The New Tea(bag) Party

Today, many lunatics from the Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Fox TV camps will be protesting our “tax and spend” federal government at various public places around the country. They will do this by bringing tea (bags) to the steps of post offices, City Halls and legislatures and other governmental buildings and by mailing tea bags to their elected officials. These crazy people will be lured by various extremist ideologies, including the wacky Libertarian belief that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to collect a tax on wages.

I spent a large part of my day yesterday listening to disparaging comments directed at these “tea-partiers” by many in the media, some made by my own friends and political compatriots. Many right wing pundits have latched onto this protest idea as if it is their own and many on the perceived left now see this action as a brazen, corporate attack on their shiny new president. With a Democrat now firmly ensconced in office, its easy for them to imagine that all of the people who will be involved today are Republicans or right-wingers or racists.

Well, I’ll be one of those “lunatics” and I am not a Republican, a right-winger or a racist. I know many others who will be out there as well who are not so easily or accurately defined by these labels. In fact, the organizer of our local protest is a Vietnam veteran who has been fairly active in the peace movement for years. He does not belong to either major political party (he dismisses them both as “War, Inc.”).

While he may not share many of my more progressive views, he is a good and respectful man and he is also a successful tax resistor. It is pretty clear to me that he is not lead by people like Beck or Hannity (or by anyone else, for that matter). He seems to be a pretty well-read guy who figures things out for himself.

To me, this situation is similar to how all the peace vigils suddenly ended once Obama was elected. Why did this happen? The wars certainly aren’t over! Guantanamo certainly isn’t closed. There are currently more mercenaries in Iraq than at any point previous. Extraordinary rendition has continued. Why then, don’t the peace vigils continue? Were they really just anti-Bush vigils?

Many would level this accusation at the whole anti-war movement. They would say that we were just working with moveon.org to protest Bush in order to get a Democrat elected. Well, I was definitely not out there for those reasons. I was out there to protest a war for resource that we didn’t need to be involved in. The lack of a substantial peace movement today makes me scratch the old noggin, though. Were the right-wing pundits correct about the bulk of us?

I have finally realized that many in the Peace movement really do only object to war when it is clear that the war in question is a Republican war. But the criticism concerning ulterior motive was regularly leveled at all of us by conservative pundits and this is unfair. Many people did only fill the streets because moveon.org told them to but it is of vital importance to know that there were also many of us who were not there merely to support corporate machine politics.

While there is no doubt that some among us may have been wearing Democratic Party T-shirts under their anti-war uniforms and while they may have put those uniforms up on that shelf in the back of their closet (at least until the next “changing of the guard”), these people are not the whole peace movement. Not by a long stretch.

In my world, being an advocate for peace is still absolutely necessary, especially now that the Democrats are running the show. When a “bad” war falls under the jurisdiction of the Democratic Party, it doesn’t, all of a sudden, become a “good”war. The death toll (of both American soldiers and Middle Eastern civilians) doesn’t suddenly become a necessary and incremental step towards the peace. It is still a terrible waste of human life perpetrated by resource-hungry corporations and our military industrial complex. It still needs to be opposed!

During the Bush regime, many in the right-wing media excoriated anyone who was seen as supporting moveon.org or UFPJ or Code Pink, all of whom were involved in organizing protests and vigils. I never went to a single protest or rally coerced to do so by any of these groups (though one or more of them may have had their hand in the planning or promotion). To paint me as a Democrat and a follower just because I was there, rather than a principled peace advocate, is entirely unfair.

Now that the fake corporate party shoe is on the other fake corporate-party foot, I feel it is equally incorrect to say that everyone out there today opposing the collection and expenditure of taxes by our federal government is automatically being lead by right wing pundits and the Republican Party. Not correct! Some may well be there for these reasons, but not all of us. Don’t forget that. I will be at a tax protest today for several reasons …

1) I am no lawyer but I believe that it is unconstitutional to collect taxes on wages. Prior to interpretation by the courts, this actually seems pretty obvious and is stated quite clearly in our founding documents.

2) Based on what I have read, it does seem that the 16th amendment (the one allowing the eventual birth of the federal income tax) was never properly ratified. The court that finally claimed it to be properly ratified was stating this in relation to its use in collecting income made by sale of property and not income derived from a person’s labor.

3) I can’t think of too many things I like that the federal government (run by either major party) has done with my tax money in pretty much all of my adult years and I am very happy to have one more way to protest it.

4) Some members of my local community share my upset about how our taxes are collected and abused and I wish to show them support in expressing our collective frustration.

I will not be there because Glen Beck or Sean Hannity (or even Alex Jones) told me to be … no matter how badly some folk want to believe this is so.

