Occupy: A Fair Trade?

I know it seems like I've been harping quite a bit on the Occupy protesters, and maybe I have. I thought about it, and here's why:


1)I am very close to St. Louis. We just had a great business boom thanks to four World Series games (including the final one) in the last two weeks. We could have had even more business, but the jokers parked in Kiener Plaza (pregame pep rally turf until the "SOCIALISM NOW!" signs arrived) most likely kept all but the die-hardest of die-hards off the grass - and away from the vendors.


2)I have friends who have devoted their lives - and a few who have GIVEN their lives (Leston 'Tony' Winters) - in order to protect the freedoms and the flag that these "occupiers" are ridiculing and abusing. 


3)I personally spent ten years of my life defending those freedoms. I am something of a free speech purist (I actually wrote a paper last year defending the Supreme Court decision to uphold the First Amendment Rights of the Westboro Baptist Church), which means that I truly believe Rousseau's statement: "I do not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." However, that does not mean that I believe we should sit silently by and allow the occupiers to be the only voice. We must counter Rousseau with Jefferson: "Error of opinion will be tolerated as long as Reason is left free to combat it."
Because I believe in what America is, I offered up things in trade that in retrospect seem unthinkable. I traded the early years at home with my young children for a trust fund baby's right to tell the world how evil his parents are by taking a dump on the American flag. I traded seeing my youngest daughter's first steps for the undeniable right that a group of men has to gang rape a woman at a protest site. I traded helping my kids with homework for a transsexual's right to promote Maoism. And the list goes on, ad (literally) nauseam.


So this Occupy madness strikes quite a personal chord for me. I watch the goings on in absolute shock most days. At the end of it all, I pray only for two things: First, that America is still strong enough to recover when the dust settles. And second, for my friends like Tony - that you guys who died to give us what we have can look down on the hell being unleashed in America and know that there are still a few of us left willing to fight to the death to get her back.

You keep using that word...

The "Occupy" protests have cropped up in many cities all over the United States in the last month. Since then, amid allegations of drug use, public masturbation, sexual assault and violence, those involved with (and supporting) the "occupy" movement have consistently used two phrases: "non-violent" (in reference to themselves) and "police brutality" (in reference to anyone who attempts to keep them in check). Having followed recent events fairly closely, I have come to the conclusion that they are using these phrases because they sound pretty rather than because they actually understand them.


Occupy DC: "non-violent" protesters push past a security guard (who was doing his job when he refused them access to the building), nearly crushing him. When he defends himself with mace, protesters scream "police brutality!"


Occupy Oakland: "non-violent" protesters are cleared from an illegal camp. They attempt to force their way back to the camp area, roughing up police in the process by firing paint guns and throwing paint bombs and anything else they can find (including tableware). Police respond with tear gas, and a few protesters are injured. Again, it is the "police brutality" that makes the news.


Occupy Denver: "non-violent" protester flips a police officer's motorcycle - with the policeman still on it. The cop, who thankfully was not badly hurt, chased him down and subdued him - to a chorus of "police brutality!" from those watching the event unfold.
Occupy's growing rap sheet...


"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Cumulative compromise

This morning, while listening to Allman in the Morning Show on 97.1 FM, Dr. Randy Tobler offered the following dilemma:

So do we vote our principles and nominate a hard right candidate, taking the chance that Obama might be elected again? We know that another four years of Obama's policies could possibly do irreparable damage to the Republic. But we also know that another four years of Obama's policies is likely to drive the nation much more solidly toward the right.

Or do we attempt to stop the bleeding any way that we can, and nominate a moderate. Do we compromise principle in order to keep things from getting worse?

That question, the same question that many Republicans and Conservatives (keep in mind, they are not always the same thing) are currently kicking around, seriously irks me. It irks me because it is a question we should never have to answer. It is a question we should never have to ask. But we have several problems that make that question an unfortunate necessity.


First, a precedent has been set - particularly within the Republican Party itself. They repeatedly offer up nominees who are deemed "electable" rather than principled. The true brilliance of this plan is showcased in the fact that once those people get elected (the ones chosen specifically on the basis of their moderate views), the party at large expects them to suddenly grow a conscience and principles - to the point of becoming angry with them when they (predictably) stray from a hard line conservative agenda.


Second, conservatives electing moderates also make it far easier for liberals to elect those on the far left. Why? Because Americans expect a little opposition in their politics. If the Republican candidate is a moderate, the Democrats have to provide the opposition. They cannot effectively do so with another moderate (a duel between vanilla and french vanilla is hardly a contest that will keep the spectators interested). Thus the more moderate the Republican candidates become, the easier it becomes for far leftists to be propelled into office wearing "moderate" labels.


So instead of standing on our beliefs, we allow ourselves to be convinced that a vote for the hard right is ultimately a vote for the opposition. But when we buy into that mentality, we aren't just compromising our beliefs - we are facilitating a society that rewards mediocrity instead of striving for excellence. We lower our standards to fit the given candidates rather than demanding that a candidate measure up to our standards. We are accepting the best that we think we can get rather than accepting nothing but the best.


The real problem lies in the fact that the overall effects are cumulative. Every time we compromise just one principle on the altar of electability, we lower the bar for the next moderate who enters the field. We blame the culture, we blame the liberals, we blame the influence of a left-leaning media - but much of the blame for the leftward slide of the Republic can be placed firmly on the shoulders of conservatives who are more concerned with the number of "R's" than with what each individual "R" really stands for.


Conservatives, for these reasons, have become resigned to the idea that in every election cycle we will be reduced to voting for the lesser of two evils. In order to get out of this rut, our only escape is to purge the evil from within our own ranks. This is not possible until we become willing to cede a single battle in order to win the war.


