TYT: Tea party indoctrinating children

Ya, progressives would never use children in their political agenda.........right?

I noticed Cenk didn't bother bringing up that wacko lefties are making death threats to the publisher of the coloring book, which normal people would probably agree, is the real story about the coloring book.

He also didn't mention that the same publisher has a Barack Obama coloring book. Funny how none of those violent, right wing extremists, we always hear about, made any threats about that one.

Talk about ignoring facts.

He also was historically wrong about the 1773 Boston Tea Party .

Victory in the French and Indian War was costly for the British. At the war's conclusion in 1763, King George III and his government looked to taxing the American colonies as a way of recouping their war costs. They were also looking for ways to reestablish control over the colonial governments that had become increasingly independent while the Crown was distracted by the war. Royal ineptitude compounded the problem. A series of actions including the Stamp Act (1765), the Townsend Acts (1767) and the Boston Massacre (1770) agitated the colonists, straining relations with the mother country. But it was the Crown's attempt to tax tea that spurred the colonists to action and laid the groundwork for the American Revolution.

 

The colonies refused to pay the levies required by the Townsend Acts claiming they had no obligation to pay taxes imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation. In response, Parliament retracted the taxes with the exception of a duty on tea - a demonstration of Parliament's ability and right to tax the colonies.

 

In May of 1773 the British Parliament gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life - it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.

The colonists were not fooled by Parliament's ploy. When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land. In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution.

 

In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked. A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled on a near-by hill. Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.

 

Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement. In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston. The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.

In essence it was about taxes and lack of representation.

No, it was about a corporation (east indie trade) getting a government tax break while the small business didn't.

In todays times, the East Indies company would be the equivalent of fucking Wal-Mart.

Didn't help that the king was invested in the company either.

The east indie company's tax break allowed them to corner the market, so to speak, on the tea which put regular merchants out of business.

The weren't protesting the tax that THEY were paying on tea, they were protesting the tax break the government was giving big companies.

.

.

No, it was about a corporation (east indie trade) getting a government tax break while the small business didn't.

 

In todays times, the East Indies company would be the equivalent of fucking Wal-Mart.

 

Didn't help that the king was invested in the company either.

 

The east indie company's tax break allowed them to corner the market, so to speak, on the tea which put regular merchants out of business.

 

The weren't protesting the tax that THEY were paying on tea, they were protesting the tax break the government was giving big companies.

 

.

I see you have trouble either reading or comprehending.

The Brits cut the taxes the Colonies had to pay on tea, shipped by the East India Trading Company, but by accepting the tea, the Colonists in effect pledged their allegiance to Great Britain and accept it's control. So basically, your Wal-Mart analogy is completely wrong.

It's much more like the Obama administration telling the small businesses that they will get a tax break, but only if they make acceptable changes to their business the government wants or buy items the government says they should buy, instead of what the business owner deems to be what is best for his business to grow.

they will get a tax break, but only if they make acceptable changes to their business

If you think your right, tell me what CHANGES did the king request from the small merchants?

None. East Indie got the "TAX BREAK"

I know you'd like to disagree with me here, but sorry, this is documented history, not boogeyman future scenarios.

It was a TAX CUT, not a break.

The tea party rebellion was about big business not paying their fair share.

It's too bad even ancient history that's been taught in many schools even down to the elementary level for all these years, gets distorted for political reasons.

Sorry, you can try and come up with a new version of history, but you can't rewrite what is already there in those books.

This is elementary level learning, and yet right wingers can't get even THAT right because of their strong desire to remain in denial.

.

.

they will get a tax break, but only if they make acceptable changes to their business

wrong..

 

If you think your right, tell me what CHANGES did the king request from the small merchants?

 

None. East Indie got the "TAX BREAK"

 

I know you'd like to disagree with me here, but sorry, this is documented history, not boogeyman future scenarios.

 

It was a TAX CUT, not a break.

 

The tea party rebellion was about big business not paying their fair share.

 

It's too bad even ancient history that's been taught in many schools even down to the elementary level for all these years, gets distorted for political reasons.

 

Sorry, you can try and come up with a new version of history, but you can't rewrite what is already there in those books.

 

This is elementary level learning, and yet right wingers can't get even THAT right because of their strong desire to remain in denial.

.

.

