We Don't Want Your Tea or Your Forced Abortions

War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Well, it wasn’t good for tea anyway or the people who wanted to drink it after the British won the French and Indian war. King George III, decided that the American colonies, who had gained a measurable amount of independence during the war, would be taxed to offset the costly war he won. A series of taxes were levied against the colonies beginning in 1765.

These Acts were imposed on the colonies and stated that payment of said taxes is agreement to be ruled by Britain. The colonies refused and the British pushed harder and passed more tax acts. The colonists continued to refuse based on their recently claimed “no taxation without representation.”

So, to take this slowly, the American colonists refused to pay taxes imposed by a body of government they did not elect. Britain did not want to lose control of the colonies and still had the issue of troops in America that were the British’s responsibility to pay for, so emerged the Townshend Acts of 1767.

The Townshend Act imposed a tax on glass. paint, oil, lead, paper, and tea to raise money for administration positions in the colonies. It also tightened and imposed new laws about trade and customs. If the Stamp Act upset the colonies, then this act simply electrified them. It may not have been the simple act of the tax, but the relentless pursuit of control the king was trying to enforce over the colonies.

Not only will you pay, your very act of payment guarantees your submission. This really wasn’t sitting well with the colonists and I have to assume at this point King George III was not the brightest of men given his repeated issue and rescind technique.. After he rescinded all the taxes except the tax on tea due to the colonists boycotting of British goods, a fairly clever plan emerged.

The British Parliament gave the tea industry over to the East Indian Company, which reduced the cost of tea greatly and they reduced the duties attached to tea import hoping that the colonies love for tea would win out over there reluctance to be governed by the monarch.  No such luck. The colonists refused to pay. In fact they refused tea to even enter into their harbors. In 1773 three ships carrying tea arrived in the Boston harbor and it was agreed that the ships would be turned away and no duties would be paid. The Collector of Customs in turn, refused to release the ships without payment. So some 200 men stormed the ships and dumped the cargo into the harbor. 

The colonists for the most part were thrilled, Parliament, not so much. In a now predictable fashion the Intolerable Acts were passed and with it begins the American independence.

I was originally trying to draw a connection between the Tea Party Patriots and the Boston Tea Party revolution without much success. 

The colonists did not feel comfortable abiding by a distant government when they were not involved in electing officials or participating in laws being passed. It started a revolution, and I love the idea, but it scares me. All I hear from the current tea party is fear and intolerance. Fear of government health care, though I am sure a large percentage utilizes medicare, fear of a socialized government, but I imagine that a percentage if "patriots" collect or will collect soon, their social security, that I pay taxes on. Don't get me wrong here, I like paying social security tax, I really do. It might be one of the few I'm okay with because it supports my elders and I think that's a terrific thing to do. Income tax is a whole other story, maybe next post.


So who makes up the Tea Party Patriots today?  A study done at the University of Washington found that 19 percent of Tea Party content involved “attacks on illegal immigrants, criticism of the gay community, racially derogatory commentary, or personal criticism of President Barack Obama.” 24 percent of the content talked of socialism or communism plots to take over America and other conspiracy theories. There are differing numbers when it comes to demographics, but it is consistently reported that there are more males than females, more whites than blacks, and more money than not.

I find the tea party who dumped the tea to be far more inspiring than our supposed current revolutionary movement.  The members of the Tea Party can and do vote. They are represented and taxed. They have more money than the general population. They claim to uphold the “personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law,” except when it come to gay marriage and abortion. Apparently that's why they have "within...the law." so we wouldn't expect ALL of our personal liberties. They are fairly vague in their mission statement throwing around the words “liberty” and “constitution” a great deal and require you to sign up to read further. They don’t affiliate with any political party, are a grassroots organization that claim as their core values, fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. They oppose government intervention into the operations of private business, like OTC derivatives, that leads to recession 2008 and bailout after bailout and TARP and a fight for control of the House and a unbelievable distain for our President Obama. I don't get it folks. I do not get it.


Rumors fly about forced abortions (not possible), in school prayer (go to private school or pray at home) and loss of equal rights (well woman and gays still don't have theirs)  and I for one do not want these tea partiers speaking for me.

This is not the type of revolution I was expecting. 

Who's Bailout?

Yes, we are talking about the bailout again. This time I would like to examine the lingering effects of negative attention. Today Chris Good wrote about TARP, my new favorite topic. In Bailout Politics, Then and Now, Chris Good, a staff editor at TheAtlantic.com, noted some of the hardships our current political parties might face due to their support of TARP in 2008. TARP is more commonly known as the Wall Street Bailout, or the Big Bank Bailout but either way it was a program that designated $700 billion of taxpayer dollars to banks and Wall Street in an effort to stabilize the economy, or get them out of the mess they created. However you want to look at it, it does appear to have been a success, with the taxpayers making $25.5 billion according to the article.

