#what happened to no taxation without representation

[henreyettah]

I’m looking at how to do taxes etc again (because I WANNA sell stuff!!) but my American citizenship makes everything so fucking difficult, like ok not only does Sweden have super vague regulations regarding what’s an actual business and what’s a hobby business (which changes taxation, and I’d be more than willing to untangle that ratsnest because I live here and it makes sense I’d pay proper taxes) but then ON TOP OF THAT I need to make sure I don’t accidentally sic the IRS on myself :) I’m so tired of this, why does the US care what I do over here. I’ve never even lived there, I just happened to have an American parent. I don’t wanna renounce my American citizenship (because I like having it and they charge you HELLA for getting rid of it) but the fucking taxes and the legal mess is killing me. I’m almost considering asking a non-american friend to sell my stuff in their name just so I don’t have to deal with it. If anyone knows another Swedish-american artist living in Sweden who has got this figured out PLEASE send them my fucking way.

[thetrashthatsmilesback]

Watcher, Capitalism, and the Petite (Petty) Bourgeois

So the whole Watcher controversy has revealed an interesting misunderstanding of what constitutes "the rich" or capitalist beliefs. The major theme that arose during the controversy was the sense that Shane in particular had gone against his previously stated leftist beliefs - that he had, for all these years, taken up a humorous aesthetic of anti-capitalism without actually believing in what he was saying. I believe that this is due to a breakdown in definitions as they become spread to the general public. Dissemination of information is a good thing, and I would never argue against it, but one problem which arises from concepts spreading to large groups without context is that often the actual meanings break down until they are vastly different from their original, academic denotation. This is, I believe, what happened with the phrase “eat the rich” and its current colloquial usage.

I want to preface this with the fact that nothing I am about to say applies exclusively to Watcher, or that the Watcher staff have done anything wrong or misrepresented themselves. I also don’t think that the Watcher fanbase is wrong at all – the situation just happened to spawn arguments both in defense of and critique of the Watcher team which indicated, in my opinion, that an understanding of “the rich” in a capitalist society is not well understood. Disclaimers out of the way, let’s get into this.

During the controversy, two major sides arose – those who had begun to see the Watcher crew (in particular Steven, Ryan, and Shane) as “the rich” or ruling class in a capitalist setting, and those who argued against this by arguing that as Watcher is a small business, and not the upper 1%, they are not included in the definition of “the rich” expressed by leftists. I want to focus in on the counter-argument that Watcher being a small business just trying to survive means that they are not considered “the rich.”

In Marxist theory, there is a small group called the “petite” or “petty bourgeoisie.” This group is defined as those who both own and contribute to the means of production – aka, small business owners. Marx himself wrote little about the petite bourgeoisie, predominantly referencing them in passing in his essays The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 and very briefly in The Communist Manifesto. He does happen to criticize this group in the little writing he did on it, “Marx derides what he sees as the petit-bourgeois self-delusion that, because it combines both employment and ownership of the means of production, it somehow represents the solution to the class struggle. This class was progressive in a limited sense, as witnessed by its claims at various times for co-operatives, credit institutions, and progressive taxation, as a consequence of felt oppression at the hands of the bourgeoisie. However, these were (in terms of the Marxist view of history) strictly limited demands, just as the ideological representatives of this class have been constrained by their own problems and solutions” (“Petite Bourgeoisie - Oxford Reference”).

Now, it is very important to note that team “Watcher is a small business” aren’t completely wrong in their positioning of Watcher’s attempt to raise more revenue as Not Evil Capitalism. Marx’s belief was that eventually the Petite Bourgeoisie would be pushed into the proletariat class. I also am not positive that Watcher is a classical small business – they very well could be a worker co-op. A worker co-op is a business where the workers have ownership of the company, and significant representation on the board of directors(“What Is A Worker Cooperative? – U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives”). While some criticism of worker co-ops from a communist or socialist view exist, they are generally seen as a more socialist approach to the typical small business model.

I couldn’t find direct confirmation that Watcher is a co-op. One point against them being one is the use of titles such as CEO and Owner, but these designations could simply be for tax and paperwork reasons. Watcher is an objectively small company, they have between 25 and 30 workers, and most people cite them currently having 27 workers, but in the past they have employed interns and I am unsure of if they currently have interns on board so I am going to stick to the range. It would be incredibly easy to have a worker co-op with 25-30 people, you wouldn’t even need voted representatives; everyone could just be on the board and contribute to decisions. I figured the next best approach would be to see what the roles on Watcher’s shows are – if Steven, Shane, and Ryan contribute significantly rather than just showing up and looking pretty on camera, then there is a good chance they might be functioning as a worker co-op more than a traditional business or small business.

To do this, I decided to look at Watcher’s largest show for each co-owner. This means Ghost Files, Mystery Files, Puppet History, and Steven’s food series. These numbers broke down as follows:

Ghost Files: Ryan is listed as a Creator on all Ghost Files videos. Ghost Files Debriefs do not have writers, so that role will not be held against them on those videos. Ryan and Shane were listed as a Host and an Executive Producer on all videos, but neither ever held a Writer, Editor, or Sound Mixing role.

Mystery Files: Ryan and Shane were listed as a Host and an Executive Producer on all videos, but neither ever held a Writer, Editor, or Sound Mixing role.

Puppet History: Shane is listed as a Creator on all Puppet History videos. He is listed as a Host on all videos, an Executive Producer on all videos, Writer on 4 videos, and never held an Editor or Sound Mixing role.

Steven’s Food Series: Steven is listed as a Host and an Executive Producer on all videos, but neither ever held an Editor, or Sound Mixing role. This show does not require a writer so this will not be held against him.

