Tea Bagging

Somewhere between 1500 and 1600, an unknown Author penned The Voynich Manuscript. It has over 250 pages, is incredibly detailed, and has many illustrations to accompany the writing. The one problem is, no one knows what it says. Its language, its place of origin, as well as its author, are completely unknown. Top cryptographers spanning the last century have been unable to decipher the manuscript. It remains one of Humanities great secrets. It is not a coded manuscript, because the writing flows beautifully, like elegant prose, which suggests the author knew what he/she was writing, as it was written. A mysteriously unknown language, that perhaps, we’ll never know.

That being said, the Voynich Manuscript is not even half as baffling as the current American “Tea Party” movement. Essentially, what the tea party movement is, for those of you who are unaware, is a group of redneck protesters who think they know how to run a Country far more impressively than the current administration. What is striking though, is that most of the tea party brigade themselves, don’t know what they’re angry about….

According to cbs, 44% of the Tea Party movement, believes that their taxes have gone up under Obama. Which, they haven’t. Somewhere along the line, these mad tea party people have decided that tax cuts, equals Socialism. Which, is doesn’t. So what do they want?

They want liberty for all!!!! – unless you happen to disagree with them. Or you’re gay. Or a left winger. Or you can’t afford healthcare. Or you’ve had an abortion. Or you’re from Mexico.

They are, for all intents and purposes, Neo-Cons. Which means, they are Reaganite Republicans. They seem to have an issue with the idea of universal Healthcare (We in the UK have universal healthcare – mainly because we still care for our sick and injured – and our standard of health is ranked 18th in the World by the World Health Organisation, whilst America is ranked 36th. The USA also spends more than the UK on healthcare, and has a higher infant mortality rate, and a lower life expectancy than the UK…. but still, they insist Socialised healthcare is bad…….. although socialised policing, fire protection, and road building, they don’t seem to have a problem with) They are also, very undemocratic by nature.

The Tea Party Website, has the following to say…
“ 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.“
All Right Winged proposals. Why do these people assume that the entire Country wants to live in a Right Winged Nation? They may as well just say “We want a Constitutional amendment banning any political party unless they’re Republicans and very Right Winged…. oh and the gays aren’t allowed to marry either, they’re all icky and stuff… oh and God is real“. Not everyone puts all their faith in a free market system.
Constitutionally limited Government is also an interesting point. Why is this being raised now? Why not under Reagan? Reagan increased the number of Federal Executive Employees by 0.10% during his two terms in Office. In fact, he was the only President to increase the number of Federal Executive Employees, from the era of Kennedy, to Obama. The guy who shrunk Government the most, since the 1960s…was Bill Clinton. A Democrat. The number of Federal Employees is at its lowest, in over 70 years. So where is this huge scary socialist government?

Fiscal Responsibility? Were these Republican homophobic racist redneck idiots Tea Party attendees asleep over the past eight years? Record deficits under Bush. Where was the complaining then? Why aren’t they complaining about the amount of money being spent on defence? I’d guess it’s because the Right Wing says it’s acceptable to spend tax payers money bombing Nations and torturing on the basis of a lie…….. but if that money was being offered to help sick people get treatment, they take to the streets to complain.
And how ironic it is that fiscal responsibility, includes paying Sarah Palin, the laughing stock of America, £100,000 to read notes off the palm of her hand live on TV. Very responsible. Palin went on TV, to announce that Republicans had defeated Democrats “3-0″ in elections in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia recently. “3-0″ she proudly exclaimed. Clearly the lady who can see Putin from her house in Alaska chose to ignore Bill Owens win in New York, the first time a Democrat had won that district in over 140 years recently. Or John Garamendi’s California 10th Congressional District win. Or Terry Mills’ winning Kentucky’s 24th State House district. 3-3 so far. Scott Murphy wins in New York. 4-3 Democrats. But then, do we really expect more from a woman who made numerous complaints about Obama using a teleprompter, whilst she herself had notes written on her hand to prompt her throughout the night? Perhaps if George Bush had used a teleprompter once or twice, he wouldn’t have single handedly turned the GOP into a party of the mentally disabled.

“A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty.“
Why are they posing subjective opinion, as objective reality? There are millions upon millions of us who would disagree with the statement they make there. Millions of Americans would disagree. How democratic is it, to suggest these people should be shut out of Political America?

