wWTFfd? [What would the founding fathers do?]

On October 29, 2010, in Tea Bags, by teabagusa

Teabaggers are constantly proclaiming that we must revert back to the Founding Fathers original intent and the Constitution in an attempt to resist progressive agendas and more governmental regulation. This is backward for at least two reasons. First, if this position is taken literally, we would be reverting back to societal values and policies of over two centuries ago. I doubt anyone is ready to bring back slavery, take away the right of women to vote, allow large corporations to maintain monopolies, and eliminate humane conditions for workers. This is exactly what we would have to do if we reverted back to the Constitution as originally written by the Founding Fathers.

Second, evoking original intent is actually not a good strategy if you want to avoid change because the Founding Fathers intended our government and the Constitution to be malleable as society changes. As society has changed its values on labor policies, business regulation, who can vote, and civil rights, the Constitution has been amended to reflect that change. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers was not in creating a set of principles that would stand the test of time, but in designing a living document that could change with societal values and the acquisition of collective knowledge.

John McNaughton: The Tea Party’s Artist

On October 27, 2010, in Tea Bags, by teabagusa

Utah based artist John McNaughton thinks his paintings are making important political statements. We think his work is simple-minded, unoriginal, and ignorant. In other words, this work represents the Tea Party perfectly.

Take, for example, his work entitled One Nation Under God. Jesus, holding the Constitution, is surrounded by Saints on his right and Sinners on his left.  The painting condemns academics, lawyers, businessmen, and unwed pregnant women.  For a real kick, visit his official website for a person by person explanation of each character included in the painting.

We also had to post his most recent “work” entitled The Forgotten Man, depicting Obama stepping on the Constitution.  McNaughton claims this painting is non-partisan.  He also makes a whole host of other claims based on ignorance and bias.  Again, check out his website for more fun.

If you weren’t convinced by his paintings alone, maybe a YouTube video will do the trick.

Tagged with:
 

The rent is too damn high!

On October 24, 2010, in Tea Bags, by teabagusa

The New York Governor’s Race is heating up to be a good one, especially with Jimmy McMillan. Jimmy is a self-proclaimed Karate expert, a patriot, and, from what I gather, inaugural candidate from “The Rent is Too Damn High” Party. Although his point of view is rather liberal, Tea Party members may appreciate his absurdity and unyielding desire to free us from the bonds of tyranny.

Christine O'Donnell never read her high-held constitutionTea Party’s Christine O’Donnell recently reiterated her governmental ignorance, this time by questioning whether  separation of church and state is actually in the Constitution. To her defense, she was correct in clarifying that she was not carrying the Constitution with her.

Chris Coons on the other hand, took the opportunity to remind us that the Tea Party, and Americans in general, are in desperate need for a refresher on what is actually in the Constitution.  This wouldn’t be so absurd except that one of the main tenants of Tea Party-ism is a strict adherence/return to the Constitution.

Christine O’Donnell is the epitome of the Tea Party.  Citizens, teabaggers and non-teabaggers alike, should be worried.     She lacks the brain power or experience to create any sort of meaningful contribution for the people of Delaware or to our country.  Here are some highlights of recent idiocy.

You know you are an idiot when…

1) …you become the source of hit material for Saturday Night Live.
The upshot of being mocked on SNL is that you instantly become a household name (ask Sarah Palin).

2) … you think your personal beliefs should be decided through community debate. When asked whether she personally thought evolution was a myth, Christine said this should be debated by local communities.

3)… you think being democrat means you are a socialist.

4) …you think Iraq and Afghanistan are the same thing and you think the troops should remain there [wherever the hell they are] indefinitely.

5) …you believe people impregnated by rape are a very small percentage of the population, so they don’t really count.

6)…you think we should sanction China ’cause we could totally take ‘em!’

7)…you think a good reason for corporations not to disclose campaign contributions is because it “is inconvenient”.

