First and foremost, it is because I no longer find it amusing.  I am seeing the results of this reactionary movement and it disgusts me.  At best, the Tea Party is a manipulated segment of the population that is ignorant enough to buy the lies being sold to them from the Ultra-Conservative pundits in America.  At worst, they are hatred filled Storm Troopers.

I am angry.  I admit that.  The reason is that I am tired of seeing people hurt by this nonsense.  I personally know people who:  have had their pensions reduced, after working 20 to 50 years at an occupation. I know of people who have had their benefits reduced, pay reduced, or work conditions decline.  Some of these people dedicated their lives to public service.  I see the economy being crippled and people going without more and more, while the wealthy continue to amass more and more.  And I know people who have been ardently seeking employment for over two years.

And then, I see this Ultra-Conservative movement conduct themselves in a manner that degrades the image of the United States in the global perspective.  The wealthy hold the economy hostage and the Tea Party supports it.  They refuse to create jobs until they get to keep the lowest tax breaks in modern, United States history.  Then they claim the United States needs to reduce the debt, so they cut services… but never increase taxes on the wealthy.  I can only guess they are suppressing the national economy so they can get the current president out of office.  Either that, or they are just nutters.  Either way, this is madness.

On top of that, the Tea Party and the GOP have the nerve to claim to be supporting the “working class.”  They want to destroy bargaining power for the workers, but they support the workers?  They throw around “Socialist” and “Communist” as though they were profanities.  Then, they use Marxist talking points:  Class Conflict, Class Warfare, Elite manipulation, exploitation… everything that Marxists claim the Conservatives have been doing for 200 years.  It is like arguing with children.

Also, the Tea Party is the GOP.  They are NOT a separate group.  The Tea Party have the same ideology as the GOP.  If they were a new political party or new movement, they would not have the same exact ideology as that GOP.  Even the same logical contradictions.

They claim to be against big government – but they want the federal government to dictate who can marry whom and they want the federal government to decide when a woman can decide to terminate a pregnancy.

They want free markets – but they want the wealthy to be able to manipulate the markets.  They do not want regulations, but have no problems with the financial institutions, banks and brokers, packaging mortgages in all manner of ways to make a quick profit, with no regard of the national economy.

They want freedom of religion – but want to legislate an official religion (Christianity).

They want an open democracy – but they want to institute “loyalty oaths” and they throw a tantrum when they lose an election.

They claim to want to observe the Constitution – until it conflicts with their agenda.  They do not want some clauses, such as the Equal Protection Clause or the Supremacy Clause.

The debt crisis was manufactured. It was not a crisis.  But it managed to cripple the economy, tank the US credit rating, and cut funding for social programs.

Sometimes, the Tea Party/GOP comes out like a bunch of spoiled children.  It appears that their attitude is, “If I can’t win, no one can.”  They are so angry that Barack Obama is the president, they are willing to destroy the US economy to get him out of office.  They are so angry that minorities get to use social welfare programs, they want no one to get them.

Finally, there is no substance, only ideology.  So often, the Conservatives claim that “Marxism does not work in practice, only on paper” and other similar claims.  Then they turn around and propose solutions that have never shown evidence to work, or not work.  They claim “big government” is the problem, but cannot explain why.  They claim that higher taxes on the wealthy will not help the national economy, when all of the evidence says the exact opposite.  In every previous economic recovery, taxes on the wealthy were much higher.  They continually propose “trickle down,” supply-side economics, even though there is no evidence that they work.  And, as I said earlier, they claim to support the working class, but end up screwing the working class at every opportunity.

Do I have contempt and scorn for this?  Yes.

Why do I feel this way?  Because I care about people.  Because the welfare of other people is more important than my ideology.  I am everything the Tea Party claims to be, but stands against.  I think those that work the hardest and contribute the most should benefit the most.  I think the wealthy class should not have privilege over the working class.  I think workers should be treated with dignity and respect.  I think a “good” government is one that is representative of its people and protects its citizenry.

The Tea Party is dangerous and they are hurting people.  Not directly, but indirect harm is still harm.  The working class is losing and the upper class is winning… and not because of some Democratic, socialist plot to “redistribute” wealth, but because of Conservative plan to increase the holdings of those that have the most.

There are no ulterior motives in the verbose, preceding entry.  I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I do not see the Tea Party or the GOP offering any resolutions to help the Middle Class in America.  I only see them offering solutions that increase the wealth and power of the wealthy, many of whom are funding the New Conservative movement.

And for reasons not stated, I have contempt for caste systems… plutocracies… oligarchy… or monarchy.  I am opposed to fascism and rule by an elite class of aristocracy.  As long as I see the Tea Party and the GOP supporting aristocracy or a plutocracy, I will continue to have contempt.

• Conservative: American Conservatives are Christians.*  They believe that most social problems are caused by minorities and the underprivileged.  The main theme in Conservative ideology is that those with less wealth are lazy (and that all minorities are lazy).  If the Conservative is not wealthy, they believe the reason they are not wealthy is because other lazy people and minorities are the reason they are not wealthy.
• Moderate: A moderate is a person who is Conservative but also understands that Conservatives are racists, religious zealots and plutocrats.  They do not wish to self-identify with these concepts, because they find racists and robber barons to be repugnant, even though they ideologically support them.
• Liberal: An American Liberal is a person who enjoys wealth, but dislikes racism and religious bigotry more than a moderate.  They believe everything they do should make them look good, socially, as long as they do not have to make any major compromises in their personal lives.
• “Liberal” is also a pejorative term for Conservatives:  When used, it dismisses everything a person states on the grounds that they are too compassionate to understand the benefits of unfettered greed.
• Communist: In America, there are two kinds of Communists:  Stalin and Castro.
• Socialist: A Socialist in America is any person that believes society and/or government should help anyone; except when they benefit Conservatives – all other forms of government aid are ‘Socialist.’
• Republican: Republicans are Conservatives that believe, because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they can say whatever they wish about other people; much in the way Liberals claim having a Black friend proves they are not a racist.
• Democrat: These are Conservatives that think Liberals look nicer than Conservatives.
• Libertarian: Libertarians encompass a wide range of ideologies.  Most of them involve having a gun rack in the home and automobile.  Libertarians believe that all White people should be allowed to do whatever they wish.
• Independent: These are Republicans and Democrats that think both Liberals and Conservatives look foolish.
• Tea Party Movement: Inspired by the Boston Tea Party revolt against Royal British tariffs on tea, these people are British Loyalists who support Monarchy and will fight to the very end to defend their wealthy bosses.
• Immigrants: Anyone who is not White and Christian.
• *Christians: Anyone that claims to pray to Jesus, but behaves properly in public.
• Jews: This group of persecuted people are only supporters of Israel in America.  An American Jew is one that does not openly chastise Christians or Israel.
• Muslims: Usually of Persian or Arabic descent, these people not only read the wrong Bible, but spell God’s name improperly.
• Secular: “Satanic”
• Evolutionary Theory: Just a ‘theory,’ that, although stands up against the rigor of science, is just as valid as pixies, unicorns, and leprechauns.
• Creationism: (Or Intelligent Design)  Just a theory, that, although it does not stand up against the rigor of science, is more valid than pixies, unicorns, and leprechauns.
• Drugs: Chemicals that alter the mind or body, that are not predominantly used by wealthy, white people and are sold on the streets.
• Pharmaceuticals: Chemicals that alter the mind or body, that are predominantly used by wealthy, white people and are sold in stores and on the streets.
• Business: Anything that turns a profit for White Christians and the minorities that accept White Christian dominance.
• Crime: What happens when minorities do ‘business.’
• Special Interests: Groups and lobbyists that have a political agenda and spend inordinate amounts of money convincing politicians to vote in their favor.  Majority of Special Interests involve Business.
• Lobbyist: Retired Democrats and Republicans that enjoy buying yachts and expensive clothing.
• Unions: Special interests for ‘the help.’
• Cartels: Surprisingly, these do not exist in America.  [Sometimes, cartels refer to drug dealers in Central and South America.]
• Labor: Minorities that are employed (either legally or illegally).
• Middle Class: Everyone in America (sometimes excluding minorities).
• Family Values: The desire to make everyone else live their personal lives in direct contradiction to the ways in which Conservatives act privately.  Family values include:  monogamous heterosexual relations with a spouse, going to Church, giving money to Church, not using ‘bad words’ and abstaining from all illegal drugs.  (It is important to note that those who espouse ‘Family Values” never behave this way, it is only the desire to force others to behave this way.  Possibly to make their deviant behavior more  titillating.)