Really? Are you that obtuse? The tax breaks were to the Colonists, if they accepted the tea. Not to the East India Trading Company. The benefit to the EITC was that the lower taxes would make the Colonists buy their tea, kinda like tax breaks from Obama if you buy "green" stuff. Cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, tax breaks for energy efficient windows, shingles, insulation, doors, appliances, etc...

You get it if you do what Obama says.

It's King George all over again.

What CHANGES did the king request from the small merchants?

.

.

What CHANGES did the king request from the small merchants?

.

.

Really? You don't see the problem in forcing the Colonist to either go without tea or accept ultimate British reign?

Obama says, buy what I say, and accept what I say is right or I'll take more of your money.

See, ya can't answer it, because your simply WRONG.

Again I ask: What CHANGES did the king request from the small merchants?

YOU said it.

It's much more like the Obama administration telling the small businesses that they will get a tax break, but only if they make acceptable changes to their business the government wants or buy items the government says they should buy, instead of what the business owner deems to be what is best for his business to grow.

.

.

See, ya can't answer it, because your simply WRONG.

 

Again I ask: What CHANGES did the king request from the small merchants?

 

YOU said it.

 

It's much more like the Obama administration telling the small businesses that they will get a tax break, but only if they make acceptable changes to their business the government wants or buy items the government says they should buy, instead of what the business owner deems to be what is best for his business to grow.

.

.

OBTUSE.

Changes by purchasing what Obama says to buy, by hiring who Obama says to hire, etc...

Oh, yea. It's "you're", not your, and you're wrong.

I see you won't address the real story. The death threats from the left. Still not seeing all that right wing violence you kept saying was going to happen.

You and the left were wrong about the tax guy, the guy in Texas who flew the plane into the federal building, the guy who shot up the Holocaust museum, but quick to try to label them as right wing.

But we have now had many on the left plotting violence, but it doesn't seem to make the news or get blogged by you.

I see you won't address the real story. The death threats from the left.

Still not seeing all that right wing violence you kept saying was going to happen.

You and the left were wrong about the tax guy, the guy in Texas who flew the plane into the federal building, the guy who shot up the Holocaust museum, but quick to try to label them as right wing.

But we have now had many on the left plotting violence, but it doesn't seem to make the news or get blogged by you.

.

.

IWS, you have to understand that Bender does not see anything wrong with a massive Government power to lead people by the nose to do as the Government wants them to do. Bender would not have been part of the old or new tea parties because he is someone who believes the masses are too stupid to make their own decisions.

Time and time again I have asked him why he believes most people are incapable of beinf successful or educate themselves 'if they want to' and every time he refuses to answer becuase that will expose the fact that it is the progressives, not the conservatives who are racists and believe some folks are just born without the ability to take care of themselves.

Nice post hugo, we can work hard to keep our kids minds right though, the biggest problem I see in todays public school system is most parents are disconnected from it and their children. The schools are raising their kids, and creating a lot of brainwashed robots for the Obama/Progressive army.

So what is it I want the government to run in my life?

I think people are too stupid to do things themselves?

You mean like health care for someone who is disabled and can't afford it?

Is THAT what you mean by the government taking over?

So where is that government takeover?

Hell what HAVE they taken over?

NOTHING.

.

.

So what is it I want the government to run in my life?

Progressives want to run the Government and in so doing, run everyone else's life.

 

I think people are too stupid to do things themselves?

Why else do you want the Government to give away free healthcare, free food, free cash, etc....

You mean like health care for someone who is disabled and can't afford it?

Free healthcare for the disabled and poor already existed long before Obama took over, you wanted "everyone in America" covered by Government healthcare with the poor paying nothing for it and the rich paying for 95% of it.

Is THAT what you mean by the government taking over?

 

So where is that government takeover?

 

Hell what HAVE they taken over?

 

NOTHING.

.

.

You consider all the banks nothing?

You consider GM nothing?

You consider all healthcare nothing?

The Government should not be involved in running any of these things, and certainly not more.

What are these school vouchers you guys keep talking about?