“The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible.”
No they didn’t. American Capitalism put huge limitations on Corporations. Limitations that no longer exist today. If Obama were to suggest reintroducing these limitations, Well, Glenn Becks head might explode in a fountain of “OMGZ COMMUNIZM IS HERE!!!!!!!!!” rage. Corporate charters had fixed periods of time to operate. If Corporations were thought to cause harm to the public good, they’d have their licence revoked. Corporations had to obey certain operational duties that fulfilled their charter pledges. If they failed to, they’d have their licence revoked. Owners of Corporations could not own stock in other Corporations, because they were only allowed to be in business in order to fulfill the role they had been set up to fulfill, and nothing more. They were not allowed to interfere with elections, or influence public policy in any way. In fact, incorporation was only available to those who wished to set up a company that would benefit the public, rather than for mere profit. Corporations could not make any long term decisions, without the agreement of legislators.
These rules were employed across State governments, and because the founders feared another East India Company emerging, they were always very suspicious of unchecked free markets. So no, the founders did not believe that personal and economic freedom are indivisible.
In fact, early America, the colonies, was a very egalitarian, community based, supportive economy.

The Tea Party movement takes the Founders sentiments out of context. It would be easy for me to start a Socialist movement and claim the Founders were Socialist, given their apparent adversity toward the power and wealth of Corporations. But it’d also be naive of me. The truth is, opinion among the founders was deeply divided. Capitalism was still a very young idea. Socialism, was a very young idea. They had no evidence as to which system is better….. neither do we, now. They could only work with what they knew at the time. And what they knew at the time, can not, in any such way, apply to what we know today.

James Madison, arguing in Federalist Papers Number 10, stated that a strong central government was needed to protect citizens against controlling, partisan, extreme factions. Madison says:
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
No one is suggesting that the Tea Party brigade are not entitled to their opinion. They are. Regardless of how abhorrent I find their views, they are entitled to them. But, to suggest that the USA was built on their views, is strictly not true. It’s a manipulation of the American sense of Patriotism. Madison warned against these people.

I don’t want to be the one who suggests racism has a part to play in this, but right from the word go, the far Right had decided Obama was the worst President in history. They wanted his birth certificate, they called him a muslim, they said he was a terrorist sympathiser, They said he was indoctrinating kids when he spoke at their school. They said he hated the white race. And now, they’re attacking him, because he bailed out a failed Capitalist system.
The Tea Party brigade is not fighting for American values. The Tea Party brigade is fighting for insurance companies, who are without a doubt directly responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people who simply couldn’t afford to pay their health insurance needs.

The irony of the situation is that whilst these idiots have such distrust in Government and such trust in the free markets; the free markets have allowed a situation to arise in which Government is effectively fun by big business. The Republicans attempting to tell people what it is to be a “Patriot” in terms of political and economical opinions, is so horrendously manipulative, but vaguely familiar. One recalls the Republicans during the early months of the Iraq War making everyone aware that if you didn’t support the War, you weren’t a Patriot. Fox News referred to Anti-war demonstrations in 2003, as those of the “loony left“, yet referred to the tea party demonstrations of 2009, as “true Patriots”. It’s despicable. But then, that’s the nature of the right wing.

I have no idea why anyone takes the far right seriously; they shouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors. And whilst they are certainly less understandable than the Voynich Manuscript, the Republican supporting rednecks who are still ridiculously bitter than they aren’t in a position of power any more, should DEFINITELY be allowed to keep their signs…………..

Senatus Populusque Americanus

It would be naive to think that on the surface, the United States model is entirely original and without precedent. From the architecture of the Government buildings, to the idolising of it’s founders, the influence of the Roman Republic can be seen throughout American politics. From it’s conception in the late 18th Century, America has retained much of it’s Roman influence. John Adams modelled his own style of writing on the great Roman Orator Cicero, often quoting him. Adams viewed Cicero’s political decline, as a mirror image of his own. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton – Romulus and Remus’ American counterparts – wrote a collection of 85 essays promoting the new U.S Constitution, they signed it using the allonym, “Publius” after Publius Valerius Publicola, the joint first Consul of the newly found Roman Republic, in 509bc. The Plebian Council of Rome acted as an dubiously elected House of Representatives, the Tribune could propose legislation and call the Senate, a Speaker of the House, if you will. The Roman Senate, acted almost as a supremely powerful Senate, filled with members of rich families (The US Senate, in 2003, was found to have 40 millionaires). The business class of the day, the Equites, grew ever more rich and politically influential as the territories and provinces increased (similar to the advancement of Oil opportunities with the “liberation” of Iraq). Whilst the Tribunes did indeed work in favour of the public (Tiberius Gracchus for example), the shadowy Equites influenced policy from behind the curtains.