8)…you actually take a political stand on masturbation. [We do agree that masturbation would not save children in Africa dying of AIDS]


9)…you want to run for political office, but can’t think of one Supreme Court ruling you disagree with.


10)…you make a political commercial to refute the claim that you are, in fact, a witch.

Do you want this person having a say in important issues like war [wherever the hell it is happening], abortion [rape victim excluded], fiscal transparency [big corporations excluded], or breadth of government [democrats are socialists]?  Can you really take this person seriously?

One more just for fun!

Tagged with:
 

Immigrant is the new black

On October 3, 2010, in Deep Bagging, Featured Posts, Tea Bags, by teabagusa

If it wasn’t for illegal immigrants, The United States of America would not exist.  Our forefathers were technically the first squatters.  In fact, those that discovered and settled this land, so highly esteemed in the collective mind of our country, forcefully pushed the rightful owners of the land out and took control by force.  Immigrants are not banding together to force us out of our own country like our forefathers did to the Native Americans. Why, then, given our heritage, do so many Americans take such a hard stance on immigrants in general and illegal immigrants in particular?  One underlying reason, in my mind, why individuals take a hard stance in immigration issues is that they are at the least culturally intensive or ignorant and possibly even down right racist.  This animosity leads to a conflation of racist tendencies with immigration issues.

For example, culturally insensitive and derogatory comments reveal underlying racism that is orthogonal to the issue of immigration.  How many times have you heard phrases such as, If they can’t speak my language then they shouldn’t be able to live here! Language simply has nothing to do with the legality of someone entering the United States.

Legislation allowing or even encouraging racial profiling also reveals underlying racism.  Laws such as those in Arizona do not provide a heuristic for law enforcement officers to identify illegal immigrants of Caucasian descent, such as many from Canada or Europe.  Rather, these laws specifically target individuals that look different than the prototypical white U.S. citizen.   Any law that targets an individual based on their racial identity is racist, period.   Hispanics make up 30% of Arizona’s population; 67% of those Hispanics were born in the U.S.  This means that a majority Hispanics in Arizona are legal citizens.  Laws that target people based on race in Arizona will enviably target innocent and legal citizens.

Extreme nationalistic tendencies are also racist.  Racism is laden in any line of thought that claims American culture should be preserved by stopping the influx of other cultural influences.  Many scare tactics are used by anti-immigration proponents to convince people that the white U.S. majority will be taken by immigrants in the future.  Often cited are statistics of Hispanic birth rates being much higher than those of whites.  “Do your duty…make more babies” was spouted by one Fox News anchor several years back, reflecting the fear laden sentiment of many.  This jingoistic fear is unwarranted as it is not the case that Hispanics are going to become the majority, even with the discrepancy in birth rates.

In all these cases, the line between legal and illegal is blurred, suggesting racist motives rather than a concern for legality.  This point is showcased in the recent action of several to actually change the 14th amendment, which guarantees citizenship to those born in the U.S.  Arizona Senator Russell Pearce, Arizona Rep. John Kavanagh, and Utah Tea Party candidate Mike Lee have all expressed interest in changing the 14th Amendment to target children of illegal immigrants despite the fact that these children are actually legal citizens and recent studies that show severe psychological damage is often incurred through enforcement procedures carried out on immigrant families.

Even the age-old argument My tax dollars shouldn’t go to pay for welfare of illegal immigrants! is implicitly racist because the same people are not saying that they are happy to pay taxes for the welfare of legal immigrants or citizens.  They don’t want their tax dollars going towards the welfare of anyone legal or illegal yet are arguing against it going toward illegals.

This is not a tragedy of explicitly held intentional hatred, but rather a serious problem of latent racism.  Anti-immigrant supporters are caught between the lines of deeply held cultural, religious, and political beliefs on the one hand and modern political correctness on the other.  It is clearly not permissible in today’s society to have separate water fountains or physically assault those of a different race.  However, the same natural tendencies and cultural ideologies that resulted in explicit racism of our past are simply repackaged in our minds through the political forum of the day.  The problem is that this purely cognitive forum is so far removed from our senses that we have convinced ourselves the two are not related.

