Friday, January 15, 2010

More party proto-babble, party all the time.

Phillip Bunker
And why the emphasis on the T-party? (does it repel you?) First reason is tit-for-tat warfare, which politics is no exception to ever since Reagan (or ever since ever? just in different forms - slowly shifting, sometimes punctuated equilibrium like the laws that govern evolution). If they pull out the zombie horde, so must we. Their zombie horde might push the Repub.s even further to the right - sanity has already left them.

Right and Left Party? Ambidextrous Party?

Second reason is they're owning some power, no matter how much we want to laugh at it. The power they are owning is a departure from reason, complete and whole.
Now, we don't want to jump off the same cliff (yes I think they're doomed, but bad ideas can take hold strong in the world as history shows). But, there is power in this unreason, and we can let the Philosophy descend the rung of abstraction a couple notches, wind up with the same theoretical power advantages, and still maintain our reason.
As logical beings, the left is sometimes guilty of being pragmatic to a fault, and also being singular to a fault. Anecdotal evidence from my own life would be all the times I stubbornly refused to listen to other peoples' take on things because I knew a logical informed person needed to find their own answers. As a math student, I recognize the divinity and intuition that fuels the personal enlightenment process - not only 'I think therefore I am' but, 'this is how carefully, cautiously and gradually I think' therefore I am learning a growing wiser as I go on. On their side, the T- side (the side of the T junction that only sees right or left, and is so unaware of the middle way that they consider going straight tantamount to suicide - or at least getting stopped in the tracks of moving.
On that T-side, they don't care if politicians are human - they should be perfect. We wash away some expectations - they're human, they get to fuck up once in a while; what I'm seeing is that this and other things may weaken our stance.

More importantly, I'm beginning to see that we can no longer afford to assume we can be logical, purely reasonable, and have a big free-for-all tent on the left side, and still hope to stand any chance against the Establishment which is careening us RIGHT off a cliff (do peaceful, fun-loving folk try to win the cold war by out-borrowing the USSR to spend money on military, or is it the neo-cons who do that? Sorry my Republican friends, but unless you're trying to change your party like 120 or more degrees - and I know some of you are - you're definitely not on the correct side of politics for the last - oh, forty years or so. Meanwhile I know that Clinton signed NAFTA and that Obama is still my #1 hope but has let the left down on health care - whether it was his fault or not remains to be seen in the coming months and years).
So, to make sure we can take the power enough to stop the Establishment, we're going to need a few things: (this is what I'm trying to address here in all these posts - where do we go now to make some positive steps to this goal):
- we're going to have to make some doctrine, standards of practice, compulsions, and...almost hate to say it...religious seeming things to win this battle - not zombies, something more like Obamatons, but loyal to an uncorruptable ideal - we'll stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, and all as we define it with no room for compromise.
- we're going to have to pull no punches. This means softies have to become hardies. A hard-line left - robbed of reason and left with nothing but pure passion (probably more hyperbole here than I intended, but these things just come out as I type.)
- we're going to have to play favorites, fight dirty, declare war on things, and call even the moderates traitors (which, they are now pretty much, so no harm no foul).
- we're going to have to take vows of poverty, oaths to toil, calls for abstinence from modern media and other time-wasting devices. These are the things that we have to give up to protect the ability of everyone else to continue to have luxury time.
- we're going to have to do homework to learn the lessons of all the Reformations to figure out how to do it right, and actually improve on the technique of uniting ourselves so that it will become even easier two generations down the road (though it is already getting easier and easier for free people to communicate in common cause - even before the internet there were Bulletin Boards via modems, and even before computers there were free papers and universities all across this United State. Dissent is allowed - hence me and my three founding members haven't been arrested or even watch-listed - why would the government care about political nobody's like us?)
- we're going to have to move to places where we aren't accepted to teach tolerance to those who despise us; write books that are laughed at so we get into the Library of Congress (probably lots of these already - we'll have to have a heady discussion as to prior literature that backs our common cause - the cause of the commons); we'll need to create a handshake and a dance and a slightly different form of music (I'm thinking folk with a DJ - folk-hop like Ani has tried - personally I think to no avail so far, but just my opinion); we'll probably start dressing differently at some point because otherwise we'll vote with money at the wrong stores, and making our own clothes would be sooo keen (again, just my opinion).