Anything to add?  Feel free.  I will be redefining this list in the very near future.  It was really just a smattering of ideas at the present.  Hopefully this will help foreigners understand the American political dialogue a bit better.

I would also like to point that I am not discounting that there are not other groups who resort to violence… such as Anarchists, who typically utilize violence as a first approach…  just disputing the claim that it is “only” the Left.

Sometimes, misunderstandings lead to some of the greatest arguments.  I heard a long time ago that the reason “Communism” is so disliked in Muslim countries was due to a translation error.  Instead of using the word “secular” the translator used the word to mean “satanic.”  Since, many in the Muslim world have deemed Marxism as “Satanic.”  (I do not know the historical validity of this story but I have heard it from quite credible sources.)  If one were to utilize a dictionary, it would be quite clear that “Secular” is not synonymous with “Satanic.”

Because of this, I want to define a few terms.  These are terms that I use frequently, that I see used in the media and in current debates, or that I just think are relevant.

Reactionary has a few meanings.  All of them are very similar, but the nuance is important to note.  A Reactionary is a person that wants to “go back” to the status quo, or past society, where the memories are fond and prosperous.

I have a lot of drafts that I never finished.  I recently looked and many of them are about East Asia and the People’s Republic of China.  I typically do not post them because it is such a complex issue and I do fear that many Westerners (especially Americans) do not fully understand China, East Asia, or Far East culture.  So, if my explanations of Sino politics and history are over-simplified, I apologized.  I just want to avoid miscommunication.

China has a history of over 5 thousand years.  In this history is what many refer to as the Dynastic Cycle.  (朝代循環:Cháodài Xúnhuán)  The Dynastic Cycle is as follows:  A ruler comes to power and unifies China through the Mandate of Heaven, China prospers and the population increases, as the nation grows corruption and overpopulation occur, the ruler loses the Mandate of Heaven, natural disasters create famine, China falls into civil war and warring states, one state emerges from the civil war as the winner, the state that emerges manages to unify China and obtain the Mandate of Heaven.  (That was an over-simplistic description.)

The reason I bring up the dynastic cycle is that, every time China falls into a “warring states period,” the population longs for a time of prosperity under the Empire.  This is Reactionary.  I think it is a good example, because it happens time and time again.  When the Empire grows and over extends, the people loathe the corrupt government, but when it falls, they long for a return to that government.

Reactionaries always want a “return.”  The reason I mention there are several uses of the term is that, in many lines of Communism, anyone in opposition to Socialism and Communism are labeled “reactionary.”  The reality is that “reactionary” comes to us from the French use of the word “réactionnaire.”  The réactionnaire was one who wanted to go back to the previous state of affairs.

We also gained the term Conservative from the French during the same time period as the word réactionnaire.  The French word “conservateur” denotes out use of the word Conservative.  In France, the conservateur was one that sought to support monarchy, aristocracy, and ruling class.  In a global perspective, Conservatives are those who support such traditional systems.  This fits well with Reactionaries, even today.  The Reactionary typically seeks to go back to feudalism, while the conservative has the same agenda.  European fascists were reactionary but not conservative.  They constantly deployed imagery of the “glory” of a bygone era, but did not support a monarchy.

In America, Conservatives are those that seek “fiscal responsibility” and “limited government.”  Many Conservatives, I would guess, do not support a monarchy.  Many more, I suggest, do not realize how much they support a “ruling class” or “aristocracy.”  The Reactionary of today does not want to necessarily return to feudalism, but to the previous state of affairs – one that predates the success of the Civil Rights Movement and the Tech Revolution.

Elite is an interesting term today.  “Elite” is a pejorative that has been thrown around a lot by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and even mainstream Republicans.  The constantly harangue the “Elite” and “elitism” as their enemies.  It is a complicated term and a complicated subject, really.

The Elite is really a Leftist concept.  The idea is that the “Elite” are a small group within a larger group, which typically carry a privileged status.  Elite theory is complex, but for farther reading, I suggest Gaetano Mosca and Michael Parenti.  Also, the book Who Rules America? by Professor G. William Domhoff is excellent.  (I refer to it constantly.)  In Elite Theory there are also categories of “Educated Elite” and “Counter-Elite.”  Personally, I refer to the educated elite as the “Intellectual” as described by Antonio Gramsci.  The Counter-Elite are those that utilize the system and education in order to gain status and knowledge and run counter to the privileged few.

My point to mentioning the use of “elite” and “elitism” is simply that I feel it is misused, blatantly.  It is true that elitism runs counter to the United States ideology and Constitutional ideals.  The second sentence of the US Declaration of Independence took a strong stand against the Elite:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many on the Right feel as though Communists, Socialists, Progressives and even Liberals are trying to force them into their moral superiority by accepting an even more egalitarian system.   I understand this. But the connotation of an “Elite” class is much more than just moral indignation.  It is an aristocracy.  It is impossible to want a “classless” system and want a ruling class.  (I make this criticism of Stalin’s ideology quite frequently, in regard to the Vanguard.)

I mention all of this not for debate, but just to find some common ground.  I find many debates today are based purely on semantic disagreements.  Hopefully we can find a common ground linguistically in order to discuss more complex issues with less semantic arguments.

Anyone that knows me personally, knows that I am a not a conspiracy theorist . . . I believe many of these deceptions of government control and exercises in power are not theories, but merely facts.  I frequently cite Operation Ajax in reference to the situations in the Middle East.  I talk about the Opium Wars, Commodore Perry in Japan, Oliver North, elite manipulation, false consciousness, government assassinations and the list really goes on.  These are not “theories.”  We know about Operation Ajax, it has been declassified.

I do have suspicions of other events, and vocalize them when appropriate.  Like in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba.  Not long ago, documents were declassified that showed the CIA was, in fact, involved in the displacement of the elected President of the Democratic Republic of Congo in favor of the murderous bastard Mobutu Sese Seko.

When I read the works of Alex Jones, I am initially left with little reaction.  I have tried to watch several of his dozens of films.  Some of his conclusions are about as sound as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or New Age wizards that talk about the healing properties of crystals the aliens left on Earth.  He has made so many films, I cannot believe that there has been any laborious research involved in any of them. These movies come out faster than Steven King cranks out a new book.

Not long ago, I attempted to watch Terrorstorm.  It is billed as “A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism” – which sounds well enough.  Upon watching this film, it became clear that, although it was not exactly false, there were a lot of broad leaps and gaps of missing information.