Public Schools: Make Them Private

by Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman, a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1976.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

Our elementary and secondary educational system needs to be radically restructured. Such a reconstruction can be achieved only by privatizing a major segment of the educational system--i.e., by enabling a private, for-profit industry to develop that will provide a wide variety of learning opportunities and offer effective competition to public schools. The most feasible way to bring about such a transfer from government to private enterprise is to enact in each state a voucher system that enables parents to choose freely the schools their children attend. The voucher must be universal, available to all parents, and large enough to cover the costs of a high-quality education. No conditions should be attached to vouchers that interfere with the freedom of private enterprises to experiment, to explore, and to innovate.

This article appeared in the Washington Post on February 19, 1995. Reprinted by permission of the author and the Washington Post.

Introduction

Our elementary and secondary educational system needs to be radically reconstructed. That need arises in the first instance from the defects of our current system. But it has been greatly reinforced by some of the consequences of the technological and political revolutions of the past few decades. Those revolutions promise a major increase in world output, but they also threaten advanced countries with serious social conflict arising from a widening gap between the incomes of the highly skilled (cognitive elite) and the unskilled.

A radical reconstruction of the educational system has the potential of staving off social conflict while at the same time strengthening the growth in living standards made possible by the new technology and the increasingly global market. In my view, such a radical reconstruction can be achieved only by privatizing a major segment of the educational system--i.e., by enabling a private, for-profit industry to develop that will provide a wide variety of learning opportunities and offer effective competition to public schools. Such a reconstruction cannot come about overnight. It inevitably must be gradual.

The most feasible way to bring about a gradual yet substantial transfer from government to private enterprise is to enact in each state a voucher system that enables parents to choose freely the schools their children attend. I first proposed such a voucher system 40 years ago.

Many attempts have been made in the years since to adopt educational vouchers. With minor exceptions, no one has succeeded in getting a voucher system adopted, thanks primarily to the political power of the school establishment, more recently reinforced by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, together the strongest political lobbying body in the United States.

1. The Deterioration of Schooling

The quality of schooling is far worse today than it was in 1955. There is no respect in which inhabitants of a low-income neighborhood are so disadvantaged as in the kind of schooling they can get for their children. The reason is partly the deterioration of our central cities, partly the increased centralization of public schools--as evidenced by the decline in the number of school districts from 55,000 in 1955 to 15,000 in 1992. Along with centralization has come--as both cause and effect--the growing strength of teachers' unions. Whatever the reason, the fact of deterioration of elementary and secondary schools is not disputable.

The system over time has become more defective as it has become more centralized. Power has moved from the local community to the school district to the state, and to the federal government. About 90 percent of our kids now go to so-called public schools, which are really not public at all but simply private fiefs primarily of the administrators and the union officials.

We all know the dismal results: some relatively good government schools in high-income suburbs and communities; very poor government schools in our inner cities with high dropout rates, increasing violence, lower performance and demoralized students and teachers.

These changes in our educational system have clearly strengthened the need for basic reform. But they have also strengthened the obstacles to the kind of sweeping reform that could be produced by an effective voucher system. The teachers' unions are bitterly opposed to any reform that lessens their own power, and they have acquired enormous political and financial strength that they are prepared to devote to defeating any attempt to adopt a voucher system. The latest example is the defeat of Proposition 174 in California in 1993.

2. The New Industrial Revolution

A radical reconstruction of our educational system has been made more urgent by the twin revolutions that have occurred within the past few decades: a technological revolution--the development, in particular, of more effective and efficient methods of communication, transportation and transmission of data; and a political revolution that has widened the influence of the technological revolution.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was the most dramatic event of the political revolution. But it was not necessarily the most important event. For example, communism is not dead in China and has not collapsed. And yet beginning in 1976, Premier Deng initiated a revolution within China that led to its being opened up to the rest of the world. Similarly, a political revolution took place in Latin America that, over the course of the past several decades, has led to a major increase in the fraction of people there who live in countries that can properly be described as democracies rather than military dictatorships and that are striving to enter open world markets.

The technological revolution has made it possible for a company located anywhere in the world to use resources located anywhere in the world, to produce a product anywhere in the world, to be sold anywhere in the world. It's impossible to say, "this is an American car" or "this is a Japanese car," and the same goes for many other products.

The possibility for labor and capital anywhere to cooperate with labor and capital anywhere else had dramatic effects even before the political revolution took over. It meant that there was a large supply of relatively low-wage labor to cooperate with capital from the advanced countries, capital in the form of physical capital, but perhaps even more important, capital in the form of human capital--of skills, of knowledge, of techniques, of training.