The Post-Star Censors Me, Then Tells Me Why ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Tingley
To: mattfuniciello@earthlink.net
Sent: 2/12/2009 9:27:30 AM
Subject:

Mr. Funicello,
I swore I would never email you again, but I will take one more shot. When you write insulting things about me and the newspaper that are patently not true, I will not allow it on my blog. That is my call. You repeatedly talk of some corporate conspiracy against third-part candidate - which is ridiculous - it is hard to take you seriously. The reality is that we make decisions each day over where to spend our resources and what the most important stories are. You may not agree with those calls because you believe third-party candidates are a big issue. It is a subjective decision.We constantly editorialize about change and for you to say we are for the status quo is pretty big leap. I also find it insulting for you to comment on Maury's blog that we will not let Maury do certain stories on third-party candidates. which is also not true. Maury makes his own calls on what stories he does and does not do as do all our reporters. When you stop making accusations that are not true, then I will consider posting them on my blog.

Ken Tingley
Editor
The Post-Star



** MY RESPONSE **

Ken,

I appreciate that you have broken your silence (however briefly) where I am concerned. I accept that many of your readers do not see independent or third party candidates as "big news". I think that, if we're honest, much of what is printed in the paper on any given day is of little interest to the average reader. Its really circular logic, anyway. How do we know people aren't interested in real candidates and instead are interested in daily anecdotes about the blank slates who are just waiting for their corporate donors to fill in the blanks?

Its like a bad song. If you play the Tedisco/Murphy "song" every day on your "radio", I may well find myself humming along whether I am engaged by that song or not. This is how mainstream media influences the American voter and helps retain the status quo. It is low-level brainwashing. Its pervasive and makes most people hesitant to have an independent thought. Its really important that you understand I don't see poorly made choices in media as a corporate conspiracy. I see them as a result of mainstream media CULTURE. It is well-established, long-term patterns of behavior and decision-making that reflect almost no curiosity about anything outside of the box or the mainstream. Historically, substantive change is almost always instigated by those who think "outside the box".

The problem I have with your paper is the total lack of response when your readership shows interest. As evidenced by activity on your forum, we were all quite interested in third party and independent candidates during this past election and we wwrree given excuse after excuse about why there was almost no coverage at all. We were told repeatedly that our candidates don't deserve it or haven't earned it ... etcetera. Why? because a bunch of rich power brokers in a room somewhere else didn't appoint our candidates, they are somehow less important or less credible than rich corporate lawyers who have been chosen for us? You had far greater activity and debate on your forum during the past presidential campaign whenever mention was made of Ron Paul or Ralph Nader than when you reprinted tired old AP stories about Obama and McCain. Thats because most truly engaged political activists are opposed to the mainstream and we are a larger group (independents and 3rd party and non-voters) than the two parties are in this county. We are starving for a media that will cover everyone "comparably" (to use Mahoney's own term) and
comparable does not mean a blog entry or two when the balance is 20 stories prominently printed in the actual paper.

I am used to this. It is the norm for the media not to cover my candidates. It is the norm for the media to not include them in debates. It is the norm for the media to marginalize and/or ridicule my candidates and my issues (ones that actually matter to real people). It is the norm for those journalists with conscience to make feeble excuses that never hold water about why they behave in a biased manner. Those of us who fight so hard for political change are very tired of the media's tacit support of the status quo (and I do believe, regardless of your intent, that this is exactly the result of only covering the corporate candidates). I understand fully that, as a newspaper editor, like most American citizens, you have probably never worked on a municipal or state or national campaign and have no idea how terribly biased the whole process is and how undemocratic it has become. That, in itself, should be your paper's job. To uncover the bias and the tyranny evident in this two-party system. All Americans of good conscience can't help but be outraged when they get involved and find out how terribly corrupt the "democratic" process has become. Will you spend your entire career doing nothing to change that or will you alter course and become an engaged citizen/editor? Will you attack this corruption with a similar zeal to that which you apply to teen drinking?

Being shut out of the media is one of the principle reasons why it is so difficult for real human beings to run for office and most papers don't ever cover these battles. I wish that instead of seeing me as your enemy, we could return to a gentler period of time when I was quite civil to you all and was merely asking questions about bias and the selection processes that kept the Post-Star from being the best paper it could be. Failing that, I want you to know that I appreciate the dialogue, however brief it may be.

Peace,
Matt

Ron Paul Meetings

Those who know me are aware that I am, first and foremost, a strong advocate of the Three D's: Discourse, Debate and Democracy. After that, I am a Ralph Nader supporter. After that, a Green. I know many of you that I count as friends who, unlike me, are working from within the two parties and I respect that choice.