I think there is a strong correlation between the Reichstag fire and other events utilized by governments to garner public support.  This film failed to make that case.  (I’m really only going on memory, so I cannot cite anything specific at the moment.)  I happened to study, quite extensively, the rise of Hitler to power in pre-War Germany.  This was not detailed in Terrorstorm.  It was more like a bulletpoint presentation of events the author felt would deliver the most impact.

This is where a major problem lies in the cult of Alex Jones.  It isn’t about delivering the information that most supports the evidence that leads one to the conclusion.  It is about delivering the information that elicits the strongest emotional response that leads one to want to jump to that conclusion.  This is really nothing more than junk science.

I recently read this comment on a discussion thread somewhere (I do not recall the exact discussion at the moment) where this person stated that “races of people are different because their genetics are too dissimilar” or something like that and pointed out cranium sizes and nose shapes and athletic ability.  My problem with the comment was not that it was false, but that it was true.  It read like some detailed scientific observation, when really it was a generalized statement strung to other generalized statements.  Every human beings’ genetic makeup is dissimilar to another human being, which gives us genetic variation.  In other words:  We are not clones.  But we are all the same species.  The allusion was that Negroids and Caucasians were as genetically different as dogs and wolves.  This is false.  Chimpanzees and humans are as genetically dissimilar as dogs and wolves.  Humans are as dissimilar as a poodle and a labrador.  (I thought about it a bit, and I’m not sure if wolves and dogs can share blood with the same type.  If anyone knows if this is true, I’d like to know.  If I find out, I’ll put it up here. – By the way: Humans and chimpanzees can share blood.)  Literally, this persons comments were junk science.

Junk science is the misuse of science to support a social or political agenda.   In example: I want racism to be validated by science – I will use genetics to support my racist ideology.  If any scientific evidence contradicts my ideology, I will discard those parts.  If any scientist makes a claim that supports my will, I will incorporate it as scientific fact.

Alex Jones does this with conspiracies.  From his FEMA death camps, to the Obama anti-Christ, the New World Order and every other conspiracy he supports though his junk science has one valid application:  It invalidates any real light that may be shed on abuse of power or attempts to coerce and control.  Alex Jones has been able to inundate the internet and independent publications with so many conspiracy theories, that if a valid story about an attempt by aliens to use Lady GaGa to institute the New World Order for President Obama and send people into death camps to turn them into fuel for a parallel dimension, nobody would believe it.  It would just be the rantings of “another Alex Jones fan.”

Operation Ajax was real.  We know now that it was indeed a plot by the United States and the United Kingdom to coerce and control a foreign country.  In 1953, the Eisenhower administration overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran.  The problem was that British Petroleum was in control of the oil mines in Iran and Mosaddegh was going to nationalize the oil reserves in Iran (and turn the profits to the people of Iran, rather then BP executive in England).  The CIA paid ‘thugs’ to protest and riot to make the people of Iran believe that there was popular support for the opposition to Mosaddegh.

The after effects of the coup d’état in Iran was the Shah Pahlavi seized power.  All political dissent was repressed with an iron fist.  All opposition to the government was eliminated.  The Shah ran a brutal regime until he left in 1979 (in exile) and Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Moosavi Khomeini took over.  Because of the actions of the US and UK, Iran today is an Islamic Republic and Operation Ajax has never been forgotten.

There is enough there to keep any real conspiracy enthusiast enthralled for years.  Relations between Iran and the United States are still strained.  Relations between Islam and the West are still strained.  Fifty years later, the effects of Operation Ajax are still being felt.

Why bring all of these details up?  Well, because I simply stated a few significant events and actions that precipitated a situation.  There is no need for me to throw in ominous music and grand allusions as to what it means for the world.  It can mean a lot of things.  Are the tensions between Iran and the United States a direct or indirect result of Operation Ajax?  Well, that is debatable.  Is the tension between Muslims and Americans direct or indirect?  We can debate it.  But we cannot really make a grand statement and then jump to death camps and a new world order.

What even gets to me more with all of this Alex Jones propaganda is the pro-Conservative/Libertarian slant it takes.  If there is any movement that is against elitism and domination, it is the radical Left.  (I would say, “Only in America could the Conservatives claim to be the only ones to stand in the way of the wealthy elites.”  But I won’t.  I’ll just say that I wanted to say it.)

In contemporary cinema:  The Matrix was an overly simplistic story of Marxist theory.  (It was way too simple, and the sequels just gave any chance of redemption away.)  They Live was an entertaining view on Marxist theory.  Dawn of the Dead (1979) was a stand against corporate control and American consumerism.  Night of the Living Dead (1968) was an allegory of the masses’ movement for equality.  Land of the Dead was about class conflict.  There are many of these examples of Leftist theory in contemporary stories that are well received by the American public.  The reason is that the Leftist theory is not named and instead we are shown the “little guy” fighting against the “power elite.”  This is the essence of Marxism.  Class conflict is all over Alex Jones’ theories – and yet, conservatives are the ones tending to latch on to it…

And this leads me to the dangers of Junk Science.  I have come across more than a few militia-style, anti-government types lately that really strike me as better armed, less educated, modern-day  Klansmen.  “The Gub’ment trying to enslave all of us.”  And then they take their anger out on people who are more disenfranchised:  Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Women, Homeless, Gays, whoever else is left.  And there is talk about the whole Wiki Leaks thing right now.  I think the issue is far more complicated than anyone wants to admit.  Obviously, we have a government that is supposed to have oversight and transparency.  This is critical to democratic governments.  At the same time, there ARE issues of national security.  There are people trying to kill Americans or harm the United States and the US Government has a duty to stop them.   Just like there are Christian fanatics in the mountains that want to Jim Jones the whole population, there are Muslim extremists that want to bring a Jihad to the world.  (I’m not claiming that Muslims are the enemy, but some Muslims are enemies.  So are some Christians.  I think most Buddhists and Atheists could care less about killing for a higher power, though.) Violating national security can be a dangerous thing.   (And yes, I did say the same thing during President Bush’s administration.) On the same hand, we need to have muckrakers that expose corruption.  I do not really have a hard line stance on the issue yet – I really think it is not that simple.  I also think, just being contrary to the government is not a solution.  Just because the government wants to do something, does not mean it is part of a New World Plan for control or extermination.

Sarah Palin took a jab at the First Lady for promoting healthy diets for children.  She basically claimed that if people want fat children with lower brain development, rotten teeth, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic ailments due to poor nutrition, then they should be able to do that.  People who believe this:  I have a question for you.  Do you believe I should be allowed to tie my child to the bed post, repeatedly rape them and beat them with a belt buckle?  Even if I do it because I’m trying to teach them a lesson?  What if I beat them but not rape them?  What if I feed them frequently and beat them?  What if I make them eat only food that I drop on the floor?

Now people are angry at welfare recipients for not having opportunities.  They are angry at “illegal immigrants.”  They are angry at complaining Blacks and Latinos.  They are angry at Muslims for believing differently.  They are angry at Jews for whatever anti-semetic reason is the flavor of the month.  They are angry at gay people for wanting to marry each other.  They are angry at the politicians that cannot get anyone to agree with anyone else.  But no one is mad at Koch Industries, DuPont, Wal-Mart and all the other mega-corporations that are telling you that you have to be productive.

If you want to be happy, you have to buy stuff.  If you do not buy stuff, the economy will collapse and your children will not love you.  If we do not give the wealthy tax breaks, they will not spend their money and nothing will “trickle down.”  Because, that is what is really going on.

The gap between rich and poor has not been wider in the United States in almost a hundred years.  The wealthy have grown over 250% since 1970.  The middle class has grown 11%.

