Our Money, Their Party
Well, it's August already. Seems like time's going by faster and faster these days. We've just gotten through some pretty hot days, and I have been sitting here in what at times feels like an oven. Luckily, as I probably said before, we live about five miles from the ocean, and we're not in the Valley, so we do get the benefit of those ocean breezes, foggy eves and mornings, and general cooling effects. But it isn't always heaven around here (for heaven, drive two hours south: it's called San Diego, which must be blessed with the best weather in the nation). Still, all things given, I'm glad I'm not up north in my childhood environs, in the great Central Valley, where it's 110 degrees in the shade, I swear...
To get through the heat, I'm doing something that doesn't exactly help: I'm reading all kinds of articles, usually about things that piss me off (how typical of him, you're probably saying). One of those things is the fact that Smirk thinks its okay to take our money for his roadshows (what he likes to call "public" events), but ban half the country from seeing their "president." Somewhere, Stalin is smiling in his tomb...
At one such "town hall" gathering in Denver in March, one of Smirk's stooges evicted three people. These three citizens filed suit in court, protesting this act; unfortunately, nothing is going to come of it. This editorial, though, points out that the rest of the world seems to understand better than we the value of free speech. In other nations, people actually think about the kind of questions they want to ask, and take the opportunities they get to ask them. Reporters actually do their jobs. Here, we have a totally stage-managed gummint, and we allow ourselves to be treated like marionettes, guided by strings controlled by puppeteers behind the screen.
What really bothers me though, is that the courts seem to think it's perfectly okay to use public funds (read: OUR taxpayer money) to fund events that should be open to the public, but aren't. When a government is allowed to do that to its own people, freedom dies a little.
So far, it's our money, their party; I look forward to a day when enough people stand up to say, "Our money, OUR party."
To get through the heat, I'm doing something that doesn't exactly help: I'm reading all kinds of articles, usually about things that piss me off (how typical of him, you're probably saying). One of those things is the fact that Smirk thinks its okay to take our money for his roadshows (what he likes to call "public" events), but ban half the country from seeing their "president." Somewhere, Stalin is smiling in his tomb...
At one such "town hall" gathering in Denver in March, one of Smirk's stooges evicted three people. These three citizens filed suit in court, protesting this act; unfortunately, nothing is going to come of it. This editorial, though, points out that the rest of the world seems to understand better than we the value of free speech. In other nations, people actually think about the kind of questions they want to ask, and take the opportunities they get to ask them. Reporters actually do their jobs. Here, we have a totally stage-managed gummint, and we allow ourselves to be treated like marionettes, guided by strings controlled by puppeteers behind the screen.
What really bothers me though, is that the courts seem to think it's perfectly okay to use public funds (read: OUR taxpayer money) to fund events that should be open to the public, but aren't. When a government is allowed to do that to its own people, freedom dies a little.
So far, it's our money, their party; I look forward to a day when enough people stand up to say, "Our money, OUR party."
posted by Mr. Sandman | 10:25 PM
<< Home