Split powers, term limits, the veto, and the Senate itself are all aspects borrowed from America’s imperial predecessor. Of course there are substantial differences between the two (party politics isn’t particularly Roman, the two consuls of the Senate was not adopted in America), which is more down to the problems facing the founders in 1776, their need to create something different, something that broke away from previous English rule, but did not emulate to the core, the failings of previous Republican systems, such as the Republic of Rome. The Roman system was, after all, original and so had many, many flaws. Ultimately, the Roman Republican, the principle of the SPQR on which it stood, crumbled into Empire, because the Republican system of checks and balances just could not cope with such a widespread Empire.

The importance and the Patriotism of belonging to a particular National identity, the largely insular attitudes, their belief in the Republic, their military might, and their insistence that their way is superior and so should be spread across the World, their international cultural influence; all are derived from Rome, and passed on to it’s successor, a contemporary Renaissance, if you will, the United States of America.

There is one less obvious claim America has to be the new Rome.
Stoic Philosopher Panaetius left Athens and headed for Rome, with his new powerful friend; Roman Consul Scipio around 138BC. Earlier Stoics and Romans had decided long ago, that true Virtue came from knowledge, and so only the wisest of men could be considered virtuous in the eyes of the Gods. Panaetius introduced a new idea into the Roman every day life. He would offer help and teachings to those people who requested a life of virtue, he would provide the knowledge needed, he would be the way. And so suddenly, the idea that anyone could potentially become a supremely virtuous human being, in the eyes of the Gods, gave Politicians who sought advice from the teachings of Panaetius, a divine purpose for their serving in Rome. They would insist that the God’s had empowered them, which ultimately gave them much control over the public. This, directly influenced the notion a century later, that Caesar had a divine calling to “save” the Republic. Cicero drew heavily on the teachings of Panaetius. Suddenly individual “virtue” in the eyes of the population, became more important than the protection of the Republic.

In 2005, George Bush claimed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disastrous wars in which thousands upon thousands of innocents have died, was a “calling from God“. He is quoted as saying “I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.” A grotesque manipulation of the emotions of Christendom in it’s entirety. Those soldiers, those innocent Iraqi’s appear to have died for a reason none of us are aware of. Perhaps a lavish extension of Western Oil investment opportunities, perhaps the need to revert Iraq back to trading Oil in U.S Dollars. Certainly not a “war on terror“, certainly not a vengeful attack for the horror of 9/11. They died, because Bush thinks he’s ordained by God? The idea that the most powerful man on the Planet, turned the Republican White House into a Theocratic mess, by claiming he felt he had a calling from the mythical God of the Christian faith to destroy a Nation, is no different to Julius Caesar embarking on a mission from the Gods of Antiquity, to “save the Republic“.

Ex-White House Press Secretary, under Lyndon Johnson, Bill Moyer said:
“What is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America’s great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.“

Suddenly, politicians of a particular persuasion, simply because they consider themselves Christians, have decided that morality comes directly from their apparent virtuous Godly knowledge, and that the rest of us just aren’t privy to their misguided “wisdom“. They try to discredit the faith of opponent politicians, purely for their own political ends. They embarrass themselves and then say “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God“, which translates to “I forgave myself, and that’s all that matters“. Republican Congressman Trent Franks, whilst trying to justify torture, starts with a quite depressingly inaccurate claim that “America’s distinguishing hallmark, its bedrock foundation, is that we hold to the self-evident truth that all men are created by God”.
Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice Scalia, is quoted as saying “..Government…derives its moral authority from God.“.
The Anti-Abortion lobby use phrases like “We will not stop until this nation once again honors God—or we die trying“, Theocracy by any means necessary? Why do you need to include an unprovable God in your argument?

The concept that as a politician, you are doing the work of God, or that your playing a part ordained by God, is an incredibly powerful concept. The race for the Minnesota Senate seat between Republican candidate Norm Coleman and Democrat candidate Al Franken, took a turn to the Religious Right, when Coleman stated “God wants me to serve“, as if to suggest a vote for Franken, would be a vote against God.
Gary Mcleod, running for House of Representative seat against Jim Clyburn, in South Carolina’s Sixth Congressional District, writes on his home page “Socialism is immoral because it requires the violation of God-given property rights“. A horribly manipulation of Biblical principles to support Political gain.
Rumsfeld would send memo’s around, regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, filled with Biblical Quotes.
It is an incredibly manipulative environment, to bring Religion into the political landscape. It shouldn’t happen. One disgruntled blogger writing on the Huffington Post site, suggests that the Republicans just cut out their religious dogmatic nonsense, and run God for President.