What still remains unclear, now that TARP has ended, is why those who voted for it will now be punished. Good notes that according to Pew, those who voted for the bailout will be "less likely to receive support in the coming midterms" and that 47% of respondents to Pew reported that the bailout was passed under Obama's administration! It was not. That was Bush, and that should be a good thing. That should be an issue that the Republicrats could hold up on either side of the aisle and say "See! It worked and it was our idea!" Instead we seem to hear very little. How long has it been since we heard about what has been done and done well?

I guess it is safer to not bring up the issue, as opinions have been formed and the most attention this bailout gets is the amount of zero's coming off it's 7.

The Atlantic is a blog for those leaning to the Left and though intended for that audience, I think this could speak to the Right as well. Good notes that TARP is still as toxic as it ever was in some political circles and the original supporters are shy to speak of it as the Tea Partiers and the far right continue to oppose it. Maybe it is time to take a step back, and reassess what it is we truly want for our country.

   There is no more destructive force in human affairs -- not greed, not hatred -- than the desire to have been right. Non-attachment to possessions is of trivial value in comparison with non-attachment to opinions.
       -Mark Kleiman

Our Green Defenses

Ten years ago today the U.S. destroyer Cole was refueling in the harbor of Aden, Yemen when a small boat filled with explosives sidled up along side it and detonated. This suicide mission killed 17 U.S. Navy sailors and injured another 39. In this article Remember the Cole author Jim Arkedis, the director of the National Security Project at the Progressive Policy Institute, points out how our dependency on fossil fuels adds to our struggles in the war with Al Qaeda in ways many of us may not have considered. 

The U.S. military in Afghanistan receives its fossil fuels by truck and according to Arkedis the "Taliban has executed seven attacks against fuel supplies traveling to NATO troops in Afghanistan, torching more than 75 fuel trucks in the process." The results of these attacks? Increased cost to buying fuel, $13 -$400  a gallon, according to Secretary Ray Mabus, along with increased military to protect the fuel. All of these attacks have occurred within the last eleven days and Arkedis suggests that the attack on the Cole, so quickly forgotten, along with the continued attacks on fuel transports, is a clear cry out to allocate funds to green energy and that this should start with the military. 

Quoting Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway: "Energy choices can save lives on the battlefield." Personally I cannot agree with them more, however this editorial does leave a gapping hole. The very fact that our war in Afghanistan very likely is being fought over oil. Never mind the refined gold that we are trying to get to our troops, but the actual fields of oil we are presently camping on. At this point it is fairly undeniable the role oil is playing in our current wars, so I find this article strangely wanting. Yes, I agree it is tragic that the gas we are trying to get to our troops, for basic necessities, is a prime target for Al Qaeda. Could this be a classic example of criminalizing the symptoms while condemning the cure?

Arkedis continues with an  idea I enjoy. Renewable energy. Then avoids the very reasons our troops are being attacked for fuel. He relates some of the difficulties and successes behind the military greens. The Marines have reportedly begun using "solar panels, energy-efficient lights and tent shields for insulation." Remember the Cole goes on to report on  green-power projects and mobile nuclear reactors and Secretary Mabus's plans for an "energy-independent" military. By 2020 Mabus wants half of the Navy to use alternative energy reports Arkedis.  It is pointed out in this editorial that most of our current technological innovations have come from funds allocated to the Pentagon and tested within our military. From radar to the internet we have funded our military and have gloried in the results.

I would like to see military funding go toward advancements in the realm of sustainable energy, however, I can't help but wonder, what wars will there be to fight if we are free of our love affair with fossil fuels? 

Which Bailout?

I don’t know how many of us can explain what TARP is, or what is was for, but I bet we are all familiar with the 2008 Bank Bailout that was allocated 700 billion dollars.

 Well it turns out that was called TARP. Treasury Asset Relief Program. It was designed by the Treasury Department and Congress in an effort to prevent the collapse of the American economy by giving money to the banks and Wall Street. There was a dire concern that these institutions would fail without government support and if they went down then Americans would shoulder the consequences.  It was initiated as small and large banks across the country started to stumble with the weight of the mortgage crisis and with an air of genuine fear, the Treasury Department went to work and devised a program that would last two years and would hopefully save the American Public from financial ruin.  It took months of 20 hour days and seven day weeks. This proposal was forecast to fail, to cause incredible debt and lay the ground work for continued support to the financial institutions from our government. It lent money to more than 700 banks but wasn’t devised to prevent the recession, this was pushed to prevent a full blown depression. 

The two year TARP expired on Monday and it looks as if it just may have worked. According to National Public Radio it may have cost only 50 billion and after the Government collects returns on the investments made we as a country just might make some dough. Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire stated "This is one of the few programs in the history of this country where the taxpayers made an investment, it did what it was supposed to do — which was stabilize the financial industry — and they got their money back with interest," but the end of TARP did not receive very much new attention, a few national newspapers printed the story and then buried it inside. 

I wanted to share this story as it got me thinking about how a program that received so much negative attention at its inception could hardly garner a mention when it appears that it turned out to be a success.

Another great article about TARP and it's relationship with the media can be found here.