The Homesewn Party?
6 hours ago ·
Phillip Bunker
Phillip Bunker
And by Religion or religion-like, I mean something different than the typical examples. A political movement (more than a party) is composed of a unique set of moralities. Even if I wanted to say the Second Coming is alive and well, on tour as seen in Religulous, or that Star Trek episodes are the new video bible - stories, parables, archetypes, morality, juxtaposition, twists of fate, and powers like gods. No one would go gaga over it, and suddenly Harry Potter is the new messiah - that's what they're afraid of, so we have to show that their fears are unfounded - become what they're fearing and setting up as the expectation, but do it our way:
only drive cars on Sundays~
only eat things that we grow~
learn to make our own things~
stay off the golden ladder in search of a bigger house~
keep our hands in the social soil doing good works~
getting Jefferson and Franklin smart~
inventing like Edison and teaching like Feinman~
not a vow of poverty per se, more a homespun oath~
supporting local businesses, buying local food~
climbing a golden ladder of fair trade and anti-conglomerate-corporatism~
in short all the good things they get at with bibles and other such texts, yet with contemporary story telling of some kind (this is why we fight) that admits we can focus on the past fifty years instead of thousands ago to become informed moral practical and successful citizens~
only eat crab with lemon~
drink your own homegrown tea~
eliminate lawns in favor of grains and dog chow (if nothing else more useful)~
I'd love to see Oregon's Willamette Valley go from the I-5 exhaust corridor and grass seed factory that it is, and become the worlds most advanced agricultural utopia~
I believe in that last one like maybe some people believe in heaven~

So no, we're nothing like the others way over there, but we can push the middle to the left just as hard as they push the middle to the right. We're really lucky that they're using the transparent tactics and blatant advertising that they are since it's mostly old people, and where it's not, it's differing versions, with more likelihood to see our wholesome folk remedies over here and either rename themselves or join up with us, or form a coalition of belief in the goodness and ability to take moral actions that these United States were made for, Constituted to do, and even though we never had a Bill of Lefts, we do still have rights.

One of those rights is to assemble. To assemble everyone in that land of the Goddess Columbia, would be frankly an organizational nightmare. But what if ten million average joes and janes skyped the doors down at the White House - what if Congress had a third body - all Tri-Cameral and shit. What if people like chefs and teachers and cops, who all have to be benevolent dictators and work themselves hard since they do selfless work (well okay chefs aren't all that selfless really, but you know...they're so pathetically and permanently in a hands dirty economic class - not as many rich chefs as there are other things...I digress quite selfishly), what if all those people who work for the PUBLIC and so end up with a sense of STEWARDSHIP for our COMMONS, what if they all got behind Kucinich and Sanders no matter how not-Arnold Schwartz-ula they are, to say SCHOOL FUNDS NOT FEDERAL GUNS, COPS NEED CLINICS TO MAKE WELL THE INDIGENT THEY ALSO NEED BENEFITS SINCE THEY HAVE A LIFE TO GIVE, TOO BIG TO FAIL MAKES U.S. A SNAIL, THIRTY PER CLASS IS NO WAY TO TEACH, COMMODITIES FROM FEDS - FOOD BETTER OFF DEAD, MY RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE WILL DEFEAT YOUR DISSEMBLE, OUR CHOICE IS UNITED, OUR MINDS ARE OF STATE, OUR PICKETS ARE WAITING BY THE DOOR, WE SAID WE WANT CHANGE.

I'm still not sure who to believe in, but we're starting somewhere, and there's bound to be light along the way.
4 minutes ago ·

Ending the Shit They Get Away With

The P.K. Party: here is a current post of all party material generated so far. Propaganda for your eyes only, and anyone else's eyes who isn't pushed, prodded, cajoled, or otherwise manipulated into seeing this light.

