Answer

This is the reason why I asked the question the other day:

The estimated value of the tea in the Boston Tea Party is one million dollars in current funds

9. The financial loss was significant.
It’s estimated that the protestors tossed more than 92,000 pounds of tea into Boston Harbor. That’s enough to fill 18.5 million teabags. The present-day value of the destroyed tea has been estimated at around $1 million.

(source).

Actually, I'm going to quote some of the rest of that:

The Tea Act was a government bailout for a company on the brink of financial collapse, the flailing East India Company, which was deemed to be, in modern terms, “too big to fail.” The legislation gave the East India Company a virtual monopoly on the American tea trade, allowing it to bypass colonial merchants as middlemen and to even undercut the price of smuggled Dutch tea, which was widely consumed in the colonies. Thus, the Tea Act directly threatened the vested commercial interests of Boston’s wealthy merchants and smugglers, such as John Hancock, who fomented the revolt.

In other words, the actual tea partiers had a lot more in common with the occupy people than they do with people who wish to claim their mantle.

In fact, the real issue was more like a corporate subsidy than an actual tax, but the ultimate issue was local decision making ("no taxation without representation").

Many Americans  viewed the Boston Tea Party as an act of vandalism by radicals rather than a heroic patriotic undertaking. People held that private property was sacred and that the vandals should compensate the property owners, in this case, the British East India Company.

The Real Story of the Tea Party

Since we are into the connection between the British East India Company and the US Government.

More Now Disagree with Tea Party – Even in Tea Party Districts

OK, all you fans of the ironically named "Road to Serfdom" which really advocates the policies that led to the rise of dictatorships (ever notice all those Scandanavian Social Democratic Countries have the happiest citizens?): it has come out in a recent survey by the Pew Charitable Trust that the Tea Party has not only lost support nationwide, but also in the congressional districts represented by members of the House Tea Party Caucus. Not to mention, the image of the Republican Party has declined even more sharply in these GOP-controlled districts than across the country at large.

Hey, but what do you expect when they advocate policies that make no sense whatsoever?

The Occupy Movement Explained

Dumb people need pictures.



If some people read and understand what they have written here, they would understand they have far more in common with the occupy movement than the Tea Party.

Many officials of the Democratic Party have either personally appeared at Zuccotti Park to express support or sent statements of support for the protesters. Likewise, a number of union leaders joined a large protest rally held in New York City’s Foley Square on October 5 to show sympathy for the protesters.

Then there are the liberal political pundits and media outlets such as the New York Times that are also trying to build bridges between the Democratic Party and the Occupy movement in an effort to channel the protesters’ energy to the party’s electoral machine. For example, New York Times’ columnist Paul Krugman recently wrote: “And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today’s Republicans. . . . But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies. . . . Now, however, Mr. Obama’s party has a chance for a do-over.”

On the face of it there is nothing wrong with the Democratic Party officials or union leaders expressing support for the protesters. In light of their actual economic policies, however, that support can be characterized only as hypocritical. The Democrats are as much responsible for the economic problems that have triggered the protests as their Republican counterparts. The Obama administration has played an especially destructive role in pursuing a devastating neoliberal austerity agenda in terms of bailing out the Wall Street gamblers, extending the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, expanding the US wars of choice—and then cutting vital social spending to pay for the financial resources thus usurped.

Equally blameworthy are union bureaucrats who have enabled the White House and the Congress in the implementation of such brutal austerity programs. Hollow posturing aside, the AFL-CIO has opposed neither the neoliberal austerity policies at home nor the imperialist wars of aggression abroad. Well-paid union officials have not even seriously challenged factory closures; nor have they earnestly resisted brutal cuts in workers’ wages and benefits.

In projecting sympathy for the Occupy Movement, the Democrats are essentially trying to have their cake and eat it too! Their efforts to express support for the protests can be interpreted only as opportunistic and utilitarian: to identify themselves with the rapidly spreading popular protests against the status quo, to mask the Obama administration’s neoliberal devotion to Wall Street, and to harness the energy of the protesters in order to garner their vote in the 2012 elections.

If successful, this would not be the first time the Democratic Party would have derailed and dissipated social struggles for change; it has a long record of such policies of betrayal, going back all the way to the Populist Movement of the late 19th century. Barack Obama’s promise of change in the 2008 elections in pursuit of garnering the grassroots’ vote was only the latest of the Democrats’ strategy of playing the good cop in order to contain radical energy. Two years earlier they had managed to undermine a vigorous antiwar movement by voicing the protesters’ demands to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if they won the majority seats in the Congress. Having thus gained the control of both houses of the Congress in the mid-term election of 2006, they shamelessly backed away from their promise to antiwar voters.

One can only hope that the Occupy Movement is armed with the knowledge of the Democratic Party’s record of cooptation and betrayal of radical movements; and will therefore chart a political movement of the working people and other grassroots independent of both parties of big business.

TheTea Party

From our Friend Terry Connolly

Comparing the Modern Tea Party to the Original By Barbara Smith

Repost from my blog

Comparing the Modern Tea Party to the Original By Barbara Smith

From: http://www.hnn.us/articles/134859.html
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

American Independence: A blessing or a curse?

The person who asked this question was none other than Patrick Henry. To be quite honest, I am of the opinion that if the founders were to return to modern day American, they would be extremely disappointed in how their experiment turned out, which was the basis of my A Message from the Founders post. Additionally, the quote from Patrick Henry scholar, Henry Mayer, I mention in this post informed my comment:

The first man to speak identified himself as Patrick Henry. He explained that the group had been transported from 1774 to see what would become of their notion of Independence from Britain. Henry was extremely upset at misquotations made by "organisations such as The National Rifle Association and its ilk" regarding the ratification of the Constitution. "These remarks were in regard to the Militia and not private ownership of firearms".

I have been thinking about the following quote from Patrick Henry and how it might relate to his opinion of the current state of the Union.

After Patrick Henry died, his family found among his papers one sealed envelope with this written on it: " Enclosed are the resolutions of the Virginia Assembly, in 1765, concerning the Stamp Act. Let my executors open this paper." There was a copy of the resolutions in his handwriting inside. On the back of the paper containing the resolutions was written in Henry's handwriting:

"The within resolutions passed the House of Burgesses in May, 1765. They formed the first opposition to the Stamp Act, and the scheme of taxing America by the British Parliament. All the colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had remained silent. I had been for the first time elected a burgess a few days before, was young, inexperienced, unacquainted with the forms of the house, and the members that composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition, and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person was likely to step forth, I determined to venture, and alone, unadvised, and unassisted, on the blank leaf of an old law-book, wrote the within. Upon offering them to the house, violent debates ensued. Many threats were uttered, and much abuse cast on me, by the party for submission. After a long and warm contest, the resolutions passed by a very small majority, perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread throughout America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial party were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British taxation was universally established in the colonies. This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries, and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God had bestowed upon us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader, whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere, practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others."

What does he mean by virtue? Is he talking about characteristics that promote individual and collective well being? Does he mean it in the Aristotlean sense of being a mean between two extremes (For example, courage is the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, confidence the mean between self-deprecation and vanity, and generosity the mean between miserliness and extravagance)? Or is he talking about the Sainted personality which Americans desire, but human nature falls far short of being?

Also, there is a thin distinction between righteousness and self-righteousness. If he means righteousness as acting in accord with divine or moral law, was he truly righteous in engaging in his actions that caused the US to move into the mess it currently is in? Self-righteousness is a feeling of smug moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person. It can give one conviction that their actions are correct when they are very wrong.

But the most important piece of this is "If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable."

We see a lot of self-righteous persons of contrary character in modern US politics. US Politics is that of division, which is most certainly contrary. It seeks to promote various interests above others, often (as in the case of "gun rights") that interest runs contrary to public interest. The Right exploits single issues and manipulates religious faith to direct workers into voting for candidates who are a threat to their economic interests.

