Our own little tea party

Why not, I woke up thinking. Why not form our own little version of the tea party movement? We are certainly fed up enough. We are certainly done with trying to cooperate while we are asked to wait. We do have a real agenda of concerns that need to be acted on. So why the hell not?





But first, lets go see what the tea party network is already doing. I took the time to join up and then look around, starting with the ning network guidelines where I found the following strictures against posting:

in a manner that is libelous or defamatory, or in a way that is otherwise
threatening, abusive, violent, harassing, malicious or harmful to any person or
entity, or invasive of another's privacy;

in a manner that is harmful to minors in any way;

in a manner that is hateful or discriminatory based on race, color, sex,
religion, nationality, ethnic or national origin, marital status, disability,
sexual orientation or age or is otherwise objectionable.

And yet, at the Tea Party site there were quite a few malicious and harmful videos and comments being posted. Hmmm. I guess I'll be seeing if the taplin blog got it right when he suggested the Republican Tea Party is a closed movement.

Meanwhile, back to my original thought. Why not do our own tea party thing? I think a full page ad in the LA Times would be a great place to start. I'll be back when I find out how much that would cost and if the Times guidelines would restrict us saying what we want to say.

Honesty is the best policy

I say this with full disclosure in mind. I have been a casual user of drugs ever since I graduated from college. By casual, I mean that when I want to relax or spend time on a recreational weekend, a dube is a great way to go. I say this though I actually haven't used any drugs besides Excedrin for the occasional headache and Tylenol for the sinus attacks in quite a while. I say this also because even though I don't actively use, I totally support those who do and admit it. Bill Maher comes to mind, Tommy Chong, and now my personal hero, Nick Diaz.


I have written before about how I feel about people who use and then run away when caught. I have also pointed out the obvious mistake in President Obama's comment that he didn't think that legalizing was the way to go. But this story is just great. Not only does he admit his use and explain how it works, he also talks about how he is going to continue to use it. Meanwhile, the reporter clearly is trying to show all sides but misses an important point when he quotes Nevada State Athletic Commissioner, Keith Kizer. "The drug is banned because of the damage it does to the person taking it. It could make you lethargic, slow your reflexes, and those are dangerous things in a combat sport."

Obviously, the commish never used the drug himself when he argued that Diaz' use of the drug before a fight made him "numb to the pain because of excessive marijuana in his system." What are these commissioners on drugs.

No, that's actually my point. Rather than take a face value the honest information of a real pot user, they always, always, fall back on the "it's illegal" excuse. Well, this time it didn't work. Diaz plans to keep on keepin' on. And I'll toke to that.

Politics as usual

I listened with great interest to Mr. Obama's question and answer session last night. I watched it on C Span. I have to say he showed why he can be trusted to think through this ongoing series of events even though I did not always agree with how he answered. I did like, do like, his persistence and the way he used it as the element of his campaign to become president which brought him victory suggests it will serve him well here.

Meanwhile, the clamor of voices trying to be heard about all the very important issues to be resolved does make it difficult to trust that politics as usual isn't hard at work. A politician by nature must please the ones who put it in office first and those general community of voters second. Otherwise, goes the traditional wisdom, the politician won't stay in office long enough to accomplish any work. So along with the "Earmarks" attached to the bills that congress passes, we also should expect the vocal earmarking that allows the politician to broadcast where his or her loyalties lie.

They say in real estate that its location, location, location and in business that there's no such thing as bad pub. Well, the same thing appears to be the play in politics. Which brings me back to Mr. Obama.

Every time he chose to use the code words, healthcare, energy, and education, I found myself questioning his answer. What I find difficult to hear when somone uses code is what their real motive is. Just like when a questioner asked him about China by including the phrase, a communist government, and I immediately wondered about the motive behind the question.

So this brings me back to this question, was this Q & A just politics as usual?

Cowboy Poetry

Home on the range, and Bob Wills' Swing and the idea that in 1985 when times were tough "a group of folklorists launched the National Cowboy Poetry Gathering in Elko," Nevada, all came together this week for me as I read my Thursday morning LA Times.

"Stock Exchange" to them is to trade a horse or cow:

their market is the Sale Barn while on Wall Street it's the
"Dow."

There's never been a program to bail out the livestock man;

when things get tough their motto is to "Hang on if you can!"

Yvonne Hollenbeck draws praise for her stance and applause for her words but I wonder if she appreciates the irony of her case? There are over 2 million definitions and examples for irony available through a Google search but I like this one from Wikipedia, "ironic - Both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way" because it lays out for me the simple truth behind the poems that took the day at this year's convention.

I can appreciate that when she says we are all, the independent individuals that make up the working class, heart of America, in this together, and then sets up an us versus them scenario. The question is though, who is them? For that matter, who is us?

Remember in the 80's when the markets were so low,

and interest hit an all-time high?

There was no bailout dough.

Half the farms and ranches were foreclosed on and were lost;

no bail-out plan was offered and the small towns bore the cost.