Here is just the beginning.

Phillip Bunker Palin is going to split the Republican Party, though certainly not down the middle. I'll be there to start a new party once they break that barrier.

Tue at 11:32pm · ·

Phillip Bunker
Phillip Bunker
Apparently there was a NYTimes article saying some guy in SC or somewhere is going to run on the Tea Party ticket.
Tue at 11:50pm ·
Laura Reed
Laura Reed
What is the name of your new party? I may want to join.
Wed at 6:44am ·
Janet L. Steinhauser
Wed at 11:02am ·
Amy Waggener Cardwell
Wed at 12:24pm ·
Phillip Bunker
Phillip Bunker
Phillip Bunker Haven't got a name yet. I was doing some research on online political parties. Here's my first pitch gang:
[Emergent Party? Free Party? United Statesian Party? The Orange Party? The Apple Tree and Post Conglomerate? The Interforum?] -
We are volunteers, take no money, give no money, earn membership by participating in discourse, and start out just accepting that out of the politicians and policies that exist in the field we can only do our best to figure out which one sucks the least. We inform ourselves in simple, easy, religious ways and accept no definitions or purported facts unless it's been examined or wiki'ed about. I don't care if the information's name is the Associated Press or CNN - their information is selling something. But, there is a truth out there, and no matter how the myriad deciders invent or obfuscate the stories that we the people are surrounded and informed by, I know a few things, and you know a few things, and a little viral effort could easily become something tangible in a world where bra colors sweep the nation. This effort could be made transparent and affordable (all for the price of free or very nearly) by the internet and the USPS (I think there should definitely be a bi-cameral digital and analogue spine of the party). I'd place that same emphasis that churches and fraternities and sororities have - a social group with a charter outlining purpose, by-laws that are simple and flexible, and an eye for duality (here's what we are and what we aren't, here's what we believe and what we don't, here's the basic story of our contemporary history, while here is the areas we're not too sure about, etc.). We can create a network nationally that is time-consuming, has no "pay-off", no marketing or advertisement potential, and isn't created by people trying to get attention.
I have a mind to generate some kind of graph model of the proposed structure, pathways of communication, and theoretical self-correcting mechanisms (think founding fathers only with more game theory involved - this political platoon agrees on this truth through various survey while team Anchorage clashes directly with that, so the issue remains in 'undecided status' or 'outcome pending' - sort of like taking parliamentary procedure and updating it for the next hundred years and incorporating technology).
Fox thinks they can create a party based on their porthole information - too bad, they opened the floodgates for denial of common consensus of information from which to organize a party. Used to be people like them would have been called quacks by the intellectuals enough that even the common person would know them to be fools. The floodgate that is being opened is the sell-out of enough of the intelligentsia (perhaps more accurately the confusion of the masses of who the intelligentsia really is - to the point where they only listen to S. Palin and we only listen to The Daily Show) (Not that there's anything wrong with the Daily Show, but it illustrates my point I think). The consequence is that now we see how easy people are to win over, just assure them you know what's going on and be there to provide a constant feed of dialogue from which masses develop their political opinions and suddenly politicians have even less worry over how the public will react to reality (i.e. the things they do wrong). Meanwhile, here we are raising a generation of kids who don't watch TV anymore (or any less?@! HA!). A new better option will be taking over for anyone still evolving into something better instead of sinking into more infotainment or, as I sometimes call it, entermation: instead, young folks are going from web page to web page looking in on those people and ideas and organizations they have cause to care about (or watching reruns with just as many commercials filling them with empty need as before, but still improvement). It's just enough of a difference that the baggage of a national political organization with coffers and donors and Congressional hearings into campaign financing scandals - all that may become obsolete. Maybe not, but we can hope. Typically, in History, a thesis might read, typically that which has become more trouble than it's worth is shed like the skin of a snake while the vital efficiency of a more natural way gradually replaces what was there before.
The rudimentary structure might be something like a newsfeed and personal homepage (complete with neighbors and connections to far flung friends of neighbors) whose contents are vetted by the members, not open to the outside (or maybe by choice - a heady discussion here best headed up by someone well versed in the state of the art of social networking privacy settings etc.), though with the understanding that no pure data constitutes facts without further clash, discourse, or the automatic harmony that comes with obvious common causes (as we see with Susan G. Komen related posts on social networking sites).
Regulation within this party environment should probably be modeled after chiefdoms or seniority or something hybridized that I don't have the faculty to articulate at the moment.
Our power can only come from becoming a free and obvious alternative, generating enough numbers, signing up new voters, and eventually making impacts in local elections until we begin to gather and puppeteer our own candidates (not really puppeteer, but kind of - another heady discussion).
I did some quick research the other day and only found this blogspot posting about a national online party, but I find it lacking in outside-the-box thinking. Hopefully I'm not victim of the same trap. Here is a link:
http://nolp.blogspot.com/
Also there is an interesting phenomenon called national initiative amendment:
http://www.ni4d.us/
I like the flavor of that too.
Most of all, what I'm always left with at the end of thinking about this stuff is, to what degree do we attempt to give the latest and greatest politicain the time needed to turn the head of such a large dragon? Could a health care amendment this year turn into a jobs bill and defense cut next year, and an education reformation and elimination of the insurance industry the next (and are the Republicans right about 'we have to give up the right to sue to get out of the insurance scam/angle? - which is my analysis of what their tort reform {torte?} is about when viewed on the level)?