While I can't see myself working for a two-party candidate under any circumstance, I do plan to come out and meet some fellow citizens who are politically active and ho plan to support Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. From what I have read, I see Congressman Paul performing much the same function that Denis

Kucinich does in running for his party's nomination. While Paul, with strong connections to the Nixon and Reagan administrations could hardly be considered "alternative", he has certainly not been a party loyalist and has a more Libertarian viewpoint of the world than many within his party. He has consistently voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War and is, to say the least, a strong advocate of our Constitution.

If you are interested in hearing one of the many alternative political viewpoints that exist outside of mainstream television politics, then come out and meet local Ron Paul supporters. Their first meeting is tomorrow, Wednesday August 8th at 7:30 pm at Rock Hill Cafe in downtown Glens Falls. I may just see you there!

Democrat Treachery Alive and Well in CD 20

This type of abandonment of both principle and spine is exactly why I told area progressives that I would be voting for Erik Sundwall in CD 20's latest Congressional race. Sundwall is
the Libertarian who was successfully blocked from the ballot, even though he had collected almost twice the required number of signatures, by the two-party rules developed to help the Gillibrands and the Weeneys of this world. Like most aspiring politicians, Gillibrand is neither a progressive nor a friend of the peace movement. She is simply (much like her evil predecessor) a climber and a neophyte who was a safe candidate for the Republican-Lites precisely because she can be counted on to do whatever her party bosses and handlers "advise" her to do.

Nancy Pelosi - "Impeachment is off the table!"

Perhaps, we should hold a celebration reveling in the treachery of these so-called "anti-war leaders". ;-)



Gillibrand Won't Block Iraq funds
Congresswoman says she wouldn't deny money meant to support troops

By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Tuesday, January 30, 2007

SARATOGA SPRINGS -- Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand would not support a resolution that blocks funding to troops in Iraq, she said Monday at her first public town hall meeting.
"You never want to make the troops vulnerable," Gillibrand told more than 150 people in the Saratoga VFW Hall on Excelsior Avenue.

Iraq and health care -- in that order -- are the most vital issues facing New York's 20th Congressional District, said the congresswoman, who has become the local face of the new 110th Congress. She detailed to a standing room only crowd what it was like to be part of a flurry of legislation passed by the House of Representatives during its first 100 hours of work.
The Greenport Democrat talked about her party's efforts to ban some gifts and trips given to elected officials; beef up port and airport security; reduce interest rates on student loans; increase the minimum wage; and more.

"The first 100 hours were incredibly important," said Gillibrand, who defeated Republican incumbent John Sweeney in a bitter campaign last year. "These were all issues I campaigned on."
But questions and her remarks about the ongoing conflict in Iraq produced the most passion. Several members of the audience said afterward that they had come to Gillibrand's first district meeting because they wanted to know her stance on funding President Bush's 21,500-troop "surge" in Iraq.
"I think this is going to be a big test," said Jeffrey Halpern of North Galway, a member of the Saratoga Peace Alliance. "Some political figures say they are against the war, but still vote to fund it, and the Saratoga Peace Alliance feels that is hypocritical."

The new Democrat-led Congress is debating multiple resolutions on Iraq that call for taking President Bush to task on the issue with varying degrees of confrontation. The most drastic measure would cut off funds for the war effort, something Gillibrand said she wasn't prepared to do.

Gillibrand has joined the "Blue Dogs" in Congress, a group of conservative Democrats, and as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has questioned the nation's top military leaders about Iraq. She said Monday she wants to ensure that deployed troops continue to receive funding for basic necessities like food and body armor.
But she also said the President's war plan was strategically misguided, and that any additional spending on military operations should be monitored. The United States should engage Syria and Iran in trying to reach a peace agreement in Iraq, Gillibrand said.

"The solutions really reside in the political and economic arenas," said Gillibrand, who has pledged to voters to hold at least one public meeting a month in the district. On Monday, she spent a hurried hour in the VFW hall, fielding various questions on a variety of issues, ranging from the attack on the World Trade Center to whether the United States is poised to attack Iran.
She said the President does not have congressional approval to attack Iran.
The crowd was generally supportive, but anxious about Iraq.

The right thing to do would be to end funding for the war, said Myrna Sack of Saratoga Springs. "You either are for the war, or not for the war. Period," Sack said.
But both Sack and Halpern, the member of the Saratoga Peace Alliance, said they remained hopeful for Gillibrand's term.

The meeting ended with 1st Lt. Matthew McLoughlin of Malta, who served in Iraq in 2004-05 with the New York Army National Guard, urging that Gillibrand consider the troops with her vote. He said voting against funding the troop increase in Iraq would achieve nothing, and only undermine the efforts of the troops.
"Thank you for your service," the congresswoman replied. "I will consider that."

Dennis Yusko can be reached at 581-8438 or by e-mail at dyusko@timesunion.com