think being one is a good thing, but if you're opening a book you're obviously some kinda Latte-drinkin' Commie. Shoring up the "elite" argument is the fact that Conway graduated from Duke, which means he practically made that jump shot for Laettner back in '92. The other big criticism of Conway is that he had the gall to use a (very) mildly offensive phrase at the Fancy Farm Picnic, which no doubt corrupted young children and gave several womenfolk the vapors. In the "for" category, Conway seems to actually embrace the basic platform of the Democratic party. He also refused to waste Kentucky taxpayer money on the stupid Health Care Reform lawsuit and did a great job of defending his decision on Fox News. Bottom line: If you're a partisan Democrat who wants a party member to win regardless of their platform, Mongiardo might stand a slightly better chance against Rand Paul (if it's Mongiardo vs. Grayson, voter turnout will probably be very low since they're practically the same guy). If, on the other hand, you want to elect a Democrat who might actually act like a Democrat, Jack Conway is probably the way to go.
I was going to include a bit about the local Paducah/McCracken County races, but since I live out in the hinterlands of Ballard County, I haven't really been paying attention. From the signs, it looks like you'll be voting for Jailer and Constable. I tried to do some online research, but every apparent hit sends me to the county and city web sites, which don't say dick about the elections. This leads me to believe that either (a)even those in local government don't give a rat's ass who gets these jobs; or (b) the current administration are trying to keep the race as quiet as possible, which gives the upper hand to the incumbents. I'd recommend voting against the incumbents. It's usually a good idea to do so, and if the current administration indeed supports the current office holders, voting in somebody new reduces the chances of the jail being replaced with a big ass tent.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Book Review: The Wrecking Crew
For those of you interweb types who still read regular books, I recommend Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew, which does a good job of explaining why conservatives win when government fails. You can read my review at epinions.com
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tea Parties: An Accurate Name?
Here in America, we like to imagine that the founders of our nation were heroic idealists unaffected by greed or self-interest. We praise their revolutionary idea that all men are created equal while ignoring the fact that they bought and sold other humans; we conveniently ignore the fact that they made themselves richer through war bond scams; and we boil the Boston Tea Party down to a simple protest against taxation without representation. Since our education system is more interested in producing good little citizens than critical thinkers, the average American rarely learns (or even learns how to learn about) the real story and motivations behind important historical events. So it's not really surprising that tax protesters have chosen to identify themselves with John Hancock, Sam Adams, and the rest of the colonists who pulled off the Boston tea party.
The truth, as always, is a little more complicated than a simple protest against taxation without representation and, like our recent financial crisis, is tied up in the fortunes of a company that was "too big to fail," in this case the British East India Company. Before 1773, the company was not permitted to export tea to the colonies. Instead, it sold the tea to other companies, who exported it to America, where it was a subject to a 3 pence per pound duty according to the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767. The high price of legally-imported tea led to the rise of a class of gentlemen smugglers, including shipping magnate John Hancock, who worked closely with Tea Party organizer Sam Adams (The joke around Boston at the time was "Sam Adams writes the letters [to newspapers] and John Hancock pays the postage").
While it is true that Parliament refused to remove the duties imposed by the Townshend Act primarily because doing so could be construed as ceding its right to tax the colonists, these duties had been around for six years before the Boston Tea Party. The question, then, is "what changed?" The answer, of course, is money: The Tea Act of 1773 permitted the East India Company for the first time to export its product directly to the colonies. Without the middlemen, this allowed the company to sell tea in the colonies much more cheaply, which worked out well for everyone. Except, of course, smugglers like Hancock.
In short, the original Boston Tea Party was the work of men who engaged in dubious business practices convincing their fellow Americans to act against their own financial self-interest in order to protect the profits of the wealthy. You know, on second thought, "Tea Party" seems like a perfect name for the Fox News zombies protesting taxes today, even without the many "balls in the mouth" jokes it provides Jon Stewart.
The truth, as always, is a little more complicated than a simple protest against taxation without representation and, like our recent financial crisis, is tied up in the fortunes of a company that was "too big to fail," in this case the British East India Company. Before 1773, the company was not permitted to export tea to the colonies. Instead, it sold the tea to other companies, who exported it to America, where it was a subject to a 3 pence per pound duty according to the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767. The high price of legally-imported tea led to the rise of a class of gentlemen smugglers, including shipping magnate John Hancock, who worked closely with Tea Party organizer Sam Adams (The joke around Boston at the time was "Sam Adams writes the letters [to newspapers] and John Hancock pays the postage").
While it is true that Parliament refused to remove the duties imposed by the Townshend Act primarily because doing so could be construed as ceding its right to tax the colonists, these duties had been around for six years before the Boston Tea Party. The question, then, is "what changed?" The answer, of course, is money: The Tea Act of 1773 permitted the East India Company for the first time to export its product directly to the colonies. Without the middlemen, this allowed the company to sell tea in the colonies much more cheaply, which worked out well for everyone. Except, of course, smugglers like Hancock.
In short, the original Boston Tea Party was the work of men who engaged in dubious business practices convincing their fellow Americans to act against their own financial self-interest in order to protect the profits of the wealthy. You know, on second thought, "Tea Party" seems like a perfect name for the Fox News zombies protesting taxes today, even without the many "balls in the mouth" jokes it provides Jon Stewart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