You three just became charter members and high priestesses. May the forces be with you...
about an hour ago ·
Phillip Bunker
Phillip Bunker
Next pitch:
Platform - we should get in the middle, support the middle way, BUT we have to come at it from a different angle - what do the Reds and Blues teach us about what the Oranges shouldn't be?
We're pro-U.S. industry, but anti-corporate personhood, anti-trade protectionism (middle way here is best), and demand a bending of the curve away from profit-ness and towards sustainable development. Only an idiot a-hole country would do otherwise.
Kiss giant military spending goodbye, yet we'll be wary of a legitimate argument for keeping such repugnant spending - keep all the best weapons tech companies in the U.S. and then nobody else can go and take over the world just by spending more money on building a better military. In other words, research and limited development of military tech should be okay with us, but change the purview of the military to peaceful efforts - like a jobs program - and get rid of bloated military budgets abroad. How many troops do we need in Germany? Really?? In the next hundred years, when do we expect to need them there? Surely some tiny first response team would be enough instead of what we have: we have grandfather claused military bases, once outfitted to be self-sufficient, spending tons of bills on military base schools, shops, services, caches and depots, and all so that we can what? invade an Asian nation now and then and depose some South American Democratically elected official now and then?
Also grandfather claused is big big money programs, like military aid to Isreal so they can do our dirty work, and supporting people who support us by any means necessary, which is exactly how Osama Bin Laden and other dudes in Afghanistan got millions from the CIA and all that training that has come in handy now that some of them ran off and became the Taliban.
Those are gone. There is no middle way when it comes to building death machines and shipping them around the world as much as possible. That shit is over.
Also on the docket:
Health Care: Insurance companies can burn in hell. If we put profit between me and a doctor, well that's about four times as bad as putting a modern transparent government agency in between me and a doctor.
Gov't Spending: We're bleeding hearts, but we only bleed for what works. We'll pick smart leaders and listen to their advice. In the meantime - no more bombs and ammo and death machines, R&D is okay, cut the corporate hand-outs (except where they're too big to fail, then we'll cut them off at the Achilles tendon) and once the fat is all trimmed, we'll get back to the basics - starting with a skeleton federal government that has to hold a few bake sales to get the new awning installed in the US embassy in New Zealand.
Truth Audits: This is a new idea the way I'm thinking of it: what happened on 9/11 and why did that dude get an insurance policy the day before it happened? what exactly is the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the Homeland people spending all that money on? Is it doing any good? (ultimately my thesis here will be - for crying out loud, there isn't an enemy at our gates - they'll be attacking our currency and trade routes before they ever attack us! they know we have all the guns for christ's sake.) The rate of pay increase of Federal employees compared to the national average is what now? The government makes how much money without our taxes included and we're being fleeced exactly how? The republicans get away with filabustering by declaration instead of actually having to speak on the senate floor for an unlimited amount of time why exactly? and who are the richest five hundred families in the U.S. and what have they been up to (especially politically speaking - how much do they pay out to keep the fascist dream alive)?
What about this whole currency being owned by international banks instead of the U.S. government itself thing? Is that why Kennedy was assassinated, because he was trying to reinstate Federally owned dollars? Can't we just slap em and take back the worthless paper for ourselves so that the national debt isn't reading like a Check-Cashing Payday Loan Service invoice (that's right, we currently pay interest on the money we use - through debt payments made with tax money)?
And most of all, who has been blocking efforts to disseminate all this and much much more important information out to the masses? Sure they only care about Tiger woods, but that's just because they're obsessed with tits and morality (great combo) and haven't been given anything better since media became mass communicated.