Before the political revolution came along, this international linkage of labor, capital and know-how had already led to a rapid expansion in world trade, to the growth of multinational companies and to a hitherto unimaginable degree of prosperity in such formerly underdeveloped countries in East Asia as the "Four Tigers." Chile was the first to benefit from these developments in Latin America, but its example soon spread to Mexico, Argentina and other countries in the region. In Asia, the latest to embark on a program of market reform is India.

The political revolution greatly reinforced the technological revolution in two different ways. First, it added greatly to the pool of low-wage, yet not necessarily unskilled labor that could be tapped for cooperation with labor and capital from the advanced countries. The fall of the Iron Curtain added perhaps a half-billion people and China close to a billion, freed at least partly to engage in capitalist acts with people elsewhere.

Second, the political revolution discredited the idea of central planning. It led everywhere to greater confidence in market mechanisms as opposed to central control by government. And that in turn fostered international trade and international cooperation.

These two revolutions offer the opportunity for a major industrial revolution comparable to that which occurred 200 years ago--also spread by technological developments and freedom to trade. In those 200 years, world output grew more than in the preceding 2000. That record could be exceeded in the next two centuries if the peoples of the world take full advantage of their new opportunities.

3. Wage Differentials

The twin revolutions have produced higher wages and incomes for almost all classes in the underdeveloped countries. The effect has been somewhat different in the advanced countries. The greatly increased ratio of low-cost labor to capital has raised the wages of highly skilled labor and the return on physical capital but has put downward pressure on the wages of low-skilled labor. The result has been a sharp widening in the differential between the wages of highly skilled and low-skilled labor in the United States and other advanced countries.

If the widening of the wage differential is allowed to proceed unchecked, it threatens to create within our own country a social problem of major proportions. We shall not be willing to see a group of our population move into Third World conditions at the same time that another group of our population becomes increasingly well off. Such stratification is a recipe for social disaster. The pressure to avoid it by protectionist and other similar measures will be irresistible.

4. Education

So far, our educational system has been adding to the tendency to stratification. Yet it is the only major force in sight capable of offsetting that tendency. Innate intelligence undoubtedly plays a major role in determining the opportunities open to individuals. Yet it is by no means the only human quality that is important, as numerous examples demonstrate. Unfortunately, our current educational system does little to enable either low-IQ or high-IQ individuals to make the most of other qualities. Yet that is the way to offset the tendencies to stratification. A greatly improved educational system can do more than anything else to limit the harm to our social stability from a permanent and large underclass.

There is enormous room for improvement in our educational system. Hardly any activity in the United States is technically more backward. We essentially teach children in the same way that we did 200 years ago: one teacher in front of a bunch of kids in a closed room. The availability of computers has changed the situation, but not fundamentally. Computers are being added to public schools, but they are typically not being used in an imaginative and innovative way.

I believe that the only way to make a major improvement in our educational system is through privatization to the point at which a substantial fraction of all educational services is rendered to individuals by private enterprises. Nothing else will destroy or even greatly weaken the power of the current educational establishment--a necessary pre-condition for radical improvement in our educational system. And nothing else will provide the public schools with the competition that will force them to improve in order to hold their clientele.

No one can predict in advance the direction that a truly free-market educational system would take. We know from the experience of every other industry how imaginative competitive free enterprise can be, what new products and services can be introduced, how driven it is to satisfy the customers--that is what we need in education. We know how the telephone industry has been revolutionized by opening it to competition; how fax has begun to undermine the postal monopoly in first-class mail; how UPS, Federal Express and many other private enterprises have transformed package and message delivery and, on the strictly private level, how competition from Japan has transformed the domestic automobile industry.

The private schools that 10 percent of children now attend consist of a few elite schools serving at high cost a tiny fraction of the population, and many mostly parochial nonprofit schools able to compete with government schools by charging low fees made possible by the dedicated services of many of the teachers and subsidies from the sponsoring institutions. These private schools do provide a superior education for a small fraction of the children, but they are not in a position to make innovative changes. For that, we need a much larger and more vigorous private enterprise system.

The problem is how to get from here to there. Vouchers are not an end in themselves; they are a means to make a transition from a government to a market system. The deterioration of our school system and the stratification arising out of the new industrial revolution have made privatization of education far more urgent and important than it was 40 years ago.