*Do take these numbers with a grain of salt, I wrote this while in class so its possible that I missed something.*

Looking at those numbers, the main three do predominantly just film, but I don’t want to devalue the work that goes into being on camera. They are still generating capital by acting, I simply wanted to clear up confusion I had due to seeing people say they edited every Ghost Files video. From what I can see, they don’t do the editing, but as executive producers they likely have to review every video before it goes out. I also still can’t fully come to a conclusion on if the company can be considered a worker co-op, but I believe it is a standard small business – aka, the petite bourgeoisie.

All of that leads to the final point – the way that people only began to view the three lead Watcher members/founding members as “the rich” after the announcement of the streaming platform shows the way that leftist theory has become divorced from some of its meaning. I saw several people arguing “you guys can’t recognize the rich”/”you guys would attack doctors and lawyers under the guise of eating the rich,” and yes its true that doctors who work in hospitals are proletariat, but if a doctor opens a private practice or a lawyer opens a private firm, does that render them more bourgeoisie or more proletariat? At what point do the petite bourgeoisie become a part of those who we disavow? I don’t actually have answers to these questions, and I’m sure people much smarter than me or better versed in economics have written on this (one source I found that seemed good while I was skimming it despite its age is this one https://www.jstor.org/stable/2083291?seq=3 ). I didn’t make this point to argue one point over the other on whether Watcher counts as “the rich,” but more to focus on the way that term gets used. The argument could be made that we could have started questioning Shane’s anti-capitalist beliefs the moment he helped start a company, but we didn’t. We only started to criticize him on the basis of hypocrisy after the announcement and its out of touch comments. This raises so many questions about how we use the term “the rich” now – does it refer to anyone we dislike who is financially stable? Has the term become completely divorced from its original meaning? Or were we being hypocrites all along? Has Watcher Entertainment always been incongruent with Shane’s implied political beliefs? Is there a certain point at which the petite bourgeoisie become a part of the financial aristocracy? Or is that term only relegated to the industrial bourgeoisie, is it reserved exclusively for those in financial positions that no artisan could ever hope to reach?

Is it possible that both arguments are correct regarding the Watcher boys, and all other members of small business ownership and management positions? That they are both “the rich” but not a part of the proper bourgeoisie?

I don’t know. I find it fascinating though.

[sant-riley]

No because Gen z!reader after the US and England tied at the world cup to the guys would be like

"England what happened?!"

"ITS CALLED SOCCER 🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸"

"Yo wtf is a kilometer??"

"Taxation without representation🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸"

"These colors don't run bitch! USA!USA!"

Doesn't matter is she's super into soccer or not.

(Those tiktoks and the comments had me rolling)

-🦇

SO FUCKING TRUE.

~

Teddy is yelling at the top of her lungs in the bar, Laswell is shaking her head nursing her drink bc her fucking adopted kid is off the shits and drunk as hell. She had just wanted to check in originally but of course, it occurred when the world cup was happening.

Teddy isn't a nationalist nor does she give a fuck about sports but by God she is when Ghost makes a snide comment.

Price is so close to sending her ass back to base for all the British slander going on, rubbing his temples while he lights another cigar.

Soap fucking hates England so he's right there with her hollering and they're both clinging to each other every single time there's a goal.

Gaz is the one who knows how beinh drunk + talking about sports goes so he's placing bets with Laswell on either Teddy or Soap getting into a fight before the nights over.

Ghost is watching his two idiots hop up on a pool table and is tense bc he knows he's gonna have to fucking catch one of them from falling off the table and snapping one of their necks.

Doesn't matter it was a tie bc Teddy and Price are gonna bicker about it constantly and they will tell anyone who tries to intervene to fuck off.

[on-partiality]

Today's the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party so here's some information on the Sons of Liberty, the lead up to the Boston Tea Party and what happened after!

apologies for any inaccuracies, I wrote this pretty late

The conflict between the American colonies and New England started after the French and Indian war ended with the Treaty of Paris on the 10th of February, 1763. The French and Indian war started because of conflicting territory claims in North America between the British and the French. Originally it was fought between only the British Americans and the French colonists with Native Americans helping on either side (especially with the French because they were severely outnumbered). However two years into the war the United Kingdom - except for ireland - decided enough was enough and officially declared a war with France which started a large world-wide conflict over many territories. In the end, the war was won by the Colonial Americans and British, the French lost all of their North American territory and what used to be their territory was split somewhat evenly between the Spanish and the British but that was only sorted out after the British fought in a war against the Spanish called the Anglo-Spanish war (the first one). So a victory, that sounds good for America right? Wrong. Wars are expensive, maintaining an army is expensive and the British were dealing with many other wars in all different territories at around the same time so England had a national debt of nearly 177.645 MILLION modern day USD.

England had a HUGE poverty crisis. They had to come up with a way to get money and quickly so on April the 5th 1764 the British parliament amended their pre-existing Sugar and Molasses Act. A tax on the importation of wine, molasses, indigo and sugar from places that weren't part of Britain, mainly the non-British Caribbean. This act also banned all foreign rum. Then on March the 22nd, 1765 the British parliament passed the stamp act. A tax on playing cards, newspapers, legal documents. The main problem with this tax was that it couldn't be paid in the paper money used in the 13 colonies, it had to be paid off using the British Sterling which wasn't easy to obtain in America. That and paper was possibly the most important resource in the 18th century. Later in October 1765, a Stamp Act Congress was held in Philadelphia to discuss all of the problems with this act. Then on March the 24th the British passed the Quartering Act which stated that if British troops want to stay at your house you have to provide them with food and let them inside of your house. This was a clear invasion of two very basic rights of Englishmen, private property and personal security.

The Americans fought back against these acts like with Boston's non-importation agreement where merchants from Boston agreed not to buy or sell anything from/to Britain and the Golden Hill riot in New York and the Gaspée Affair which was when a group burned a British ship while the soldiers were off looking for smugglers in Rhode Island, the group was then accused of treason. The most notable of all of these protests though was the later Boston Tea Party.

The Boston Tea Party happened because of a group called the Sons of Liberty which was created in 1765 out of a strong hatred of the Stamp Act. They believed that it was ridiculous that the British could tax the Americans when the Americans didn't even have a representative in parliament, their phrase was 'no taxation without representation'. There's a lot of dispute over what kind of organisation the Sons of Liberty actually was. I might go into all of the theories in another post but for the moment if you want to come up with your own idea on it I suggest looking into them yourself, for this post I'm just going to call them a group or organisation because it's pretty ambiguous. Anyway, the Sons of Liberty usually met at liberty poles/liberty trees which are believed to have been marked as meeting places using the Sons of Liberty's flag. The group was founded in Boston in the Massachusetts Bay colony and it's leader was Samuel 'Sam' Adams.

The Sons of Liberty's first big really move was to burn an effigy of the local Stamp Act enforcer, Andrew Oliver and then burn his office and destroyed the house of his associate. The group's protests were more often then not violent but they got their points across. It didn't help when the Boston Massacre happened in 1770, which only further outraged the colonists, expect the Boston Massacre to get it's own in depth post one day because the court trial was super interesting. Then on the 10th of May, 1773 the British made another act called the Tea Act which made it so that the colonists had to pay more for tea that wasn't legally imported. The Tea Act was meant to help the British East India Tea Company because they were making most of Britains money and they'd gone into a huge debt which caused 20-30 English banks to collapse and started the British Credit Crisis of 1772-1773. The problem was that because the imported tea from Britain was really cheap people didn't buy from local businesses which caused farmers to go completely bankrupt. The Tea Act was the final straw for the Sons of Liberty and many Americans.

Britain sent a shipment of East India Company Tea to America and all of the American colonies that the tea was going to be sent to convinced the people on the ship to resign except for Massachusetts. So the Dartmouth, a ship full of tea arrived in Boston Harbour, Samuel Adams called for a meeting at Fanueuil Hall and thousands of people turned up so they had to move meeting places. During the meeting the Colonists discussed possible resolutions, they decided to have a medium group of men watching the tea to make sure it wouldn't be unloaded and pleaded for the ship to leave. The governor of Massachusetts refused to let the ship leave and two more ships arrived. On December the 16th, 1773, Samuel Adams met with the people of Massachusetts again to tell them about the governors refusal, the meeting caused total fury amongst all of the colonists.

In protest of the Tea Act and all of the other taxes the British had put on the Americans, the people ran out of the meeting room, some of them put on Native American costumes both in an attempt to conceal their identity because what they were about to do was illegal and as a symbolic choice to show that America's their country, not Britain. They then ran onto the 3 tea ships while Samuel Adams was telling everyone to calm down and stay for the end of the meeting. And spent 3 hours hurling all of the chests of tea into the water.

The British did not respond well, they believed that the Colonists needed to be punished so they passed the infamous Intolerable Acts which consisted of the Boston Port Act, meant to force Boston to pay for the tea by closing the port until the people of Boston paid for the tea which the Colonists argued was unfair because it was punishing the whole population for something only about half of them did, the Massachusetts Government Act which changed the way that the government of Massachusetts worked by giving people appointed by the British Parliament/King far more power, this made it easier for the British government to manage the Massachusetts Bay colony from England, the Administration of Justice Acts which state that any accused Royal officials can get a trial in England if they don't believe that they would be judged fairly in Massachusetts - which seems like a strange thing to add given how the Boston Massacre trial with John Adams went? - And I've already talked about the last intolerable act, the Quartering act which states that you have to let British troops stay in your house if they want to and you have to give them food.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

What Happened on December 16th, 1773?

One of the most important dates in the history of the United States of America. On this night, the Sons of Liberty dumped more than 300 crates of East India Company tea into Boston Harbor. To many who were still loyal to the crown, this was an act of sedition and treason by “ill designing men”. But to those whose loyalty to King George III—and his taxes—had faltered; this was a galvanizing event. Bostonians from all statuses and walks of life came together, as equal citizens, to make a peaceful protest against tyranny and taxation without representation. It was their patriotism that sparked the American Revolution.

For years, the colonies had been taxed without receiving equal representation in Parliament. The first direct tax on the colonies was the Stamp Act of 1765, taxing all paper goods. This would be followed by the Townsend Acts which taxed glass, lead, paint, and tea. This taxation without representation led to protests, riots, and further unrest in an already tense city.

The Boston Tea Party was the culmination of a series of meetings beginning on November 29, 1773—two days after the first of the three ships bearing East India Company tea arrived in Boston Harbor. The arrival of the Dartmouth, with her 114 chests of tea on board, sent Boston into a frenzy. The Sons of Liberty demanded the tea be sent back to England, but those requests were refused by Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson.

A few days later, the ship Eleanor and brig Beaver arrived with more cargoes of tea. With the deadline to unload the tea looming, Bostonians met at Old South Meeting House on Thursday December 16, 1773 to decide the fate of the cursed East India Company Tea. It was still the hope of those assembled that a peaceable agreement could be reached. Francis Rotch, owner of the Beaver and Dartmouth, was sent to Milton to obtain a pass from the Royal Governor so that his ships could be sent safely past the guns of Castle Island, and back to England with the tea still onboard. When Rotch returned and gave word that this request was denied, a mighty cry echoed through the historic hall. Samuel Adams stood up and said “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.” This was a secret signal to the Sons of Liberty. They sprang into action as hundreds of men, loosely disguised as Mohawks, marched to Griffin’s Wharf and into history.

Copyright © 2023 December16.org

[nodynasty4us]

Politics: Dictatorship...

(From reader comments at electoral-vote.com.)

A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Your item about the poll stating one in five Millennials and Gen-Z folks think "under certain circumstances" a dictatorship would be good really shocked me. And I have a history lesson for those who believe this: We once DID have a dictatorship right here in America, under King George III.

We only fought an 8-year-long war to free ourselves of that dictatorship. And compared to modern-day dictators... good old Georgie was not so bad, actually. He just did a lot of things that were unfair to the Colonists, mostly economic (taxation without representation). And, I might remind those who would support a dictatorship you'd still have taxation... just no voice, no vote. A vote that countless men and women DIED in order to give to you.

"Under certain circumstances" means what, exactly? That they do what you want? Dictators usually don't do that. They do what THEY want... and it usually isn't something you're going to like very much. Also, dictators eventually turn on those who once supported them, once all the "enemies" are gone. So be careful what you wish for!

Our system may not be perfect, but it is the best we got so far, and it beats the hell out of a dictatorship under any circumstances. Yes, there is a lot of gridlock. This is intentional... it is designed to make sure that truly onerous things do not happen, and that change occurs slowly. Yes, it is frustrating and maddening, especially when one party uses every parliamentary trick in the book to throw sand in the gears. I get it.

Do we need to address some of this? Yes, but to chuck the whole thing for a dictatorship IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Of course, if you'd like to go back to the days when LGBTQ people like me lived in fear in closets, unable to be our true selves,and minorities were treated unfairly and this treatment was supported by law... then, by all means, create your dictatorship. But leave me out. Let me leave peacefully first. Set me up with what I basically have here somewhere else, and I will go. Because I have no desire to live in the country YOU would create.

No, America isn't perfect. Far from it. But I will take what we got here right now over anything you would propose.

[lyledebeast]

The Ghost and the Butcher

 I think most viewers would agree that Benjamin Martin’s most important relationship is with his son, Gabriel.  Gabriel is the main reason he involves himself in the Patriot war effort, both when he rescues him from the British and when he follows him into service in the South Carolina militia.  Meanwhile, Martin’s relationship with Tavington . . . well, one would be hard pressed to call it a relationship. On the surface, their importance to each other seems one-sided. Almost the only scenes in which Tavington is not talking about Martin are the ones where he is talking to him. He talks about Martin to General Cornwallis until the latter cries “Oh, enough!” Meanwhile Martin never says Tavington’s name once in the entire movie.  There are three ways to take that: 1, Martin has more important worries than Tavington. 2, Tavington is important but only as a symptom of a larger problem Martin is seeking to solve, or. 3, Not only is Tavington personally important to Martin, but vengeance against him is so indivisible from victory in Martin’s mind that he never feels a need to make a distinction between the two.

The first option is obviously not the case. Martin’s involvement in the war is bookended by encounters with Tavington that both predate and follow his fighting alongside Gabriel. He offers his services to the Continental Army after Tavington burns his farm and kills his son, and he kills Tavington after his tactics help the Continental Army achieve victory in the Battle of Cowpens/Guilford Courthouse (the battle’s history is as mangled as the people’s). The second option is only partly true.  Martin’s motives for fighting are a bit murky throughout the film. He voices some mild criticism of taxation without representation at the Charlestown assembly but does not join the fight for independence until three years later.  That he follows Gabriel when he returns to the war suggests protecting him as a motive, but there is also no explanation of why a veteran of three years of war is in more need of protection than the much younger children he leaves behind. As far as Martin’s words are concerned, his meeting with General Cornwallis provides the clearest motive.  When Cornwallis challenges his targeting of officers, Martin blames the conduct of “some of your officers,” namely the targeting of civilians. He does not mention the particulars of the incident with Tavington to Cornwallis--the time is well past for that--but he does clearly expect Cornwallis to know of what he speaks. Ironically, he also expects Cornwallis to believe he has 18 British officers in his custody without any specifics about who they are.  That Martin expects Cornwallis to be more aware of his officers’ treatment of civilians than of their whereabouts tells us more about his priorities than the general’s.

Some commentors read Cornwallis’s insistence that the targeting of civilians is a “separate issue” from the militia targeting officers as a pitiful attempt to stave off justified criticism, but this reading overlooks the timing of Martin’s complaint.  The last incident involving this behavior presented on screen is revealed between the scenes where Cornwallis orders Tavington to cease his “brutal tactics” and the one where Gabriel recruits at the church.  The overlap of British attacks on civilians and the militia killing British officers first  is as much a fiction as the scarecrows in British uniforms Cornwallis sees in his spyglass.  There is no evidence that any officer but Tavington is giving these kinds of orders; Martin is being strategically vague because it allows him to implicate a larger group in his grievances to better justify his choices.  Tavington is obsessed with catching one man, but Martin is obsessed with avenging the wrongs done by British officers as a collective, wrongs that just happen, coincidentally, to have all been ordered by the same man.

Okay, Benjamin.

So, to echo Tavington’s question, why wait? While vengeance is an important priority for Martin, it is not the only one. Gabriel appears to have taken his mother’s place as the angel on his father’s shoulder--angel, Gabriel, get it?--urging him to “stay the course,” to prioritize the war effort over his personal desires.  It works, and it doesn’t.  It does work in the sense that Martin is willing to delay his gratification in killing Tavington for the sake of attaining the militia’s objectives.  However, rather than replacing vengeance as Martin’s motive, victory becomes entwined with it.  This becomes a problem because Tavington is not waiting idly for Martin to fit him into his schedule.  Rather, he is targeting other people’s sons--and daughters, wives, and parents--in an attempt to force another encounter with Martin. Martin does not take the bait even when Tavington comes after his own children again, instead luring Tavington into the swamp and . . . cut screen. If Martin’s is so concerned about risking the militia’s aims, why does he have to kill Tavington himself? Why not delegate this task to Rollins or Billings, men he knows and trusts from past wartime experience?  Because that is not how vengeance works. It is not enough that the object of vengeance be punished; they must be punished by the avenger for the harm done to them specifically.  Perhaps this is also why Martin did not bring his grievances to the British generals after Thomas’s murder and Gabriel’s arrest. When he tells Tavington “Before this war is over I am going to kill you,” he means every word. How many people, including Gabriel, die because Martin is determined that his beloathed be untouched by any hand but his?

In its very obsessiveness, vengeance is akin to the darker side of romantic love, becoming so fixated on its object that it ignores the consequences of that fixation for other people.   Nowhere is this more apparent than the exchange between the two men in front of Fort Carolina.  Martin tries so hard to just ignore Tavington, but his mention of Thomas forces him to turn around. This is the most intense and, frankly, the sexiest moment in the whole movie. Tavington has a brief triumph, believing his desire for a physical confrontation is about to be gratified, but instead Martin gives him something much more enticing: a promise. When Tavington makes a last plea for satisfaction, Martin replies with a softly spoken “Soon.” 

 This “soon” has the same effect on Tavington as such demure deferrals have on ardent pursuers in other romances: it makes him insane.  He wants Martin even more than ever, and to some extent at least, Martin is aware of this and exploiting it. When the militia confront the Green Dragoons in front of Charlotte’s burning plantation, Martin rides out in front of his men, making his horse rear to catch Tavington’s attention.  He knows he hasn’t come for his children or their surrogate mother; he has come for him. Martin and Tavinton are both the pursuer and pursued in this relationship, and some of Tavington’s traps are successful, just not in catching Martin specifically.  As he pulls his sword out of Gabriel, we can see his disappointment. This twink is not what he ordered.  Ironically, it is Gabriel who fails to “stay the course,” and it is his death, like his mother’s before him, that inspires Benjamin’s course of action at the end of the movie. But if Gabriel is “mom-coded,” to use a delightful phrase about him from @a-literal-hobbit ,  his father is perhaps belle-coded.  In spite of his being a famed war criminal hero, his most successful strategy is not the guerilla tactics he uses against British supply trains but his deferral of Tavington’s desire.

Before the final battle, he presents a strategy to Colonel Burwell in which the militia will be used to bait Cornwallis into attacking what he believes to be a smaller force, thus leading him into the full strength of the Continental Army. That’s . . . not how that actually works out in practice.  Instead, Tavington catches sight of Martin, waving the flag Gabriel mended around, the Martin who has been teasing him for months, and against the reminder from Captain Wilkins that they “haven’t been given that order yet” and Cornwallis’s warning that he “can forget about Ohio,” he gives the order to charge.  He wants to fuck Martin so bad it makes him act stupid.

The hand to hand fight between Martin and Tavington at the end of the movie is something they have both wanted since they first met.  Tavington has likely killed many civilians to receive the moniker “The Butcher,” but how many of their addresses does he remember?  He is far less willing to conceal his desire, but that does mean he feels it more keenly than Martin.  Martin waits until the battle has turned in the Continental’s favor before going after Tavington, but he also waits until he can have Tavington all to himself, heedless of the cost in civilian lives it takes to get there.  If his priorities had truly changed, he could have left the battlefield a victor regardless of whether Tavington was alive or not.  Instead, he risks his life again, with nothing but vengeance to gain, to make good on his promise.

[gsirvitor]

“I can go on.”

And list more things not worth revolving over?

So you have no issue with the government violating peoples right, experimenting on unsuspecting civilians, killing thousands of their own citizens due to incompetence and raising taxes?

Like, you do know the original revolution began because of a 3% tax increase, right? What happened to no taxation without representation?

[187days]

Day Ninety-Two

The new semester wasn’t originally supposed to start today, but I actually liked that it did because it’s a planned early release day (we had teacher workshop stuff in the afternoon). Classes were about 45 minutes long, and that’s perfect for the first day. 

This is what my schedule looks like this semester:

7:30-8:50 Block One (Prep time)

8:55-10: 15 Block Two (World Cultures- 21 students)

10:20- 11:00 Advisory (11 students)/Flex

11:05-12:25 Block Three (World Cultures- 21 students)

12:25-12:55 Lunch

1:00-2:20 Block Four (APGOV- 11 students, plus one doing an independent study)

I started World today by asking students to introduce themselves and tell me something they’re interested in; that was me getting to know them, as well as starting to generate a list of aspects of culture (I wrote them on the board as we went). I almost started a soccer fandom war in my Block 3 section while doing that (Man City vs Man United), so that was fun. Once we were through introductions, I asked them to continue brainstorming aspects of culture. Both sections came up with big lists, which was excellent. Afterwards, they explored my classroom, I went over the course guide, and I fielded questions about myself as a teacher, Lastly, I read out my expectations for them, and I asked them to send me an email telling me their expectations for me and for themselves. 

In APGOV, I went over the course information, then had my students take Pew Research’s Political Typology Quiz. It satisfied my curiosity about the ideological make-up of my class, and it’s also the lead-in to a discussion of political socialization. I took the quiz, too, then explained the events, people, etc... that had shaped my results. I asked them to do the same in writing, then share-out if they felt comfortable doing so. I told them all that they’re at a point in life (between 15-25, roughly) that is significant in shaping their political views int he long-term; it’s not they they can’t change later on, of course, but that the experiences one has at their age, the information they’re exposed to, and so on tend to be quite formative. In short, they stick. 

I pointed out that many of the Founders were also in that same age range- or pretty close to it- in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, then asked what would have impacted their political socialization. So that was me checking their knowledge of US history. They told me about taxation without representation, quartering soldiers, the Boston Massacre and the journalism surround that, and so on. That was my segue into assigning the Declaration of Independence for homework. 

I got there twenty seconds before the bell, and jokingly demanded applause for my timing. 

Then it was time for lunch, followed by a meeting led by a committee that’s been revamping the disciplinary section of our student handbook and some break-out discussions about disciplinary practices, relationship-building, communication, etc... I had a sparkly blue pen, so I volunteered to scribe for my group. We were having a good conversation until it started snowing. then, much like our students do, we started to get distracted and talk about driving home. Mr. R, who’s known me since I was a hot mess 23-year-old, warned me to be careful driving in our neighborhood because it’s hilly. I promised I would. 

This storm could bring anywhere from 6-20 inches of snow down on us, but it is supposed to turn to rain. Depending on when that happens- and on how much ice there is in the change over- we might have a delayed opening, we might have another remote day. Who knows! We’ll see!

[arcticdementor]

After decades of the academy’s never-ending stream of new jargon, one can’t be blamed for ignoring another entry. But as with all the others, what begins as a crackpot idea quickly finds its way into university rules and regulations. That’s what’s happening with “cultural taxation.” For a few years now, individual campuses of California State University have been considering turning what seemed like just another grievance into an opportunity to promote a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agenda. A typical university policy statement (such as this one from California State University, Fullerton) reads, “Faculty members from traditionally underrepresented groups may experience additional demands on their time, a phenomenon termed ‘cultural taxation.’ Cultural taxation involves the obligation to demonstrate good citizenship towards the institution by serving its needs for ethnic representation and cultural understanding, often without commensurate institutional rewards.” An article promoted by the California Faculty Association further explains that “minority faculty are expected to serve as role models and mentors for minority students.” It adds, “Clearly, serving on university and department committees as the ‘minority’ representative is taxing in itself. But being expected to ‘speak for your people’ as well, is a form of ‘taxation without representation’ at whose mere consideration, would make most faculty shudder” [sic]. Really? The argument is that minority faculty members are so overwhelmed by the “cultural taxation” they experience that they neglect their research and teaching duties, which in turn makes their academic advancement very difficult. They need additional compensation for that supposed burden. The suggestion is that they should get credit towards tenure or advancing in the professorship ranks for the time spent working with “underrepresented” students. In one proposal, at CSU Fullerton, 60 hours a year (a couple of hours each week during the school year) for five years would be enough to meet tenure requirements. That amounts to a new path to tenure available only to minority faculty, bypassing the traditional scholarly requirements. But is there a problem in the first place?

[almaqead]

"They Bite." From Surah 3, Ali Imran, "Mary's Ancestor."

3:118 -120 Why do we wrong ourselves?

O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason.

Here you are loving them but they are not loving you, while you believe in the Scripture - all of it. And when they meet you, they say, "We believe." But when they are alone, they bite their fingertips at you in rage. Say, "Die in your rage. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of that within the breasts."

If good touches you, it distresses them; but if harm strikes you, they rejoice at it. And if you are patient and fear Allah, their plot will not harm you at all. Indeed, Allah is encompassing of what they do.

Commentary:

There has always been a hostility towards the Quran and Islam, but not because of the language barrier or the customs. Islam challenges the human race to find the highest common denominator of illustrious spiritual thought and stick to it.

Its analyes always point to the most direct way to condense, right out of the clouds of heaven, the purest, simplest, least ritualistic way to take advantage of the collective assets of the human race. Not just in terms of the physical, the things we make, buy, sell, and use, but the rest- all the stuff in the libraries, the universities, all the faiths of the world, and all of their artifacts. Why? So we can come to know who we are are.

Believe it or not, we are still beneficiaries or victims of something no one takes into account- the Peloponnesian War in Greece- the most strategic and brutal slaughter in the ancient world. It almost brought all sentient human existence to an end. Athens was burnt, we don't even know what we lost, but we know it was quite a lot.

The same thing happened when the Romans burned the Library of Alexandria, and again when we torched the world's synagogues, libraries, and schools during World War II.

Why do we do the things we do when we know how they are going to turn out? Why have we allowed that pusbag Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine?

Joe Biden has got the most advanced killing machines in history at his whims and they were bought, paid for and made to put assholes in their places. That machinery and those shoulders could end the War in Ukraine in minutes. We have been planning to ice the Russians my entire life, and we know how to do it. We know we could do it. So, why are those ships and planes sitting still while the Russians invade Ukraine and are burning it to the ground?

Why are the Republicans and their Family Research Council and the Pro-Life movement allowed to bend and warp the most sacred tenet of America, "no taxation without representation?" We are not paying for the right to be mistreated by superstitious dimwits.

Why? Because Joe Biden is about as competent a protector as a cucumber squash.

So that is why we need to read and understand the Quran and cement the importance of Islam in our lives because it is the only faith that suggests we have had every opportunity to do something else and we always decide, unwisely, to give up the sources of our happiness to retarded people instead.

[rourhksapocolypse]

So, just a little thing before bed, set in the far future of one of my AUs. Naturally, if I ever write this into a story, I'll make all the references here build up naturally, make them their own people. But, after failing to record the original - and honestly kinda gut-bustingly heartwarming - version, I thought I'd give you the bare basics.

-In Senate, Legal Shenanigans are happening

-Someone recognizes a name - Khulassa Peach - in passing from a story, which prompts the Formerly-A-Princess/Empress Main Character to say "Yeah, I kinda made a habit of stealing titles of nobility and turnign them into names for my family."

="So what's your's?" "Chancellor - or Chance. But in a different language, so it sounds girly enough." "Then what's Khulassa mean?" "Princ-"

-Wait, you actually named your daughter Princess Peach?!"

I smirk. "Yeah. And her boyfriend was named Mario, who had a brother named Luigi." Roxxanne grinned at that. "Oh, but it gets better: She had a sister I named Zelda, and one of the rival gangs-"

"Lemme guess: Led by Ganon."

"Nope! It was led by a guy named after a vegetable and his sister - President Koopa and Bowser, who had a romantic interest in Peach and liked to kidnap her for dates."

"What- Bowser?" She asked, bewildered but with humor.

"Both of them. Which would lead Mario to stomp on all his Goombas to try and get her back and meanwhile this random guy, all in green -" At this, Roxxanne busted out laughing, surprised and delighted, leading me to grin ear-to-ear between words. "I can't make this shit up, he really was all in green, holding sword and shield and working with her to take on a Shada Sath Lieutenant trying to crumble the kingdom named Ganondorf - yes, really, Ganondorf! - and all the while, I'm just sitting back there, twiddling my thumbs because I've gotten too good at breaking things and teaching others to break things to actually do anything myself and my daughters have their lives well in hand, so I'm just confused as heck but enjoying it because suddenly, the Square Enix lawless city has become one gigantic Nintendo reference and my entire family has love."

-at this point, this feared madwoman who has personally destroyed armies is draped over the edge of the homemade senate pod for visiting Jedi (taxation without representation is near-slavery, after all), soundlessly laughing several times a second and I'm grinning because finally someone is actually capable of recognizing the kind of farce I live at times, and this?

This was something she'd been missing for centuries, which was too damn long in my opinion.

Screw the doctor's bills and the pill pushers; this was therapy. This was safety, leaving behind responsibility with people who could take care of things and just laugh at the ridiculous.

this is Joy.

This, is Peace.

[peter-author]

Estate Tax Again

In the coming weeks, as we approach the national budget discussions, the media, on every side, will start to rekindle the democracy moral ins and outs of Estate Tax. At least in Britain they call it what it is: Death Tax. You die, the IRS will tax your remaining assets and worth. You are dead, you have no representation. Gee, I wonder if we fought a revolution over taxation without representation?

Anyway, I am sure that really rich folks will profess to be in favor of Estate Tax. Yeah, sure, like really rich people haven’t already got family trusts hiding all their wealth. Ask a truly rich person if he or she actually owns a car… I’ll bet you fifty bucks the car is owned by a corporation or a trust, not them personally. I once challenged Bill Gates Sr. over this and he got angry and could not answer if he even had a house in his personal name. Only the really rich can afford to set up these trusts and maintain them. It’s petty cash for them but beyond the reach of most in the Middle Class.

If really rich people feel Estate Tax is fair, all they have to do is give it all to the country and not set up foundations, trusts, and co-called “good works” charities employing relatives and lackeys. Do some of these foundations do good? Sure, but they are legacy political leverage machines, like the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, all of which have lobbyists in DC. Non-paid Estate Tax for those families mean they can leverage influence for centuries after passing. Where’s the moral democracy in that?

The Estate Tax threshold this year is a little over $12,000,000. Think that’s a huge number? Think that doesn’t apply to you? When you’re under their radar, maybe they will let that full blue book value of your cars escape tax, maybe they will accept the ten year old valuation on your house and land, maybe they will be nice and not come tramping through your house adding up the value of your silverware, that china bowl Aunt Mabel gave your father and your heirloom jewelry. They have that right, make no mistake, they have the right to assess all your assets at time of death, every single piece of paper, every piece of underwear, anything of value, including the suit you are buried in. You would be surprised how quickly it adds up. And they can affix their own value, it will be up to your inheritors to prove otherwise by selling it all (paying tax), paying two independent valuers, or destroying every piece.

So, what happens if there is no Estate Tax? Will charitable foundations and good will charities evaporate? Sure, thousands of phony self-serving private charities may suddenly be unnecessary as the wealthy no longer have to pretend to run a charity (to pay their heirs’ cars, incredible salaries, trips and housing all over the world). However, public charities set up with intent, purpose, and moral values will continue apace, never faltering, needing their tax-free status to maximize their charitable gifting to the needy. The church won’t disappear, nor will the Salvation Army, the United Way, the Friends of the UN, the Police Benevolent Fund and countless thousands of others. They are run by the goodwill and for the benefit of others.

Estate Tax was put in place by the richest members of Congress precisely to sound like a public good work but is, in fact, a heavily lobbied means to ensure expensive trusts remain beyond any tax threshold. Meanwhile, the Middle Class gets hammered again – taxed without representation.

[lenbryant]

LATimes Op-Ed: Think it’s righteous to abstain from voting when you don’t like the choices? Think again

By Diana WagmanSept. 18, 2022 3 AM PT

Six curtained voting booths, all empty except one, where a voter is seen behind a partially open curtain.

Leaving a bubble blank on your otherwise filled-out ballot will register as an error, not political protest.

(Joseph Prezioso / AFP - Getty Images)

I am a slacktivist. I sit at my computer and fill out surveys and sign petitions. I write postcards and letters to potential voters and occasionally make a donation to causes or candidates. I get angry and disgusted on Twitter and post what I think are pithy, clever tweets in retort. I feel as if I’m doing something, making my voice heard, standing up for what I believe.

But the most important thing I do is vote. I often feel as if nothing and no one I vote for wins. A lot of the time, the candidate I’d most like to see on the ballot hasn’t made it to the general election — or never ran at all.

Still, I vote.

It is a right and a privilege my immigrant grandmother didn’t have for most of her life. I vote for her, and it is the most important political action I can take. As bad as the choices might be, I hold my nose and decide who or what is the “lesser of two evils.”

Voting versus abstaining is a standard philosophical debate, much like the famous trolley dilemma. You’re standing at a lever and a trolley is coming down the tracks heading for five people. If you move the lever, it will change tracks and run over only one. What do you do? Walking away and doing nothing is, as philosopher William James said, “in itself a decision.” Someone will die and you did nothing to save anyone.

When you vote, of course, you’re not pulling a lever that will result in one or five people dying directly, but you’re making choices that have serious outcomes. By not voting you could leave people unrepresented and unprotected. Nonvoters are credited for Donald Trump’s win over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Not voting had a definite outcome. “It wasn’t my fault” is a selfish argument when you could have made a choice for the greater good.

In a famous speech in 1964, Malcolm X had nothing good to say about white politicians, Democrats or Republicans. But he recognized the potential power of a Black voting bloc on the civil rights struggle and equated it with the power of revolution. He said, “It’s time now for you and me to become more politically mature and realize what the ballot is for; what we’re supposed to get when we cast a ballot. … It’s either a ballot or a bullet.”

That year saw the highest Black voter turnout ever in a presidential election — until the vote for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — and Lyndon Johnson won by a landslide. The Voting Rights Act was signed into law the next year. It never would have happened under the 1964 Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.

But, say principled nonvoters, if you continually vote for the lesser of two evils, aren’t you just weakening a party’s incentive to provide better choices? Doesn’t voting for the least-worst candidate only perpetuate our sham democracy?

Think about it, though — has low voter turnout in one or another race greatly improved the slate of candidates we’re offered? Are people better off because nonvoters took their version of the high road? (Again: 2016. )

Leaving a bubble blank on an otherwise filled-out ballot because you don’t believe in the choices will not register as a complaint as much as an error. A vote for a third-party candidate or a write-in might be marginally better, but that kind of protest could very well put the absolute worst choice into power. And, if you scribble through a candidate’s name in frustration, or pencil in a personal protest statement, you could end up with a “spoiled” ballot.

Protesting is a core value of America. Taxation without representation. Women’s suffrage. The Vietnam War. AIDS policy. Protest sparked progress on all those counts. In 2018, students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., gathered 800,000 people in America and more all over the world in the March for Our Lives to protest gun violence. Their push succeeded in getting 50 new gun laws passed around the country.

So get out there and protest, but most importantly, vote. In the November election, your vote is your loudest voice. And, as my grandmother said, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.”

Diana Wagman, a contributing writer to Opinion, is the author of six novels.

[recursive-muse]

The social contract is something we agree to, not an endorsement of whatever the rules happen to be. Implying that the social contract and the rule of law are one and the same is crassly anti-democratic, and suggests that people should just accept what ever laws congress happens to hand down without asking that our voices be heard first. Hauntingly reminiscent of taxation without representation.

[financialsmatter]

It’s Only Gloom and Doom for Dinosaurs

Lately some of our email readers have commented how the tone of our emails tends to focus on Gloom and Doom. However, our “…In Plain English” newsletter subscribers know better.  They get a “behind the scenes” look at the turbulence that will precede what’s coming down the path. And they also get actionable ideas on how to profit from what could be the greatest investment opportunity of a lifetime.   Hidden Among the Gloom and Doom But let’s examine the negative or gloom and doom for a moment. When we point out how governments across the globe are already in meltdown phase – Boris getting booted out of England – soon to be followed by Draghi in Italy, Macron in France and most of Europe, we’re simply highlighting the obvious. Desperate times call for desperate measures and that’s exactly what we’re seeing. And the politician’s solution for all problems always defaults to MORE TAXES. What these fools fail to recognize is when you rob people of their disposable income they’ll eventually fight back. Just look at the ongoing riots in Sri Lanka. Ironically (or NOT) the Whores-Of-Babble-On Presstitutes aren’t reporting how the country completely collapsed this week while the corrupt president high-tailed it out of there. Think it can’t happen here? Think again. Flying under the radar we have many of our creepy politicians continue to push to tax companies selling anything on the internet. Why? As more retail stores continue to vanish, (from Covid lockdowns) tax revenues are declining. So, this makes anyone selling on the internet a prime target. It also creates a question of legal jurisdiction. How can a state punish a company that’s not located in their state? And how can they demand they pay taxes when there is no right to representation in that state? Does this sound like:  NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION to you? Granted, much of this sounds negative. Gloom and Doom for Whom? But to that we’ll say “It’s only gloom and doom for dinosaurs.” If you’re not willing to adapt and change your thinking about how the markets work, (or recognize the dangers headed our way) you’ll end up like the dinosaurs. Learn how to “Connect the Dots” by reading our July issue of “…In Plain English” (HERE). We’ll even give you your first issue for FREE. (click here) When we say FREE, we mean FREE with no strings attached. Share this with a friend…especially if they like gloom and doom. We’re Not Just About Finance. We simply use finance to give you hope. https://www.financialsmatter.com/about/   ********************************   Invest with confidence. Sincerely, James Vincent World Leader in Simplifying Wall Street Copyright © 2020 It's Not Just About Finance, LLC, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Read the full article