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 · Comment ·

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

What is the name of your new party? I may want to join.

Wed at 6:44am ·

Janet L. Steinhauser

I'm in.

Wed at 11:02am ·

Amy Waggener Cardwell

Me too

Wed at 12:24pm ·

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

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