Vouchers can promote rapid privatization only if they create a large demand for private schools to constitute a real incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the industry. That requires first that the voucher be universal, available to all who are now entitled to send their children to government schools, and second that the voucher, though less than the government now spends per pupil on education, be large enough to cover the costs of a private profit-making school offering a high-quality education. If that is achieved there will in addition be a substantial number of families that will be willing and able to supplement the voucher in order to get an even higher quality of education. As in all cases, the innovations in the "luxury" product will soon spread to the basic product.

For this image to be realized, it is essential that no conditions be attached to the acceptance of vouchers that interfere with the freedom of private enterprises to experiment, to explore and to innovate. If this image is realized, everybody, except a small group of vested interests, will win: parents, students, dedicated teachers, taxpayers-- for whom the cost of the educational system will decline-- and especially the residents of central cities, who will have a real alternative to the wretched schools so many of their children are now forced to attend.

The business community has a major interest in expanding the pool of well-schooled potential employees and in maintaining a free society with open trade and expanding markets around the world. Both objectives would be promoted by the right kind of voucher system.

Finally, as in every other area in which there has been extensive privatization, the privatization of schooling would produce a new, highly active and profitable private industry that would provide a real opportunity for many talented people who are currently deterred from entering the teaching profession by the dreadful state of so many of our schools.

This is not a federal issue. Schooling is and should remain primarily a local responsibility. Support for free choice of schools has been growing rapidly and cannot be held back indefinitely by the vested interests of the unions and educational bureaucracy. I sense that we are on the verge of a breakthrough in one state or another, which willthen sweep like a wildfire through the rest of the country as it demonstrates its effectiveness.

To get a majority of the public to support a general and substantial voucher, we must structure the proposal so that it (1) is simple and straightforward so as to be comprehensible to the voter, and (2) guarantees that the proposal will not add to the tax burden in any way but will rather reduce net government spending on education. A group of us in California has produced a tentative proposition that meets these conditions. The prospects for getting sufficient backing to have a real chance of passing such a proposition in 1996 are bright.

© 1995 The Cato Institute

You can't choose your schools in the States? Computers aren't in the classrooms? Huh?

We can choose our schools here. We have our designated schools, but we also have private school, and also charter schools. You can send your child to any school you choose, but they will take their area residents first and then you will be slotted into available spots. You can also pay for private school, but it's far too expensive and the teaching isn't any better. The teachers are all coming from the same universities..the kids are just more privledged. As for computers..my kids have Apple in the classroom and utilize a smart board daily. Ours is a public school, but is an immersion school..so my kids are fluent in french as well.

I don't understand why you can't choose your schools? weird.

School districts are different depending on the State but most let you place your child in a different school in the same County but the problem is transportation. The school and county can't have busses running in all directions so if you want your kid going to a different public school than the one your normally in, then you have to figure out how to get them there and pick them up.

Most homes don't have a stay at home mom so this can make the choices limited.

Of course private schools are available but like you said, some feel it is too expensive while I don't like them becuase kids don't learn the social skills they need to live in this world properly. I can help my kids learn if the local school is not teaching thengs I believe they should know, but it is impossible for me to remove the years of conditioned superiority complex that seems to show up on anyone who attends private school.

The idea for vouchers is that parents can get a check from the State to use tword private school and only have to pay the difference instead of the entire cost. I personally only like this idea if it grows enough to get more normal background kids in the private schools to dilute the air of entitlement so many of those kids wear like a crown.

I agree, if you want better then either move or deal with the transportation issues.

The big problem is our largest growing part of our population is the single, never wed mother with at least two children. I don't care how great of a mother you are, there are limits to your time and energy. Just from basic human limits the average child is going to be stuck in whatever is the least energy using option.

I do like the voucher system if it brings more accountability and less Union manuvering to education. Many school systems spend arounf 1/3 of their budget on non-teaching elements of the schools from mowing the grass to running massive school board buildings and school board staffs. Imagine if they could put that money back into teaching..........

In every state I have lived in (Texas and Missouri) you had to jump through a lot of hoops to move your child to a school outside the one your address indicate d he should live in. I was forced to send my child to a private school before I moved to a better area. I was still stuck with the same system , just better kids.

Yeah you can't move your kids from one distict to another up here either. Even when they are on the boarder of the district.