To Quote the Wisconsin AFL-CIO:

Union members have been fighting attacks on worker rights and protections on many fronts. These are not random, unconnected attacks. They are the result of a coordinated strategy by a corporate-funded ideological movement that aims to eventually destroy the labor movement. Other progressive movements have seen hard won gains attacked and eroded as well.

Think of fascism as an infection of the body politic that can occur when there isn't a strong leftist working class identified party. Neither US party works toward the interest of the workers. Chris Hedges wrote a great piece called Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama about how he is just as much of a tool of big business as was Dubious Bush. But Liberals are to blame for failing to provide an alternative to the reactionary politics which is the norm in the United States.

Given the current state of affairs in the US, I am certain that Patrick Henry would have been a Tory. But hindsight is 20-20 and he didn't realise the mess he was creating for future generations when he acted so ill-advisedly in demanding independence before the nation was ready for it.

Reposted from http://lacithedog.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/american-independence-a-blessing-or-a-curse/

See also ALECExposed

Tea Party Hypocrisy

via The Altered States of Munley

Ralph Nader on the New Alliance

He says it'll be Tea Partiers and Liberal Progressives. Fascinating stuff via TYWKIWDBI.

Explaining the Tea Partiers

From the Left:

“Every morning when they see the president they’re reminded that things are totally different than when they were born. I think it’s the last gasp of the 55-year-old generation, not the first gasp of a new generation. It’s a group of older folks who’ve seen their lives change dramatically. The country’s not the same. All of a sudden it’s here for them and they don’t know what to do. They can get this younger generation, but they can’t get it on the backs of gays and immigrants, because many of their friends are gays and immigrants.” – Howard Dean, in Roll Call, explaining the Tea Party

Laci on the Lack of Socialism

At Laci the Dog's Blog there's a great post about the ridiculous accusations that Obama is a Socialist. 

The problem is that I want to see more lefty/progressive solutions, but US politics fall amazingly toward the right of the political spectrum.  Socialism my arse if any health insurance I am forced to buy comes from a non-governmental source!  In fact, Politicans in the US are far too friendly with business interests to even remotely be considered “socialist”.  I have yet to hear of any industries being truly nationalised.

Oh, I forgot, “Socialism” is one of those words that the media use to scare people into voting against their interests.  Mention “Socialism” and the average US Citizen will vote to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment, get rid of the minimum wage, and ensure they are REALLY slaves.

Opinione has a couple of good posts about alternative political parties and how they are frozen out of the political process: This and This.  The problem is that the US is a one party system posing as a multi-party system.  US MSM is able to freeze out other opinions and solutions so that US politics has begun to offer pataphysical solutions to real serious crises.  Only NPR discusses the topic of US wealth inequality since mentioning that topic raises the spectre of socialism.  Heaven knows, we can allow the rich to get richer, but if the rest of us see our standard of living decline–remember who owns the media!

When you think about it, isn't it funny the way folks will mindlessly repeat what they've heard others say. I suppose liberals do this too, but nobody can touch those tea party characters and Obama haters.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Interviews at the Rally

via One Utah. These are supposed to be your typical Glenn Back supporters.

Illiterate Tea Baggers

Il Principe sent me a link to this hilarious collection of misspelled tea bagger signs. We've discussed the question of whether the folks in this movement, generally speaking, are racist or not. I tend to think so, but several folks have pointed out that you can't judge the entire group based on the actions or comments of a few individuals. That's fair enough. But can we say they're a bunch of illiterates, or does the same defense prevail.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Guilt by Association

Jonah Goldberg wrote an article for the National Review Online entitled The Hostility Follies. Thanks to FishyJay for the link.

Apparently there’s a self-proclaimed militia leader named Mike Vanderboegh who runs an obscure, low-traffic blog out of Pinson, Ala. (population 5,007). Mr. Vanderboegh recently called on his fellow “sons of liberty” to break the windows of Democrats to protest health-care reform.

Let’s start with the obvious: Vanderboegh is an idiot, and anyone who followed his advice is an idiot, too. These people are buffoons, not just because such tactics help Democrats but because such behavior is simply wrong, reprehensible, and clownish.

Equally wrong, reprehensible, and clownish: the reaction to Vanderboegh and his alleged ilk.

The Daily Beast’s John Avlon insists that Vanderboegh’s rallying cry, combined with some threats and broken windows, make “the parallels, intentional or not, to the Nazis’ heinous 1938 Kristallnacht . . . hard to ignore.”

Actually, it’s really, really easy to ignore the parallels. During Kristallnacht, Nazi goons destroyed not just 7,000 store windows but hundreds of synagogues and thousands of homes. Tens of thousands of Jews were hauled off to concentration camps by the Nazis, who had been in total power for half a decade.

I couldn't agree more that comparing Mike Vanderboegh's encouragement of vandalism, even if there were greater acts of violence intended, to the holocaust is absolutely ridiculous. But Mr. Goldberg's point that the liberal reaction to the right is tantamount to McCarthyism doesn't work for me at all.

"I thought liberals rejected guilt by association as McCarthyism," says Goldberg. Now, that's a slick phrase but it doesn't add up. McCarthyism was ostensibly an attempt to seek out Communist sympathizers and silence them for the good of the country, but it quickly turned into a witch-hunt of Hollywood liberals. It turned into a seriously ugly chapter of American history because of ideology and control, but there was no substance there. There was no true danger.

On the other hand, the liberal tendency to paint the conservative movements in America with a broad brush, notwithstanding the exaggerated Holocaust claim mentioned above, is something else again. The hate talk and divisive fanaticism of the right has led to numerous acts of violence which far exceed the breaking of windows. Tolerance for these attitudes among the tea parties, gun-rights movement and even the Republican party itself is part of a concrete and very serious problem. In this there really is a true danger.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Are the Tea Parties Racist?

Newsy asks the question. I say yes, absolutely.

The Coffee Party Movement

Thanks to Laci. It's all about cooperation.

Patriotism

Mudrake wrote a great post about patriotism.

When I was a kid, the word ‘patriot’ brought with it a rush of warm, proud feelings. Stories of the Revolution and those Patriots flooded my brain and lifted my spirits. All of the kids wanted to be patriots like our heroes in the history books.

When I hear that word today, no such feelings arise; rather, my brain signals danger. They have corrupted that perfectly good word. The extreme right wing here in America. They have hijacked ‘patriotism’ and twisted it into a code word for hate of ’the other.’

The Southern Poverty Law center just released a study documenting a 244 percent increase in the number of conspiracy-minded, anti-government “Patriot” groups in a single year. Militias — the paramilitary arm of the “Patriot” movement — were a major part of the increase. Like other extremists, “Patriot” groups have been fueled by anger over immigration, the troubled economy and an array of initiatives by President Obama.

What's your opinion? Do you think it's silly for people to dress up like 18th century Minutemen and go to demonstrations? Are these people misguided or just passionate?

Please leave a comment.

Tea Party Extremists

The New York Times published an article on the Tea Party Movement. Thanks for the link, George.

These people are part of a significant undercurrent within the Tea Party movement that has less in common with the Republican Party than with the Patriot movement, a brand of politics historically associated with libertarians, militia groups, anti-immigration advocates and those who argue for the abolition of the Federal Reserve.

The lengthy article goes on to describe in great detail the divide which is ever deepening in America. What's your opinion? Are these Tea Party enthusiasts simply fringe lunatics who were desperate for a cause or are they to be taken seriously? If the latter, does that mean, as one person was quoted in the article, the possibility exists of “another civil war?” Is it fair to describe the country like this: "Basic freedoms are threatened. Economic collapse, food shortages and civil unrest all seem imminent?"

Please leave a comment.