I first want to say having been a product of the latter part of the Civil Rights Movement, I've grown to understand when people commit to a purpose with a definite goal in mind. That is their right to exercise their concerns under the protection of the first amendment.

However, what I witnessed last week left me wondering if people really understand what really constitutes a movement and the main purpose behind that movement.

I understood in the sixties when movements protested the Vietnam War, racial inequalities, and equal opportunity. In the seventies, even though in some places like Boston, MA., protest over forced busing became violent, I still understood what the protest was all about. Affirmative action became a "buzz" word for proponents and opponents of this movement. Abortion came to the attention of everyday Americans with Supreme Court ruling in Roe verses Wade. I can go on up to last week. Last week, I was confused to say the least and found myself wondering why the protest.

"Tea Party" was the wrong name for this gig. Besides if you check further into the history of the original Boston "Tea Party" a lot of the protest dealt also with corporate monopolies.

So far, no taxes other than a federal cigarette tax have been raised on the current President's watch. If this movement was about taxes raised then no one should've been marching except smokers.

Some people expressed frustration with the bail-outs and the huge government spending. This is quite understandable; I have my own concerns, but I think folks who were out there for this were six years too late. In fact, I found it strange just shy of six months ago when the first stimulus which had none of the constrictions as the present one has, no one, including the usual" talking heads," was threatening any kind of protest. Oh, there were a few Congressional leaders on both sides of the isle in both houses who voted against it. Otherwise, it was easy street. Plus, I could never understand President Bush's explanation of the economic situation at that time. I really tried. I have not agreed with the current President dealing with this second recovery, but his explanation has been more appealing to my intellect.

For a movement to have such basic American themes, the gatherings across the country were not diverse at all. I know every American has some issue with this whole economic situation, so there should have been more diversity in the movement.

This thing about "down with socialism" and "fascism" was a call from some people who've been duped. You know as well as I do, there is nothing fascist about what the President is doing and as far as socialism. I wonder how many of those people would be satisfied if we did away with social security, Medicare and federal highway programs and did away with a public library or police department or any other "social" program?

As long as I remember, I cannot recall a major network or news program promoting a movement. I know they may want to cover it, but promoting something that could possibly come close to civil disobedience seems extreme at best and unbalanced - completely opposite the jargon in its marketing. This also pointed to the fact that there was no true leader -- only players trying to jockey for position. The "talking heads" won big time.

There was a lot of Obama bashing going on, and signs and statements were all spouting "I hate Obama" Drama. Again, there are several policies and actions that I have disagreed with the President on, but I have no need to become derogatory or mean because I disagree with him. During the 2000 election, I did not see opponents to George Bush get that angry or take to the streets in the manner that I saw many people last week do. I know this is America, but sometimes you really need to have legitimate reasons to protest, or you'll end up looking ridiculous. (Like talking about seceding from the Union.)

Now, here are the facts as I understand them. In a recent Gallup daily tracking poll, 61 percent of Americans are alright with their taxes. Of those polled, 39 percent thought they should be paying more taxes. In a recent U.S.A. Today poll, most Americans are content with "big" government for now.

President Obama has not raised taxes, in fact, he said he will lower taxes on 95 percent of Americans, and he has not yet increased it for those making 250,000 or more. He has an approval rating of 68 percent.

So somebody help me. What was this all about?