The use of Religious propaganda and manipulation was utter nonsense during the height of the Roman Empire, it similarly possesses the same utter nonsensical “qualities” during the height of the American empire. The influence of the fallen Rome, is far more widespread than may seem on the surface.

The Paradox of America

The issue facing the Founding Fathers during the period 1787-1788, was the framing of the Constitution and how they would justify the problem of slavery. How could they reconcile the 1776 Declaration of Independence, with the need for a new Constitution based on their ideals of freedom from imposed rule, when they themselves were imposing rule over others?
Clearly, even back then, Slavery proved to go against everything the Revolution stood for. The Revolution itself can be referred to quite rightly as the Freedom Revolution. The Founding Fathers, Jefferson, Adams, Burr, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison and Washington are perhaps the most important and greatest political figures since Cicero, Caesar, Octavian and later Trajan. But that very issue of slavery which had no affect on the hearts of the citizens of the Roman Republic, would have a considerable affect on the brand new American Republic, purely because if ignored, it would suggest America was born on a gigantic contradiction, of epic proportions. Maybe so. But without that contradiction, and because slavery was so instrumental in the lives of the ordinary man pre-Revolution in America, the question of whether or not America could survive without it, was immeasurable.
America was of course built on contradiction. Built on paradox. The 55 delegates, often known as the framers of the Constitution constantly argued about how best to word it. Jefferson and Hamilton were the equivilant today of Liberal and Conservative. But they managed to frame arguably the greatest document of modern history, despite their differences. And America was born.

(Please excuse my simplistic overview of the American Revolution and framing of the Constitution, i’m young, and i’m from England, and haven’t been exposed to American history all that much, other than what i’ve taught myself from books. So excuse the simplicity.)

“In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis” – President Obama.

It strikes me as ridiculous that the very notion of big bankers and business owners who have been on the receiving end of bail out funds – tax payers money, should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. It strikes me as utterly inconceivable that they appear to try to justify six figure salaries despite destroying the economy. They should be in prison if anything.
It should absolute disgust us all, that the CEOs of Chrysler, GM, and Ford have the nerve to ask for $25bn yet will fly home in their own private jets. Those of us who keep the topic of social injustice at the front of our minds, who know people die every day because they cannot get the food they so desperately need, stand united in our absolute outrage at these disgusting, greedy human beings.

Obama, quite rightfully put a stop to it, by capping the wages of CEOs at $500,000.
Obama, The President, yesterday is quoted as saying…
“This is America. We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset – and rightfully so – are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. “
Thankfully, some Republicans have actually supported the cap on CEO wages. Richard Shelby, on the Senate Banking Committee, and Senator for Alabama, said quite rightfully: “In ordinary situations where the taxpayers money is not involved, we shouldn’t set executive pay, But where you’ve got federal money involved, taxpayers’ money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal.” He’s correct, in many ways. It’s a pity those blinded by the aspect of competition in the marketplace do not have the same outlook. Those such as “Clarence” commenting on a piece on Swamppolitics.com merely, and quite ridiculously state “Obamas Socialism starts“. But then, to these people, if Sean Hannity mentions ‘Socialism’ then it’s pretty much unanimous within the limited intellect of the Fox News Audience that Socialism rather than responsible Capitalism, is on the rise.

Let’s address the issue of the so called “rise of socialism” being thrown into the argument by those such as John McCain, who as early as October 2008, was referring to Obama as Socialist. And up to and including, the mass of Right Winged bloggers, who insist on calling anyone who isn’t a ‘pro-life‘ (the most misleading concept since ‘Freedom‘), anti-homosexual, Religious, right winger a ‘Socialist‘. Obama is not Socialist. He is as far from a Socialist as a Left winger could be. He’s Centre-left, at best.

So is the stimulus Socialist? No…

Job-creating investments in health: $153bn

Job-creating investments tax cuts for small businesses: $21bn

Job-creating investments in education and training: $138bn

Job-creating investments in infrastructure and science: $165bn

Tax cuts for working families: $247bn
….. Allow me to draw your attention to the second point…. “Job-creating investments tax cuts for small businesses: $21bn” – In what way, other than the mess of a Republican mind, can that be considered Socialist? Even if a video of Obama, dressed up in Soviet attire, speaking Russian, quoting Lenin was to come to light, it wouldn’t change the fact that $21bn in tax cuts for small businesses, is not Socialist.