The bottom 98% of the United States is having a serious debate right now.  There are a lot of people that think the top 2% of the wealthy in the United States should not have their taxes go back to the rate they were in 2001.  (Which is still lower than it was during Reagan.)  They think that people who cannot afford health care should just go without, or get minimal care.  (People who are wealthy will still get the best health care in the world.)

There is an old African proverb which states:  A fat slave will claim he is free.

The government is not trying to enslave you.  The corporations already have.

*note*  I didn’t cite much in this article.  Just to give credit, Alex Jones’ sites are here:

• InfoWars.com
• Prison Planet
• Jones Report

What I find amazing is the sheer volume of these advertisements.  As far as I know, they are not free.  Although, one can pay for clicks rather than page impressions.  The cost is relatively low.  The other thing I find amazing is the vitriol of many of these advertisements.

Take for example, the “We The People Bracelet.”  (http://wethepeoplebracelet.com/)  The advert states “Barack won’t wear it!”  Is that true?  Why not?  Was he offered one?  Did he refuse?  Do you mean President Barack Obama?  The man who was the president of the Harvard Law Review, has a Juris Doctorate and taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School?  Why won’t Barack wear it?

We could do a little dance about the whole thing.  But we all know what the implication is in this advertisement.  They are claiming that President Obama cares less about the Constitution than the family of jewelers in NYC and other people who want to buy these bracelets.  This is just an outrageous claim, which is why it is never actually made.  If all of these people actually “love the Constitution” so much, why are they not taking out massive loans and spending years of their lives actually studying it?

I would like to point out that those bracelets look very Buddhist in design and seem to be well done.

Lex Voltaire has a Facebook group.  There ad is up there.  Their Facebook page is located at:  http://www.facebook.com/lex.voltaire

They also have a website and a twitter page and all that rot.  This is from their blog:

“Two dozen tax attorneys, who regularly advice large corporations and wealthy individuals on how to legally pay no taxes during their lifetime and upon death.”

Isn’t that we the rest of us have been claiming the wealthy are doing?  And we are fed with this garbage about how the wealthy are actually “footing the bill” for everyone else?  In reality, they find ways to avoid paying taxes, legally.  Now they flagrantly boast about it, too?

And, is this the root of the Tea Party Movement?  Tax attorneys that utilize legal maneuvering to avoid paying taxes and social obligations?

(I ignored going into a diatribe about how Voltaire would be loathed more than Obama by the Tea Party and Conservatives today.)

I don’t recall the site that the link that led to the Boston Tea Party store led to originally.  When I tried to search for it, there are like a million of those “patriotic” sites selling “Tea Party” paraphernalia.  But I have already discussed how the original Boston Tea party had almost no semblance to the Tea Party Movement of today.

And, of course, there are the religious ads.  One actually walks you through what to do once you realize that the apocalypse is upon us.  Jesus is coming… evidently to Santa Monica.  I do not blame him.  The weather there is wonderful and all of the people have perfect teeth.  Reiterating how the Religious Right tries to hi-jack any political discussion is getting boring and monotonous.  But it is still going on.

I did not think I need to mention the ads with Palin and Coulter and the rest of that stuff.  Quite honestly, I only pointed it out because of how sick I am at seeing it.  And I’m sick of hearing these people talk about how they are “real America.”

An article released just 16 hours ago by the Associated Press shows evidence that the Tea Party is really a numerical minority of the population.  “SPIN METER: Tea partiers’ views far from others“  AP points out that the Tea Party is significant enough, but also that they do not outnumber their opposition.  This is not “all Americans” that feel this way.  Not even half of Americans are “Tea Party Patriots.”

One needs to wonder why they feel the need to advertise more than Geico.

A decision by the Fountain Hills Town Council to hire a single trash hauler and begin a curbside recycling program has been met with angry protests from residents who accuse town leaders of overstepping their bounds and taking a leap toward socialism.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2010/11/07/20101107tea-party-trash-fountain-hills.html#ixzz14j4ZHOzF

Really?  This is how we are now defining “socialism“?  A private monopoly of services?  Bids for city contracts?  One could really go on all day about how misguided this is but I really feel like many people do not even understand how these terms are meant to be used.  Someone told me on YouTube, about a week ago, that Anarchy is “Left” in Europe, but not in America.  Somehow, they believe that “Left” and “Right” politics are different depending on your longitude and latitude.  This is not the case.  These terms are pretty well defined.

Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic theory in which the means of production are privately owned.  It is also called “Free Market economy,” and “Liberal market economy,” and “Free Enterprise.“  There are many variations on capitalism, but they are all capitalism.  (Keynesian economics ARE Capitalism.  John Maynard Keynes was not a humanitarian.  His theories were concerned with sustaining a capitalist system.)  All capitalism is based on the concept of production for profit.

Socialism: According to the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. A theory or policy of social organisation which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all people
2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.

Socialism is a political–economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the public, or “common good.“  This is a government run system of all aspects of economy.  There is no private ownership.  All business is conducted on the basis of benefit for the polity.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Communism: Communism is a social-political theory that advocates a classless society.  There are many forms of Communism, but most of them have the goal of ending “class conflict” by creating a classless society.

Most Americans equate all forms of Communism with Marxism-Leninism.  This was the form of Communism that was utilized in Stalin’s era.  But many of the negative traits of this form of Communism are not inherent in all forms of Communism.

Anarchism:  In a nutshell, Anarchism finds all governments illegitimate because they seek to use power to coerce people.  Anarchists do not believe in “anarchy” so much as they believe in personal determination.  (A professor once told me, “If you want a good critique of government, ask an Anarchist.  If you want solutions, ignore the anarchist.”  Or something similar.)

Fascism:  Fascism is an extreme form of authoritarian government under nationalism.  Nationalism is the key to fascism.  The fascist regime believes that there should be one party to lead the community, which will also lead the state toward a higher level.  Fascism is not Socialism, Marxism, or Capitalism.  The Fascist believes the state should resolve labor conflicts, that capital should be privately maintained, but that the state should function as to keep production moving.

Democracy:  Democracy is any form of government that seeks to derive power from the people it governs.  There are wide varieties of democracy, from direct democracy to representative democracies.  Different forms of democracy vary in balance of representation and power.

↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔↔

In reality, none of these concepts exist in a pure form.  Reality is always much messier than it appears on paper.  Human beings need each other to thrive and we are forced to cohabitate.

Keynesian economics and neo-Liberalism borrow some aspects of socialism in order to create economic levers to stabilize economy and society in order to continue production and increase profit.

Marx actually stated that Capitalism is a step toward the goal of Communism.  He believed that human history is a series of conflicts.  He also believed the Industrial Revolution was just one instance in this progression.   That eventually, people will learn to work together and Capitalism will have produced itself out of existence.  The socialist outcome of Capitalism would lead to a society where people no longer struggled to ‘profit’ over one another, and eventually humans would live in a classless society, where every need is fulfilled by other people.  (It is MUCH more complicated than that, so please do believe that I have summarized millions of pages of concepts into one paragraph.  Also, different beliefs exist on how the entire process is visualized.)

In politics the left–right political spectrum is commonly used to place a dialectic perspective on a particular ideology, system, or stance.  The Left is considered to be those that believe in social well being to be preserved, while the Right typically values “private property” and capitalism (free market).  The history of this description goes back to French politics, I believe, but I’m not a historian and do not wish to spend much time on the creation of these labels.

It is important to note that in this Left-Right political spectrum, this is not a linear model.  It is an abstract concept and not plane geometry.  Left and Right are not like Male and Female.  The Left is considered to contain progressives, social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists. (source)  The Right is considered to contain conservatives, reactionaries, capitalists, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.

In the United States, Left and Right have a somewhat different meaning.  The Left in American politics are concerned with equality, workers’ rights, and pluralism/multiculturalism.  The Democratic Party is typically considered to be the American Left.  The American Right consists of free-market liberals, Christian fundamentalists and social conservatives.  In the global scale of politics, all American politicians are center-Left.  The American Right is just a tad farther right than the American Left.  (One could argue that the Right is going farther Right, but that is a different issue.)  Not many American politicians are willing to stand on a platform of Aristocracy, anti-pluralism, or intense nationalism.  (With exception of some Tea Partiers – the mainstream Right is still concerned with “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”)

Because this is not a linear progression, there can be aspects from something on the Right in something on the Left, and vice versa.  There is a popular consensus that if you go too far Left, you end up near the Right, where Fascism and Stalinist Communism appear similar.  The outcomes are nearly the same, although the intentions start from opposite ideologies.

I guess my point to all of this is that I really wish we could all use the same terms to mean the same things.  That is why we have language and dictionaries and such – to communicate.  We define concepts with terms to summarize quickly and succinctly.  We try to share common definitions for brevity.  Up is the direction that goes up, and down is the direction that goes down.  When we decry a concept as “socialism,” we say that to mean it is something that means to nationalize industry and destroy private property.  The allusion to good or bad is left to the discourse.  We can debate that at another time.  For the mean time, socialism is not capitalism.  Communism is not Fascism.  Fascism is not socialism.  These terms are not interchangeable.

One last thing:

Private Property:  The term “private property” can be tenuous, because there are different accepted definitions of private property.  I tend to mean “the means of production” when I discuss private property, distinguishing this property from “personal property.”  Sometimes an argument ensues and it is because someone means “personal property” and I am talking about “the means of production.”  This is an argument of semantics and would be easily avoided if I was more clear at the onset, and defined “private property” as “the means of production” or “Capital.”  (It is really a matter of perspective.)

]]> http://www.sighedeffects.com/definitions/2010/political-systems-defined-2/feed/ 1 http://www.sighedeffects.com/definitions/2010/argumentum-ad-hominem/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed http://www.sighedeffects.com/definitions/2010/argumentum-ad-hominem/#comments Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:20:02 +0000 Adam Baum http://www.sighedeffects.com/?p=716 Bill O’Reilly was on The View yesterday.  In the discourse, he was discussing the concept of “Pinheads and Patriots” and how there are both in America (and the title of his book).  The event, for anyone who does know know, went like this:

BILL O’REILLY: LET ME BREAK THIS TO YOU. 70% OF AMERICANS DON’T WANT THAT MOSQUE DOWN THERE, SO DON’T GIVE ME THE “WE” BUSINESS.

[APPLAUSE]

JOY BEHAR: WHERE IS THAT POLL? I WANT TO SEE THAT POLL.

O’REILLY: YOU WANT TO BET ON THAT? YOU WANNA BET? I’LL SHOW YOU THAT POLL IN A MINUTE.

[CROSSTALK]

O’REILLY: 70% DON’T WANT IT DOWN THERE.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: WHY IS THAT?

O’REILLY: BECAUSE IT’S INAPPROPRIATE.

GOLDBERG: WHY IS IT INAPPROPRIATE WHEN 70 FAMILIES DIED…

O’REILLY: BECAUSE MUSLIMS KILLED US ON 9/11, THAT’S WHY!

GOLDBERG: NO! OH MY GOD! THAT IS SUCH [EXPLETIVE DELETED]!

O’REILLY: MUSLIMS DIDN’T KILL US ON 9/11? THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE SAYING?

GOLDBERG: EXTREMISTS DID THAT!

[CROSSTALK]

O’REILLY: I’M TELLING YOU, 70% OF THE COUNTRY…

BEHAR: I DON’T WANT TO SIT HERE. I DON’T. I’M OUTRAGED BY THAT STATEMENT.

O’REILLY: YOU’RE OUTRAGED ABOUT MUSLIMS  KILLING US ON 9/11?

[BEHAR AND GOLDBERG WALK OFF THE SET]

Transcript from Fox Nation

In the spirit of fairness, when confronted with his comment being “offensive,” O’Reilly then responded, “ALL RIGHT. IF ANYBODY FELT THAT I WAS DEMEANING ALL MUSLIMS, I APOLOGIZE.”

My problem with all of this is the rhetorical devices being utilized by the O’Reilly’s, the Becks, the Hannitys (how do you pluralize Hannity?) . . . et al.  What happened in that instance on The View?  Well, the conversation quickly devolved from “What is a Patriot?” and the context of the discussion to an argument about how ‘appropriate is Islam or a Mosque’ in the vicinity of the site of the Twin Towers in NYC.

The Right wing methodology is similar to playground arguments.

A: Why do you feel the need to make me play with you every day?

B: Why do you feel the need to complain every time I want to play?

A: Can you play with someone else?

B: Can you make your mom stop being so fat?

A: My mom isn’t fat.  She is 5’4 and 120 pounds.

B: Well, you look like a flying wombat.

A: Wombats don’t fly . . .

B: I never said wombats can fly, you did . . . I just wish you would not try to play with me every day.

What started out as a discussion about a person’s actions devolves into an argument on the merits of Wombats flying and the weight of a person’s mother.  Rhetorically, these are brilliant argumentative moves.  Nothing gets resolved.  Let’s take a look at the most common devices used.

Genetic Fallacy

A genetic fallacy is when trying to argue the validity of a point, you begin discussing where the belief originated.  If you were asked how to find the area of a circle, and you state that you find it with πr^2.  Why is it πr^2?  “Because I had to memorize that in second grade.“  This is a genetic fallacy.  (To see why the area of a circle is πr^2, look here at Euclid’s rationale.)

Constantly we are barraged with a genetic fallacy.  Why do we want a limited government?  Because the “Founding Fathers” wanted a limited government.  Did they?  Why did they want that?  What is the reason behind this belief?  I would argue that half of the people out their with their “pocket constitutions” really do not understand the logic behind the document itself.

Equivocation

When Equivocation is laid out plainly, it is simple to understand.  In more complicated areas, it is harder to catch.

Stevie Wonder is Blind.
Love is Blind.
God is Love.
Stevie Wonder is God.

For a less obvious equivocation:

The people who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 were Muslims.
Islamic extremists state they are at war with the United States.
Islamic extremists blew up the Twin Towers in Manhattan.
The Cordoba House is owned by Muslims.
The Cordoba House is in Manhattan in the proximity of the Twin Towers site.
The Cordoba House is symbolic of the Muslim terrorists that attacked the Twin Towers and declared war on the United States.
Muslims are terrorists that hate America.
All Muslims are terrorists and anti-American.

Black–or–White Fallacy

This is when you are given two options.  It is either Black or White.  There is no middle ground.  We see this time and time again.  White society is oppressive against Blacks.  Either Black Americans accept the oppression or they fight back and oppress Whites.  There is seldom an option given where the oppression is just lifted from all sides and everyone is allowed to live freely.  You see this often on the Right when they are trying to provide evidence that the opposite of their way is something much worse.

Us versus Them

This is pretty obvious.  It is also obvious how it is used.  I find myself at wit’s end whenever I oppose a Tea Party member and they respond by calling me a “Liberal” (or something similar).  Although this includes other fallacious arguments, for this instance, I’m giving it as an example of how they make it into an issue that you are either Conservative or Liberal.  It is always adversarial and it is always Black and White.  “If you do not agree with me, you are one of them.” – “You are either with us, or you are with the Terrorists.“

This obviously was detrimental when used by the previous President.  He utilized this type of argument against Iraq, and was used as part of the rationale for attacking Iraq.  The reality is that al Qaeda frequently threatened Saddam Hussein and deplored the secular government of Iraq.  At the same time, Iraq was not an ally of the United States.

Ignoring the Issue

This is typically the goal of people like O’Reilly.  To elicit an emotional response and change the subject using other rhetorical devices and never really discuss the main issue at hand.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

This means that just because something happened prior to another event, it has caused it.  I do believe that this is common on all sides of the American political spectrum.
Companies started outsourcing before the housing market collapsed.  Therefore, outsourcing caused the housing market to collapse.
The response to this is simply something I state constantly:  “CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.”  Other variables need to be examined.  Correlation is just correlation, it means more attention needs to be paid on the correlation before it can be determined why there is a correlation.

Argument from Ignorance

There is no evidence that driving while eating is dangerous, therefore it is not dangerous to eat and drive.
(I’m fighting everything in me to not utilize this in a religious context, but I cannot override the desire.)

There is no proof that Leprechauns do not exist, therefore they do exist.

Straw opponent

This is the so common in political discourse today.  The straw opponent is when one attacks the beliefs of an opponent that are similar to the actual issue, but not the same.

Quite often, people state that I am not religious, therefore, that is why I support freedom of and from religion.  This is a fallacious, straw man argument.  The reason I support the freedom of and from religion is because of the first amendment, and because I do not believe it is best to have a government dictate what religious beliefs individuals should hold.

Quite often, it is stated that “secularists” just want to “destroy Christianity.”

Argumentum ad hominem

This can be utilized in a non-fallacious manner.  When an expert holds a belief in the subject they are an expert of, then discrediting their belief in the area is valid.  Typically, argumentum ad hominem is not utilized in this manner.

Instead, we call the person who holds a belief a “pinhead” and use that to invalidate everything they say.  We call them a “wingnut” or a “loon” or whatever, in an attempt to discredit the individual, thereby destroying their argument.

When Bill O’Reilly came on The View, several things he stated before the heated debate were not on the Fox.  He directly insulted one of the hosts, telling her that if she would shut up he would let her learn something.

All of these fallacious tools deployed in debate create one thing in almost every instance:  frustration.

First of all, it is tedious to have to combat fallacy after fallacy, and be on guard for more, while trying to reiterate a point.  You have to keep trying to steer the conversation back to the original case in hand.  This is actually the goal.  You frustrate your opponent so that they no longer have the desire to continue the debate.

Second, it is frustrating because it begins to feel pointless.  I don’t care what you think of me, or my family, or any other extraneous issue.  I came to the debate to discuss a specific issue,and end up talking about everything else but the issue.

In the case of the “Ground Zero Mosque.”  This is a great tool to utilize almost every fallacious argument and create a polarized situation.  The people who defend Park 51 typically have a logical rationale for their stand on the issue:  The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . “  Therefore, the government has no right to dictate which houses of worship are acceptable, and which are not acceptable.

Farther on the issue, Cordoba House, or Park 51, is not a Mosque.  It is a “Community Center” and it is not “on Ground Zero.”  On top of that, attacks against the United States were not perpetrated by Islam, but by Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists/extremists.  You can find such extremists in Christianity, Hindu, Judaism, and Islam as well as other fringe or obsolete theologies.

The debate against the Park 51 building is built on fallacy after fallacy.  They argue that it is “disrespectful to build a Mosque on Ground Zero.”  No one was even debating building a Mosque on Ground Zero.  This is not the case at hand.  This is what we end up debating… a hypothetical that does not exist.  “Why can’t they build a Mosque on Ground Zero?”  Another fallacy is that Islam itself is at War with the United States.  This is similar to the Cold War fears that were prevalent in the generation prior.  (According to Christine O’Donnell, China is still planning to conquer the United States, but otherwise, no one sees this as a likely threat.)

Why did two hosts on The View walk off the stage?  It seemed to me that they were frustrated and offended.  The guest made a blanket response against an entire segment of the world population and circumvented any possible discussion.  He changed the parameters of the conversation in mid-sentence.  (I actually believe they came back, not because he apologized, but because Barbara Walters was a bit angry at their actions.)

And really, that is what this entry is all about – the parameters of the national discourse.  The New Right has launched a platform of non-issues as their main issues.  They release study after study of “polls” and “data” that really do little to provide any real consensus.  (They state that over 60% of the nation dislikes the Health Care Reform Bill, but ignore the fact that when people look at health care systems without names on them, they pick the most centralized, universal health care systems that exist – like Sweden’s.)  And then, when we simply dismiss their points of view, because they consistently fail to provide any real evidence, they accuse the rest of us of doing exactly what they are doing.

Discussing an issue with someone on the New Right today is much like arguing with a bi-polar relative with borderline personality disorder.

To the New Right, it is a black and white issue of us versus them.  They frame their arguments in genetic fallacy and equivocation.  When prompted to provide proof of their stance, they simply ignore the issue and discuss something else, or they provide post hoc ergo propter hoc explanations.  Any attempt to reason opens up any opposition to straw opponent and argumentum ad hominem attacks.  And then they get offended when the rest of us feel like they have nothing to contribute to the problems we face today.

Today, I skipped any farther research into those two avenues, and went to the website of the Tea Party Patriots.  It is a huge website.  There is a huge graphic at the top, that they have received a $1 million donation.  There’s nothing clickable in this statement, so I guess it is just there to be there.  Who made the donation?  What is it for?  How is it to be used?  Are they going to create jobs with it?  Who knows?  (There was a link to a Facebook update, farther down the page, that states that the money was donated anonymously, and will be distributed in grant form.)

This website is much better, though.  There is a link at the top to “Read The Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement.”  (I have mentioned this page in the past.)  It states:

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Finally, some real platforms.  Is my search finally over?

Core Values

Well, I’m not going to reprint the whole page.  It does state:

Core Values

• Fiscal Responsibility
• Constitutionally Limited Government
• Free Markets

So, this is actually something I can accept as a political platform.  Fiscal Responsibility, the belief that the government should utilize money responsibly.  They go on to talk about how the Constitution was designed to protect citizenry from high taxation and reducing debt.  Constitutionally Limited Government, the belief that the Constitution outlines the powers of government.  The belief that the government can do no more than what is outlined in the Constitution.  And Free Markets, they state this is the freedom from government hindrances to private businesses and personal liberty.

At the bottom of the page is a statement of Philosophy:

Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted “unalienable rights” by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.

That is a lot of words to repeat what was stated three times on the same page already.  And, where at first I was happy to finally find a political platform, I find these statements are problematically vague.  Namely, the last sentence, “We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.”

Natural Law

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume this is not the “natural law” of Aristotle or Cicero.  Nor does it seem to be Islamic “natural law.”  Is it Christian natural law?  The natural law utilized in English common law?  More likely, it is Hobbes’ version of “natural law,” John Locke’s “Liberal natural law” or the natural law utilized in American jurisprudence.  And aren’t the “rights of the individual” the rights laid out in the Constitution?  Isn’t this redundant?

Anyway, I really don’t want to critique at this moment.  Although, one reason I want to find the platform is that I may be able to critique it.  That is one advantage the Tea Party movement has over most other movements:  they are amorphous, so it is difficult to pin them down on any given issue.