Then more were lost in '96 when blizzards swept the range

and then came several years of drought but still there was no
change

in attitudes in Washington, they didn't even seem to care,

I doubt they even knew there was a problem way out there.

So there's Them - the rich-don't-tax-me one percentile. The Mega-corporations that get to act and be taxed like an individual but really are made up of thousands of individuals backed by thousands more stock holders, etc., etc., . . . The "Stock Market" whatever that means. The banks, the politicos, the war-mongerers that put us into a three trillion dollar war. Both political parties who let thirty years of de-regulated "free marketeering" go on and on and on. The real estate gurus, Trump and Kiyosaki, et al, who advised everyone who would buy into their program to USE OTHER people's money (read borrow to gain leverage to the hilt).



And then Us - The more than 16 million unemployed. The single farmer/rancher/employee/independent contractor/small business owner losing dollars by the day as the economy tanks. The fifty-five percent of the voters who put Obama in office to stem the tide and change the circumstance and believe in the hope of a turn around.

Well, here's the irony in that folks. This is exactly the fertile ground in which the hate-mongerers like Limbaugh and Coulter plant and grow their seeds of distrust. Right there in the interstice between the way we feel and who we blame for it.

No one helped/helps me cries the farmer/rancher/little guys and girls/finacially crushed US.

So don't help anyone else. Leave my tax money in my hands and I'll figure out how to make it through to next year.

Yet, in cities folks buy houses that are bigger than our barns,

when they cna't make their payments, Congress says, "Well, darn!

We'll gather up some billions so they can pay their debt,

and let their dandy banker get his biggest bonus yet!"

And as true as that is, it is also false because the irony is that the farmers and rancher weren't immune to this financial bubble's lure. They too bought into the big pile of manure.



The final irony, the very reason people need help is the very reason they won't get it. 'Cause, as Bill Maher has often pointed out, we quite often have demonstrated a mind-boggling ability to vote against ourselves. The Black Swan effect to the max.

So Barack what is the plan?

The day after Clinton conceded and here we all are. Kurt Streeter in the LA Times uses it as his double lead story about the Lakers/Celtics then and now. So Barack what now? Everyone is caught in this moment. Do we dare hope?

Well, maybe, but that won't stop the idiots from claiming they won because the Dems duked it out. On the other hand, the joy of winning is certainly hard to ignore.



Meanwhile, the question still needs to be asked. Barack, what now? We, after all, have been here before. Kerry, Gore. Looked great, ran out of steam. I have to admit I don't like the fact that you caved on the church thing. But I do like the fact that you are challenging McCain on the things he's said and the actions he's taken.



Still, what about this healing thing within the party? Hilary as your VP. I like it for the fact that it works to laugh in the face of the Repugnants and buffers you from those who might do you physical harm. Richardson. He would be great for the infrastructure rebuilding and for support in the international relationships we have to establish. My personal choice is Claire McCaskill but that's just because she is level-headed, forthright, and clear-spoken.



And finally, Barack, what about the issues? You know some young blonde child-woman will ask you the question about abortion, right? Immigration, can you challenge McCain on this issue by actually speaking to the real facts of the case? Immigrants are us. Whether we came by slave ship or in the back of a truck, by sampan or for the railways, through religious belief or economic need; unless we are native american, we are all immigrants. What we have brought to America in the process is what makes America great. And then there's the economy which as it stands looks like train wreck happening. Can you return the right kind of regulation to a lending industry gone wild? Can you weather the storm of failures that will come first before any of this gets turned around? You know the Repugnants, their party comes first so don't expect help there, expect blame.

For me there is one last issue that towers above them all. We are locked into a militaristic future budgeted beyond control and blanketed in fear. Do you have a solution? Can the military frame of mind be reasoned with? Can the black op nature of our government be made transparent? Can the mothers and neocons be convinced to let up on their continuing fear of the terrorist threat that drives their vote?

I find myself coming to one conclusion. If I ask Barack, what now? Am I not also asking myself the same question? So what about it, rhbee, what now?

Death and Deception

Just to note this day, another political assassination, this time Ms. Benazir Bhutto the ex-Prime Minister and current political opponent of Pakistan's Prime Minister Pervez Musharraf. If there is one thing to fear in this world of terror, it is the callous use of suicide bombing to destroy human life in the name of political expediency. It is actually my primary thought when I think of HRC being elected. Our history is too strong in favor of this to not be worried. Human life is fragile and frangible. The side effects of this action will not be wonderful to watch.

What a joke . . .

Yesterday, on the front page of the LA Times, I read a story about the Supreme Court's new rulings on the election laws concerning corporate contributions and specific advertising. I am sure you heard about it. The corporations won. What really struck me though was the comment by Chief Justice Roberts that "We give the benefit of the doubt to (free) speech, not censorship." Directly below the quote at the end of the column was a related story box pointing to a ruling by the same court rejecting the right of a student to post a sign "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on a public street outside a school. Free speech? I guess not.