It is not a Socialist ideal, to bring Wall Street back to levels of human decency and responsibility. Much like it’s not Fascism to allow those companies to exploit the World, make six figure sum salaries, and then run the company into the ground, whilst the government refuse to acknowledge that they’d done anything wrong; like the Bush Administration did and like the ultra-Conservative Republicans still seem to be advocating.

A socialist, says things like “Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.” If you were to claim to be Socialist to Vladmir Lenin, or Per Albin Hansson, or Fidel Castro, and one of your main points to your Socialist agenda, was …. “We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded“, you’d probably be punched in your ‘dirty capitalist face‘. If he were then to repeat what the White House website states about the apparent decay of the Capitalist system: “We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on.” He’d be taken outside and shot, as a traitor to the cause of Socialism.
I shouldn’t have to explain the huge difference between Obama’s plans for America and Socialism. Those who support Obama, know that the Conservatives are trying everything they can to discredit Obama. Perhaps because he can put a full sentence together, which is something the Republican White House has lacked for quite some time. Or perhaps it’s to take the blame away from those who actually caused the financial mess in the first place; themselves. Either way, the fear tactics employed by the Conservatives wont work.

Capping the wages of the bail out CEOs is not an act of a Socialist agenda, it is the act of a President trying to make an irresponsible Wallstreet, accountable to the people who are now bailing them out. If the President were to simply allow Merril Lynch to hand out a mass of Corporate Bonuses, whilst CEOs who systematically destroyed the economy, think it’s perfectly acceptable to then take home six figure sums; not only would the bail outs mean absolutely nothing, not only would Corporate morality remain in the gutter, but we’d also be setting ourselves up for another major economic disaster further down the line.

John Thain, who used taxpayers money to redecorate his office and give out handsome $4bn bonuses after losing $15bn in less than a year, is quoted here as saying “If you don’t pay your best people you will destroy your franchise“. The problem I see with John Thain here, is that ….. you don’t have best people!! Similarly, the argument being used by the Conservatives is that if Obama restricts the pay of bail out CEOs to $500,000, those people will just move to companies offering more money. Firstly, why would any company offer a six figure sum of money, to a CEO who has ran his company into the ground? Secondly, if those CEOs do move on, great, give someone else a chance, they can’t do any worse than has already been done.

From a GOP which has pledged $150 million cut to the Violence Against Women Act, and would instead spend that money on tax breaks for the rich, I do not know how anyone can take their flawed, and rather despicable side in this debate. If a $150 million cut to the Violence Against Women Act, is the prevailing of a Capitalist society over a Socialist society, I think i’d rather live in what they consider to be a Socialist society.

Obama is being used by the Republicans and Conservatives through their tried and tested Fear machine. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney specialised in it. Republican bloggers and members themselves have embraced it. The fear machine that relies on the idea that the past eight years just didn’t happen. It relies on being unable to acknowledge that it was actually the Republicans who caused this mess in the first place. It’s ignored. It’s ignored, because they know that the moment the word ‘Socialism’ is mentioned, the attention suddenly shifts from how a Republican Party in Government could allow CEOs and top bankers to systematically manipulate and destroy the system, and moves onto how the Democrats propose to fix it. When the truth of the matter is, the bail out Obama has proposed is unprecedented. No one knows how it will turn out. No one knows if it will succeed. It is a pity those same Republicans who attack the stimilus by suggesting they know for sure it will fail and kill America once and for all, didn’t have the same vision before they voted for Bush.

Is Obama really such a huge threat to the future stability of America? No. He is slowly already improving America, collecting it from the gutter in which it was left after the Bush regime. Will America survive Obama, despite Senators like Republican Senator Mel Martinez refered to Obama as a ‘threat’?. The answer, of course, is yes, America will survive Obama, and i’d suggest, America will come out of the Obama Presidency a lot better placed within the World than the isolation of America under Bush.

The paradox of the founding fathers in 1787; the fight for freedom despite the continued use of slave labour, is echoed down the centuries in the unforgivable paradox that the Republicans have created a mess of a system, in which CEOs and Bankers are taking public money that they have not earnt for themselves in absolutely huge amounts whilst the rest of America struggles to feed their families, who could have used that money for themselves. America was born on paradox. It will overcome it again, through the measures put forward by the Democrats, to bring morality back to Wall Street.