Commonality

Yesterday and today the common themes of “government spending” and “government intrusion” have come up.  But is this the only platform of the Tea Party movement?  Doesn’t the GOP already have those issues in their party platform?  Is the Tea Party really just the Republican Party? Then why are Tea Party candidates unseating Republican candidates?  Why does Karl Rove dislike them so much?

The GOP website states, under their ideologies, that on economics:

We believe in the power and opportunity of America’s free-market economy.  We believe in the importance of sensible business and regulations that promote confidence in our economy among consumers, entrepreneurs and businesses alike.  We oppose interventionist policies that put the federal government in control of industry and allow it to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.

That sounds almost exactly like the “fiscal responsibility” of the Tea Party Patriots.  The “Free Markets” statement is in there, too.  Except the GOP sees that these are actually one issue.

On Constitutionally Limited Government, the GOP website states:

We believe a judge’s role is to interpret the law.
Republicans believe a judge’s role is to interpret the law, not make law from the bench.  Judges in our federal court system, from district courts to the Supreme Court, should demonstrate fidelity to the U.S. Constitution.  We trust the judicial system to base rulings on the law, and nothing else.

So, my hope for a quick answer was decimated by five minutes of middle-school research.  Oh, Crap.

If the GOP already has the platform espoused by the Tea Party Patriots, why does the Tea Party Patriots need a separate website and separate donations?  Do these donations not count as donations to the Republican Party?  Because, this can be concerning.  Instead of donating 2 million dollars to the GOP, one can donate 1 million to the GOP and 1 million to the Tea Party, and get the same goals.

Really, if the Tea Party movement is just an extension of the GOP, I feel duped.  On the top of the Tea Party patriots’ page it states, “Official Grassroots American Movement.“  Is it?  Or is it an Astroturf movement as has been suggested?  A grassroots movement is one that is created from within the local community.  It was how the Progressive Movement in the early 20th century got started.  It is how opposition to European/Western factory farms grew in Kenya.  It is how the opposition to Apartheid grew in South Africa.  Grassroots movements can grow to be very powerful and almost always benefit the community.  ‘Astroturf‘ movements basically subvert the democratic process and allow powerful individuals the ability to coerce a population indirectly.  (Distancing blame if things go wrong, and allowing financial contributions to outweigh any other form of support.)

Precedence

The problem I have with these platforms of the Tea Party Patriots’ website mission statement is that they were not there before 2008.  This is not a partisan observation.  This is just a concerned observation.  President Bush (44) was the President when the Patriot Act was signed.  President Bush sent out “stimulus checks” several times during his Presidency.  President Bush presided over the engagement of two wars.  Where was the concern about “Constitutionally Limited Government“, “Fiscal Responsibility“, and “Free Markets.”

NAFTA was enacted in 1994.  According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, net manufacturing employment declined by 3,654,000 between 1994 and 2007.  Seven of those years were under President Bush (44).  The same President who infringed on Constitutional rights with the US Patriot Act.  The same President that sent out stimulus checks.  The same president who signed a stimulus bill in 2008.  The same President that started a war with Iraq for vague reasons.  (Implications between terrorism and Iraq were tenuous at the start, and eventually dropped in the same of hunting for ‘weapons of mass destruction.’)  This is not a slam against the war, either.  This is just a statement that wars are expensive, in total dollars and in the cost of lives of citizens.  There was no Tea Party movement before the election of President Obama, why?

There has to be more to the party line than what is stated on the Tea Party Patriots’ website.  Otherwise, this grassroots movement would have started a decade earlier, or more people would have just joined the Republican Party.

Why now?  And why do they espouse the same party line as the GOP?

Implications

I did not intend to arrive at this segment.  I am actually a bit disappointed to be here already.  What I thought would take weeks only took two days.  The implications of the Tea Party movement really being an extension of the Republican Party are concerning.  And, I promise this is not Godwin’s Law.

After the Great Depression his Europe, the “grassroots” National Socialist German Workers’ Party came to gain a large amount of seats in the Reichstag (German parliament).  (Dipping into my college courses:) It was not just by a populous vote that the Nazi party gained favor, but from endorsements by the aristocrats and politicians that gave support to Hitler and the Sturmabteilung (Brown Shirts).  Before 1930 (ish), the Sturmabteilung (SA) were considered an “extremist group.”  As the Depression was decimating the world economy, Communist uprisings were spreading.  The Bolshevik Revolution had occurred in Russia and England, France and the rest of the West were dealing with massive unrest.  The German ruling class felt the SA would be an effective tool to suppress any Communist groups.

There are too many parallels to ignore.  If the Tea Party movement is just an extremist faction of the Republican Party, what are the implications?  Well, there is massive economic turmoil in the United States and massive unrest has already come, but it is reaching a tipping point where things may get much worse.  Technically, the recession is over, but there are still few jobs and income opportunities.  The election of Barack Obama to President sent a shockwave through America.  This has to be admitted, even if you dislike the current President, or do not care, or feel he is really no different.  The American electorate, for the first time, showed they are willing to go away from the status quo – a Black man with a non-Anglo name was elected to the highest seat in American politics by a majority vote – the first time this ever happened in America.

If the Tea Party movement is really just an arm of the Republican party in an attempt to . . . I am not even sure what to call it.  At best, it would be a subversion of democracy.

This is what I do not get: People understand that advertisers spend millions (billions) of dollars doing research to find ways to influence people’s decision making capabilities.  Today, no one would be surprised that PepsiCo spent a million dollars to find out what shade of blue to put on their soda cans to increase sales.  Why, then, is it so hard to believe the same thing for politics?  Why wouldn’t someone be willing to spend inordinate amounts of time and money to coerce people into following their political agenda?  The concept is older than marketing (in the contemporary sense) and the implications are far more reaching.

So, day two – more progress made – but nothing definitive.  A type of platform is unfolding, with connotations of something much larger.

The Tea Party has the same principles and platform of the GOP, and yet, Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, and Joe Miller have unseated GOP Republicans in primaries.  More information is necessary.

So, I started to wonder, “What exactly is the Tea Party?”

What are their primary ideals? What do they stand for? What is their Party platform? What is their agenda? None of these things came to mind immediately.

I thought I would state what comes to mind with other parties. These are not comprehensive, but brief rundowns from the top of my head.

The Democratic Party, aside from having a new logo that does not have a Nike swoosh in it, is the party of labor unions, progressive taxes, environmental policies, social programs – all that is considered Social Liberalism in modern day discourse. They are Center-Left.

The Conservatives (Republicans), aside from using Communist/Socialist colors, are the party of limited government intervention and regulation (especially in banking and finance), severe reductions in taxes, limited regulation for environment. In addition, a lot of Conservatives are part of the Moral Majority, in which they oppose all forms of abortion and homosexuality, support Christian agencies and educations, limited foreign intervention (only military intervention of perceived threats – in which the goal is not limited).

There is also the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. The Green Party makes me think of Ralph Nader and a lot of policies that he proposed that are genius, but not plausible. The Libertarian agenda is sort of like joining a militia in Montana.

So, what does the Tea Party stand for? What are their key issues? What is the platform? What is the agenda? What holds these people together into one party? I decided to make this a multi-part venture, because I found no conclusions yet again.

So, first I went to The Tea Party Express (http://www.teapartyexpress.org/)

This web page is difficult to summarize, because it has very little on it. There are three links to contribute to campaigns: Christine O’Donnell for US Senate, Joe Miller in Alaska (I guess he is going to be Alaska), and Sharon Angle for Senate.

There is a statement:

Conservatives Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, Joe Miller in Alaska and Sharron Angle in Nevada urgently need our support. Please make a contribution to our campaigns supporting them by clicking on the buttons above and let’s make sure these three tea party heroes are victorious in their efforts to represent us in the U.S. Senate.