I'm talking about a political party not for the average joe, but for the dedicated adherent to leftist ideals; those who refuse to accept the image that is painted of tree-huggers and whole foods socialists; those who are absolutely convinced that outside the pop-culture map is where we all need to go, and quick; a political party that rejects the baggage of people names places and history, and only hears "yes, we can"; a party for people capable and willing to do their own foot work, pay their own dues, and govern the country from a country rocking chair once all the chores are done; a party of Enlightenment ideas unfettered by the cynicism of modern poll information.

Name: The P.K. Party (first because it's simple and not 'trying to be something' not 'trying be become a brand', second because it is one more letter than T. as in T Party - our thick-headed rivals, and third because p.k. stands for preacher's kid, which I am not, but provides a good sociological identity - the kid of a preacher, super well versed in folk ways, morality, and leadership, but fully ready to rebel and own all that power and tradition for the moment and no other master than ourselves, and fourth, because I'll allow this one conceit just in case my party takes off and I miss out on being in the history books).
If not the P.K. Party, then maybe some other bodacious name yet to be determined.

I want populism that is informed by the lessons of history, that never takes the easy solution or the shortest route to anything. I see Tea Partiers being spoon fed lies because they're angry babies. I'm an angry baby that can only be soothed by spoons full of truth - and I won't settle for Tea Spoons, I demand Table Spoons, or maybe even Soup Spoons. I'm tired of all the news feeling predictable and every new development in the world being shouted about then quickly forgotten, only to be brought up again if the interested parties find themselves once again in the chips.

A red and blue America makes as much sense as having exactly Two astrological signs. I've heard of Blue Collar Democrats, but I hear that and think: Democrats whose livelihood depends on corporate masters that they are willing to serve completely so long as their pensions and pay raises survive. My party says no to Blue Collar Populism - I'm more for no collar - no yoke for us oxen. I don't want trade unions to wrestle away all the power from private industry because then one will become the other and the other will become the one. Instead I want to find those rare and hidden paths that actually RESTORE power to the PEOPLE by not saying: well if we can't sue them or press charges, I guess they can get away with it, so we might as well learn to fight just as dirty. To the idealist, even living in the mud is cleaner than accepting two bad alternatives (unless you count independents which have some good points to them, but clearly haven't fulfilled the third party vacuum fully) and not doing anything about it.

We should have at least fifty god-damn parties says I. Thank god the crazies are being dumb enough to split up the di-pole monopoly for us first, so we won't suffer for our efforts.
btw, I don't think we should recruit Democrats. I think we should recruit non-voters, and unaffiliated voters. Let the Dems who want in join in, but we should only decrease Dem membership as much as it will naturally allow - they're our friends