Are these guys still not aware of what “teabag” means, or are they just ignoring it? Frankly, if I discovered that the slogan for my political drive was a rather tawdry double entendre and millions of people doubled over in hysterical laughter whenever I said it, I would change it to something else.

I mean, for example, let’s say I wanted to start a drive for Americans to be globally-minded in the post-Bush era, to reach out to people across the globe and find a common ground for cooperation. The slogan I naively choose would be, “everyone, reach around to make the world better!” Then, after the laughter and mocking of the moment subsides, someone informs me of what a “reacharound” is. Would I then (a) defiantly continue to use the expression, or (b) realize I’d committed a faux pas and change the slogan?

I think “b” would be my choice, even if most Americans didn’t understand the double meaning.

It’s not as if there are not alternate tea-related expressions that Republicans could use. The whole idea is to make a reference to the Boston Tea Party, an event in which crates of tea (not individual bags, which were invented around 1900) were thrown into the harbor. I can only suppose that the tea bag was chosen for the current protests because it is so easy and cheap to acquire, while crates of tea would be more problematic. Still, would it be so hard for these people just to stop saying “tea bag” and instead just say “tea,” or “the simple, historical symbol of tea”? They could even keep the tea bags as a visual prop; their image is not linked to the obscene act, just the expression “teabag.”

Instead, we get right wingers appearing hilariously idiotic:

For a very graphic and absolutely not work-safe depiction of tea-bagging, follow this link.

Clearly, this kid has no clue, nor did the person who made the sign for him. The sign was made by the Free Republic, so, well, goes to show. (Or perhaps the kid, being at an age where sexual jokes are considered the height of hilarity, knows exactly what it means, which would explain the big grin.)

Already, these people come across as dim-witted dupes when you consider that they are protesting (a) tax hikes for the wealthy, especially the very wealthy, (b) massive tax cuts for the lower and middle-class, and (c) overall tax rates which, even at the highest brackets, would still be significantly lower than they were for most of the 20th century. Add the teabag thing, and they look like complete morans.

So, why do they not get a clue and make a small alteration in their language? I don’t get it. Or maybe they don’t.