An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Historically challenged
From an article at MSNBC.com on the elimination of the taxes on telephone calls:
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who won approval of the ban in the Senate Finance Committee, said he didn’t want the Internet to fall victim to taxes like the telephone tax enacted for the Spanish-American War.
“That war ended two centuries ago, and Congress is just now getting around to getting rid of the tax,” Wyden said.
Senator Wyden apparently thinks that there were telephones around in 1806 and that the Spanish-American War (you know, the one with Teddy Roosevelt charging San Juan Hill) predated the War of 1812 (the one with Andrew Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans). Either that or he thinks it’s the year 2098.
Geez…
—
Cross-posted to Random Fate.
6 Responses to “Historically challenged”
If you think about it that was did end two centuries ago in 1898, ie., in the 19th century. We are now in the 21st century, thus it ended two centuries ago in that sense although not 200 years ago.
Yes, I can see your point about it being in the 19th century, but, unless the esteemed Senator belongs to an ethnic group which is accustomed to counting inclusively, the explanation makes no sense. Even then, it’s highly unlikely. For example, for religious purposes, I count inclusively, but for every other purpose I count exclusively, just like other English speakers. Strictly speaking, though, counting inclusively would give a figure of three centuries: 19th, 20th, 21st.
I seriously hope that this was simply a momentary lapse in concentration on the part of the Senator. It probably was. I manage to do some pretty stupid things myself. One of my recent blunders was when we were at a restaurant celebrating our anniversary. I needed to put a date on something, and I usually don’t remember what the date is, so I turned to my husband and asked what today’s date was. He gave me an amused look, and I finally said, “Oh…right.”
Lol, I don’t think Wyden normally counts inclusively. hat I do think, is that he like many people often look at historical things by their era. I think we can all agree that a person might casually refer to the first World War as being fought 100 years ago and not have anyone object that that is not exactly correct, and if they did they would be likely be looked at as a nitpicker. I see Wyden’s comments as nothing more than that, ie., a casual reference using a general era as a time frame and not a specific date. Two centuries ago flows off the tongue easier than taking a moment and counting backwards then saying 108 years ago.
C’mon Congressman, at least get your DATES right…*smh*
Chuut: I was being facetious when I suggested the possiblity of inclusive counting. I doubt that most people in this country — outside of Jews (I assume), Orthodox Christians (I know), and Latin students (if they understand how the Roman Calendar worked) even know that it is possible to count inclusively when reckoning dates.
Of course, you’re right that we all give estimates of how much time has passed. I suspect that the error came from miscategorizing the event as 19th century rather than turn-of-the-(20th)-century. I had it filed in the latter category but didn’t know the exact dates and, if asked, would (blush) have said that it was in the first couple years of the 20th century. (Thanks to this, I’ll probably remember the correct date from now on.)
Buncha picky asses, you just got a tax that had run it’s course over 100 years ago removed, so stop your bitchin’ yeesh.