- Amy Kremer, Chairman, Tea Party Express

(So, Joe Miller is running for US Senate in Alaska.  Glad you could clear that up.)

And then there is a box about how the “Tea Party Express Fights Back Against ‘Racism’ Attacks” and it says to “click here” for more information. So, I click there. And I get an article on News Blaze entitled “Tea Party Express Fights Back Against Attacks on Tea Party Movement.” It’s a long article. I read it, but retained nothing. I did see a list of people that were speaking, and Alan Keyes was on there. (No one will tell me if Alan Keyes is related to Alicia Keyes.) Anyway, screw Alan Keyes.

I guess, the gist of the story is that they are parading Black people around on a stage to show how much they like Black people. Much like, when someone tells a joke about Black people, or refuses to shake the hand of a Black person, they preface it with “I have a lot of Black friends.” Or, “How can I be racist when I have all of Our Gang on DVD?”

There is a name on the button on the bottom of the page, and it says “Lloyd Marcus,” and “We The People.” I have no idea if that means we are all Lloyd Marcus, or maybe he claims that he coined the phrase.

So, I Google Lloyd Marcus. He has a website, and some YouTube clips.

So, I go to his website, lloydmarcus.com. I was going to be a bit more mean with my description of his site. But then I saw his clip on YouTube, and I decided to be a little less abrasive.

So, the top of the site is a picture of Mr. Marcus, wearing some 18th century hat with a bunch of geriatric White people carrying American flags wearing golf shirts. Then there’s a big advert, that you can get a Tea Party ringtone for $2.99.

Then there’s some blog entries about how he goes around doing Tea Party event stuff. And then an advert to donate to “Sponsor a Song.” It is a joint venture with America’s Mighty Warriors.

From what I could tell, America’s Mighty Warriors is a non-partisan site that supports soldiers and the families of soldiers. In any case, the loss families have suffered and what the soldiers in the military go through has nothing to do with political maneuvering.

So, back to Mr. Marcus and his funny hat.

I want to discuss this a bit… this YouTube Clip… first, I have to say that Lloyd Marcus cries better than Glenn Beck on camera. (I think it was probably because it was genuine.) But, Mr. Marcus tells this story in his clip on why he is a Conservative. I find this story itself to be problematic.

Here it is:

So, for everyone that did not actually watch the Clip (even if you lie and said you did) . . . he tells this story about growing up and how this make him Conservative. He talks about moving into a project apartment building.  (If you actually watch it, you get to hear a song about Ronald Reagan in the end.)

“… when I was nine, my parents moved from a leaky ghetto in Baltimore, to a brand-new, government high-rise. Everything was new. It was a beautiful building. It was 11 stories high. My family lived on the sixth floor. Within six months time, I saw that building turning into a huge ghetto. I had to go up to my apartment on the sixth floor and i had to go up the stairwell because the elevators were broke, half the time, from vandalism. And people would smash out the light bulbs int he stairwells, so you had to walk up the shadow of death, and this stairwell, they smell of urine, there were broken whiskey bottles all int he foot. And everybody around me, despite the fact that they were getting free housing, free healthcare, and free food, they were angry and bitter and everything was the white man’s fault. And even at 9, I said, ‘how do we stop these White people from coming in here at night and smashing whiskey bottles and raping people in the stairwell.. and that taught me a powerful lesson… that you can’t just give people stuff, they have to have some kind of ownership, some kind of respons-ibility. . . ”

(transcribed by me)

He then talks about how his father became a Fireman and was able to move his family into a ‘Black suburb” – and he states “I am convinced that that’s what saved my life” and my siblings. He talks about his family members that stayed in the project apartments and most of them died from alcohol abuse, AIDS and had many unplanned children. (He has an aunt who has 18 children and 29 grandchildren.) He points out that none of these children have fathers, and he was “blessed with a dad.”

Well, Mr. Marcus, you did identify a major problem for Black Americans. You even talk about how your father was given deplorable (work) conditions just because he was Black. (Let me point out, that I have said nothing negative about Mr. Marcus’s father.) He says he saw “government welfare” destroy people. And he says that government welfare has people vote for a politician just to get a “little check.” (Like George W. Bush’s rebate checks?)

Anyway, I described a lot of that for a reason. Correlation is not causation. What was the reason of the deplorable conditions in the “ghetto”? (Note: a ghetto just means a neighborhood of the same ethnic background, technically.) Mr. Marcus points out that he was able to move out of government housing when his father was given an opportunity to provide for his whole family. I’m sure he had to work hard to get that job. Mr. Marcus also talks about the racial barriers his father faced after he had become a fireman.

So, what does that say? Is the problem the “government welfare” or the lack of opportunity?

Another problem I have is that Lloyd Marcus constantly refers to himself as a “Black Conservative” and not just a Conservative. This is problematic because the supporters of someone such as Mr. Marcus would be the same people that claim “liberals” are “using the race card” when they mention race.

So, back to the point at hand: What does this say about the Tea Party agenda? I have no idea.

The Tea Party claims that race is not a factor in their movement. But then they parade Black people around like little Bakongo fetish dolls.

A lot of these claims that the Tea Party was racist arrived when we started hearing rhetoric about “going back to ‘when America was great’.” This was problematic because non-whites did not have the right to vote in that time period. They harp on this pre-Civil Rights Era rhetoric. So, it prompts other people to ask if that is part of what they are attempting to “go back” to.

The other problem is that they have such a huge problem with Barack Obama, and there really is not a solid reason why. I saw all these Tea Party Patriots carrying signs about how “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Those were the same people that called me several names when I voiced dissent before 2008, none of which I want to repeat.

And then, at a Tea Party event the other day, Glenn Beck takes a jab at Michelle Obama for endorsing healthy eating habits. Really? In a country plagued with obesity and obesity related ailments, you are going to chastise the First Lady for encouraging healthy eating? Did you also go after Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign? Or Laura Bush’s reading thing (whatever it was – something about burning books, I think)?

So, we thought maybe the Tea Party was racist, like the Klan or some other White supremacy movement. Evidently, this is not true. There are like 3 dozen black people that support them. They parade them around for all of us to see. Lloyd Marcus states, “Tea Party patriots oppose President Obama’s policies, not his skin color.” Did they oppose those policies when President Bush or Clinton was behind the same policies? Because that would convince me, other than having to take your word for it.

Well, there was one piece on the NewsBlaze website that sheds some light. It was a quote from Lloyd Marcus:

“From the very beginning when Rick Santelli’s famous on-air rant helped rally millions of Americans to the tea party movement, the establishment media and liberals across the country have tried to head off the growing citizen involvement in opposing the reckless spending in Washington and the growing intrusiveness of the federal government,” said Lloyd Marcus, Tea Party Express spokesperson and leader.

They “oppose reckless spending in Washington and the growing intrusiveness of the federal government.” There is no quantification on “reckless” or “growing” in this statement. One can only guess what value to apply these terms. What type of spending is reckless? Like spending money to pay for judges to hear cases that are clearly unConstitutional? And what is the growing intrusiveness? Like the government telling people whom they can marry? Or the government telling people of different religions where they can build their establishments (on private property)? Or the government deciding what operations are appropriate between a woman and her doctor? I’m not sure.

So, Day one… we learned:

• The Tea Party has 2 dozen Black people in it.
• The Tea Party is against “reckless government spending.”
• The Tea Party is against “growing intrusiveness of the federal government.”
• The Tea Party is for opportunistic ways to generate income in the name of a political cause.