Tagged with:
 

The Pledge to America “is nonsense”!

On September 24, 2010, in Recycled Tea Bags, Tea Bags, by teabagusa

Paul Krugman wrote an honest and enlightening piece on the recently released G.O.P.’s  “Pledge to America” .   In essence, he claims that it is simply a ploy to gain voter support but any logical analysis of it shows it is completely fantasy.  My favorite part of the article is when he shows that the only way to balance to budget by the proposed date is to basically get rid of government (in the literal sense).

“No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”

Maybe this is what the G.O.P. intends, but I doubt it.  I think they just want votes.

The Op-Ed Article from the NYTimes can be found here.

Tagged with:
 

The collective psyche of America does not realize the extent to which there is a discrepancy between the rich and the poor in this country. Pop-economics guru Dan Ariely will soon publish a new report providing empirical evidence that Americans greatly underestimate U.S. wealth inequality. For example, people estimate that the richest 20% of our country control about 59% of wealth. In reality, however, that top 20% actually controls around 84% of the wealth. Even more striking is the fact that people said that the top 20% should only control 32% of the wealth; this intuition held across political and economic lines (both rich and poor). Finally, given a choice between different distributions of wealth, Americans were more likely to chose the wealth distribution of Sweden (top 20% control about 36% of the wealth) compared to that in the United States. The level of wealth inequality in our country runs contrary to our intuitions of what it should be and what it actual is. The former suggests that people really believe wealth should be distributed more equally than it is; the later suggests that the reality of the problem is much worse than we think.

As reported here.
You can read the forthcoming paper here.

Norton, M.I. & Ariely, D. (in press) Building a Better America-One Wealth Quartile at a Time.  Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Tagged with:
 

G.O.P “A Pledge to America” Fluff

On September 23, 2010, in Deep Bagging, Recycled Tea Bags, by AnchorTeaBag

The G.O.P., just as teabaggers, focus too much on fluff, but no substance.

In a brand new political stunt to try and regain power, the G.O.P has announced a legislative blueprint called “A Pledge to America”.

The blueprint, which is a little less than bulletpoints on a marketing powerpoint, include the following:

Jobs:

  • Stop job-killing tax hikes
  • Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income
  • Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit
  • Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.

Cutting Spending:

  • Repeal and Replace health care
  • Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)
  • Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward
  • Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Reforming Congress:

  • Will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority
  • Give members at least 3 days to read bills before a vote

Defense:

  • Provide resources to troops
  • Fund missile defense
  • Enforce sanctions in Iran

As expected, the proposal is all fluff, buzzwords in the context of scare tactics, and no real solutions. For example, the proposal to create jobs is to essentially go back to our old practices: In effect, no taxation (gee, I wonder how they plan to keep up roads and improve America’s infrastructure), Allow small businesses to take tax cuts of upto 20% (check! Obama’s administration already took care of breaks for small businesses, here are some of the Obama’s small business tax cuts key benefits), require congressional approval for any proposal that’d incur deficit (even though in the same proposal they complain about how much red-tape there’s already), and repeal health care mandates.

Reading the G.O.P’s fully approved Pledge to America unveils no real solutions, no groundbreaking stuff. It’s merely a collection of cliche stock photography, rants about the same old complains most teabaggers have, and the absolutely same scare tactics that drive ignorance to voting tables.

But where’s the substance? Where are the details? Or fluff all the pledge to America deserves?

Tagged with:
 

Teabagging Patriots Tea-shirt Now Available

On September 23, 2010, in Tea Bags, by AnchorTeaBag

We’ve released our very own teabagging patriots tea-shirt. Get your own and support a lifetime of teabagging.
Check it out on our shop now!

Teabagging Patriots Tea-shirt

Teabagging Patriots Tea-shirt

Tagged with: