Report from the dailykos:
Today's "Party" in Boston is Weak Tea
by Dana Houle
Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:50:05 PM PDT
On December 16th, 1773, three ships were docked in Boston harbor filled with cargoes of tea from the royally chartered East India Company. The previous year, in a scheme to help fund colonial rule in India through the East India Company, the crown had decided to dump tea cheaply on the American colonies, but with a tax added to raise revenue.
American colonists drank prodigious amounts of tea, but it was almost all contraband tea. Dumping cheap tea on the American market would hurt the business of the contraband smugglers, many of whom had high status in the colonies. It also was a tax on colonial tea-drinkers, who had no representation in Parliament. Thus, it was taxation without representation.
A crowd of about 7,000 people assembled near the harbor. That night, after a town meeting in Boston's South Meeting House, around a hundred men, led by Sam Adams, boarded the vessels and dumped all 342 chests of tea in to the harbor.
A quick search of the intertoobz doesn't give the population of Boston at the time. But 17 years later, the first official US census found Boston's population at a little over 18,000; given the population growth trends of the time, it's probably safe to say that Boston's population in 1773 was around 15,000.
So, for the Boston Tea Party, the crowd was a little under half the size of the entire population of Boston.
Today, some people angry that they have both taxes and representation, got together in Boston. Fox News, which has been trumpeting these gatherings for days if not weeks, reported that the crowd was about 500 people. The current population of the city of Boston is over 600,000 people, and the population of the Boston metro area is close to 5 million.
So, fun with numbers: Crowd at Boston Tea Party=7,000, equal to 46% of population of Boston
Crowd at Boston Teabaggers's Party= 500, equal to 0.08% of population of Boston.
BTW, the original Boston Tea Party didn't have free advertising from Fox News
17 comments:
There was a tea party in Quincy about ten days ago. The turnout was around 700. But it was mostly for some republicans to give speeches. I wonder if all the tea partyers will realize they've been duped into attending what in reality, bait and switch meetings. Much like some investment schemes where a free dinner is offered if you stay and listen to a speech.
I have a new slogan for you: Remember 9/11!
I am not referring to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center but to the ratio of sovereign debt contributed by Republican versus Democrat administrations. Of the total $11 trillion in public debt, $9 trillion was amassed under Republicans, the rest under Democrats.
Hence, a new meaning for 9/11.
(O)CT(O)PUS said.."I have a new slogan for you: Remember 9/11!"
Oh how FREAKEN clever.
And at this rate, in a few years it will be "Remember 10/18" (with the 10 being the $10 trillion in national debt which accumulated under Democrats, most of which was amassed by President Obama.
It's time for him to keep his promises and veto this stuff.
The next step is the start a movement to repeal the 16 th amendment. That amendment repealed Article 1 section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution, which bars the current income tax system. Income taxes are allowed under that now repealed clause of the Constitution:
"There appears to be no dispute about the plain requirements of the Constitution that direct taxes must be apportioned and that indirect taxes must be uniform."
By eliminating the apportionment and uniformity requirements, the Federal Government was give the unlimited and unrestrained ability to tax people. The limits on the power to tax that were so wisely placed in the Constitution, were designed to constrain abusive taxing powers.
A repeal of the 16 th amendment will not eliminate the power to levy Federal income taxes, but mere impose the apportionment and uniformity requirement. Satisfying those requirements are politically unpalatable . That would necessarily result in a excise tax as a substitute, probably a consumption tax such as a national sale tax. Without an income tax, a national sales tax would be far better. People could largely control their taxes by deciding how they spend their money. It would also fuel capital formation at a rate not seen in 125 years.
I say we start here and now the movement to repeal the 16 th amendment.
dmarks,
What is the Republican plan for fixing the economy, growing jobs, and addressing the healthcare problem?
Beside wearing teabags?
Shaw: I must concede your point on health care. I Googled for republican health care reform. And guess what I found? http://healthcare.gop.com, which is a current page of the national Republican Party. The quote on the page: "Strengthening health care is among the President's top priorities. The Republican party has worked to make health care affordable, accessible, and flexible." The illustration of the President? George W. Bush! The date on the page? Thu. Apr. 16, 2009. And there is a lot more material on the page on Bush's plan for health care. From their own web page, it looks like the RNC is not even bothering on the health care issue post- Jan 20.
That's pretty bad. Embarassing. Much more so if I were a member of the GOP. Absent any plan, I can hope that the Republicans in Congress will help blunt the worst excesses of the President's (Obama's not Bush's) health care plan, and cancel out those who want a "single payer" system or whatever the buzzword is for complete monopoly on health care.
I found several things I liked in Obama's health care plan when I read it late last Summer. All I can hope for at this point is that it is made better, especially from the input of those who do not want too much government control over the medical system.
If the Republicans would only work with the Democrats to deliver a workable, viable healthcare plan, we'd be able to do it.
Unfortunately, our political culture is one of "beat the crap" out of the opposition in any way you can, and never compromise.
No matter what Mr. Obama proposes or says, Rush Limbaugh will order his minions to oppose him. I saw a clip of him on teevee actually speaking with sympathy for the three pirates that were killed by our Navy Seals. He identified them as "black teenage Muslims," and reported that Mr. Obama had theses teenagers shot. And in his usual underhandedly bigoted way brought race into the issue.
"RUSH: You know what we have learned about the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers that were wiped out at the order of Barack Obama, you know what we learned about them? They were teenagers. The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old. Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas. Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
They were kids. The story is out, I don't know if it's true or not, but apparently the hijackers, these kids, the merchant marine organizers, Muslim kids, were upset, they wanted to just give the captain back and head home because they were running out of food, they were running out of fuel, they were surrounded by all these US Navy ships, big ships, and they just wanted out of there. That's the story, but then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama."
So now Limbaugh is trying to solicit sympathy for the pirates! He, of course, forgets that teenagers were imprisoned in Guantanamo--but facts never intrude on Limbaugh's asininity.
He really is an ugly, evil hog of a man.
And we'll never get anywhere so long as his Dittoheads continue to listen to his merda.
"If the Republicans would only work with the Democrats to deliver a workable, viable healthcare plan, we'd be able to do it."
Come to think of it, the Dems are in control of all of the branches of the Federal government necessary to create laws and sign them into existence. The Dems are able to "do it" without the GOP. So you can't blame them for obstruction. i.e. the Dems have no one to blame but themselves for failing to pass their vision of health care.
(just wondering: is "teevee" a regional term for TV? I only see it here)
As for Limbaugh, I am listening right now, and he is making some good points about Congressional power. However, for two days (at least) he went on about the pirates. He seems to have half a dozen big lame points about Obama and the pirates. I think he almost said something insightful at one point about it, but I forgot what it was and I don't think he quite made it. I wonder if any of the other conservatives like Gordon think that Limbaugh is full of valid points and insightful commentary and actually funny jokes about the Somali pirate situation.
The best thing I've heard is when Jay Leno praised our Navy sharpshooters. Not only did they take out three pirates without harming our captain, they left the three parrots on the pirates' shoulders unharmed as well.
You know Rush is just about half right. The wrong half to be sure but still there is perhaps a more complicated answer to the question of just who these 'pirates' are and what there motivation might be.
Failed states fail in oh so many ways. And like 17th & 18th century pirates survival in extreme conditions of poverty, lack of opportunity and political instability is often what drives people to go 'a-pirating.
The collapse of the Somalian state in 1990 has led to a host of problems. Not least of which is good old fashioned criminal activity and western imperialism.
http://rosemarieberger.com/2009/04/15/pirates-or-the-horn-of-africas-greenpeace/
And from The Independent, UK:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html
"you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates"
Yes, especially by those who are claiming that the hostage-takers are environmentalist heroes.
Ah yes. dmarks quickly on task to clear up any confusion. Every post is a nail, right? And the only tool worth using a hammer. Black. And. White.
Consider for one moment dmarks that possibly, just possibly there might be another side (or two or more) to the narrative beyond the one we've been peddled. That being the US is endlessly benevolent and far too often the 'victim' of those who attack us for no good reason at all. No wait. They hate us because of our 'freedoms'. I almost forgot.
These particular hostage takers likely aren't 'environmentalist heroes' but given how worked up Americans (Tea Partyists, Secessionists) can get over the results of a freely-contested election when their candidate loses it shouldn't be all that surprising when actual powerless people who have no government to either act on their behalf or reign them in might act in desperation.
That there is ample evidence of illegal dumping of toxic and low-level radioactive waste off the coast of Somalia and given that other nations illegally harvest fish off all coasts of Africa one can't help wondering when we might hear more reporting abut those 'pirates'.
You might be interested to learn the British Royal Navy had it's beginnings in piracy and privateering. I found this an engaging tale.
http://www.amazon.com/Rule-Waves-British-Shaped-Modern/dp/0060534249
"And the only tool worth using a hammer. Black. And. White."
That's your tool, not mine.
"They hate us because of our 'freedoms'. I almost forgot."
That is why Osama hates us. I think the pirates are just out for a buck. Different groups. (Remember, the main reason Obama hated the US to start with was that US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia were free to practice whatever religion they wanted. If the US troops had adhered to his brand of Islam, he would have had no complaint. Obama did not attack us to right injustice. He attacked us because, yes, he hates our freedoms, and he wants to create more injustice)
"but given how worked up Americans (Tea Partyists, Secessionists) can get over the results of a freely-contested election when their candidate loses..."
In the parenthesis, add the "Gore really won" sore losers. They fit perfectly in there.
"Consider for one moment dmarks that possibly, just possibly there might be another side (or two or more) to the narrative beyond the one we've been peddled"
And that side is that the pirates who had the captain held hostage were really doing it to protest injustice? Please be more clear.
"Consider for one moment dmarks that possibly, just possibly there might be another side (or two or more) to the narrative beyond the one we've been peddled"
This is more often the case than not, especially when you cut through the lies of many false claims of US "imperialism".
"You might be interested to learn the British Royal Navy had it's beginnings in piracy and privateering. I found this an engaging tale."
Likewise it is interesting that both the US Navy and Russian Navy were founded at just about the same time.
Truth said: " I wonder if all the tea partyers will realize they've been duped into attending what in reality, bait and switch meetings."
By the way, now that this is over, is there any evidence that this has occured?
Heh. Heh.
You're slightly mistaken about Osama.
He doesn't hate our 'freedom' he, as many who attack us, hates our values.
This is recommended reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
An eye-opener.
And get back to us on the Western world continued use of Africa as waste dump and target of unfettered exploitation.
Cheers!
and looking back, I mispelled Osama once. Was hoping to avoid that! I certainly do not think that Obama hates the US! RiR and others might think that, but I do not.
"Hates our values" is acceptible. But strict theocrats do dislike religious freedom. Unless it is the freedom of just one religion.
Post a Comment