That is why, when faced with the panel of possible 2012 Presidential nominees, I do not ask "Which of these is best?" Instead, I ask (as should we all), "Are these the best we can do?"

 

Dentists, donuts, and union stooges

I had a dental emergency this morning - basically one of my lower left molars felt the need to implode, causing me serious amounts of pain. Anyway, I was fortunate enough to find a dentist (Webster Dental Care, if anyone is interested) that could take me first thing this morning.
By nine-thirty, I was leaving the dentist's office, quite pleased with the way events had transpired. Prescription in hand, I made for the nearest WalMart.


But first, a stop at Dunkin' Donuts for coffee...


I saw the sign as I turned in to the parking lot - two men with the typical union umbrellas stood on either end of a giant sign that read "Shame on Lowe's" and made other references to a labor dispute. What made me giggle was the fact that the word "Lowe's" had been taped over the name of the previous business that they had protested... So effectively the sign said "Shame on <insert target business here>."


I didn't think much of it - other than developing a sudden and unexplainable urge to spackle something - and continued into DD for my coffee. 


As I pulled out of the DD parking lot and headed for WalMart, I passed two other men wearing union shirts and hats and carrying stacks of flyers. They were waiting for cars to stop at the stop signs and then walking up to the drivers' windows to hand them the papers. I stopped at the stop sign, ignoring their attempts to get my attention, and then began to pull away. One of them stepped off the curb and literally began to chase after my car, waving the flyers behind me. Both men began shouting about how evil I was for not supporting Missouri workers. I can't be sure, but I believe that several obscenities were hurled. And I think one of them mentioned my mother.


I wanted to tell them that the second they stepped off the curb - whether or not they were invited by the driver to approach the car - they were breaking Missouri state law. I wanted to tell them that I lived in Illinois. But I wanted my prescription more, so I let it go.


Some people who read this post will get annoyed at me for being anti-union. If anti-union and anti-a-hole are the same thing, then I guess I am.

The gift that keeps on giving...

A few days ago, I happened to mention Vice President Joe Biden in conversation. My friend, who shall remain nameless, rolled her eyes and proclaimed him "a tool." I shrugged and said, "I used to think so, but not anymore. In fact, I really like him lately." The confused look on her face was priceless. "Explain," she demanded. And so I did.


Joe Biden used to irritate me. I disagree with his politics,  I think he's fundamentally wrong on most important issues, and from what I've seen I doubt I'd even want to have a beer with the guy. (Well, I don't drink, but I think the analogy would stand if I substituted coffee for beer.) So why would I say that I like him if that is how I feel about him? Because Joe Biden is the gift that keeps on giving. Just about every time he opens his mouth, whether or not he realizes that the mic is live, he says something that makes even the least intelligent conservative look like the head of a think tank.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, "Look, here's what happened...'" Which would have been quite moving if a)FDR had been President when the stock market crashed in 1929 (he was elected in 1932) or b)television had been past the experimental stages at the time. 

He famously asked Missouri State Senator Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, to "Stand up, Chuck, let them see ya!"

There are definitely plenty more "Bidenisms" I could draw from, but what really caught my attention is the drivel he has been spewing in the last week in a misguided attempt to promote President Obama's "New-Stimulus-Same-as-the-Old-Stimulus" Jobs Bill. Referencing statistics from the city of Flint, Michigan, Biden asserted that Obama's job bill and the additional funding it would provide for police manpower is the only thing standing between the innocent population and the virtual guarantee that they would come to physical harm. He cited FBI rape and murder statistics, statistics that don't quite add up according to the Washington Post. Yet Biden stands by his assessment, effectively doubling down on his own bad information. 


So yes, I enjoy watching Joe Biden, waiting for what gem of wisdom he will bestow upon us next.


Incidentally, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is in the running for the title as well. After all, it's because of her we're aware that "the evil Republicans are trying to make it a crime to be in this country illegally."


I couldn't write stuff this good if I tried.

According to Nan: Medical Care = Taxpayer-funded Buyer's Remorse

So, I lost an entire week due to midterms... Guess I'll just jump right in.


This past week, the House Republicans passed a bill that outlined in detail the fact that federal funding through the Affordable Healthcare Act (a.k.a. the abomination that is Obamacare) could never be used to fund abortion services. This bill should not even be necessary, as President Obama himself issued a statement declaring that exact sentiment in order to snake the votes of the Stupak Twelve. 


(If you recall, there was some doubt leading up to the passage of the A.H.A. as to whether or not the President had the support even within his own party to put the measure through. The holdouts were Bart Stupak and eleven other pro-life democrats who were concerned that the bill allowed for federal funding of abortions, something they could not allow. It was Obama's promise to issue a signing statement barring the use of federal funds through Obamacare for abortion - and perhaps an airport in Stupak's hometown - that ultimately caused the Stupak Twelve to fold.)


In the moments leading up to the vote on this most recent bill, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi displayed her California roots, and in an Oscar-worthy display of histrionics pleaded with the House to let the bill die. "A vote for this bill," she whined, "is vote for women to die on the floors because they have no available treatment."


But Nan, a vote against this bill is a vote for Presidents to be allowed to waffle and rescind their own words without accountability. When there is once again a Republican in the White House, I'm sure that you will regret setting that precedent.


And for what it's worth - no one is voting against women receiving medical care. No one is voting against emergency treatment of women (or children or men, for that matter) in trauma centers regardless of their immediate ability or inability to pay. They are voting for two things: First, to remind the President that whether he likes it or not, he is accountable to Congress and to his own words. And second, to remind women that "medical care" and "tax-payer funded buyer's remorse" are not the same thing.

I Beat Wall Street (And you can too)

Wall Street wants Americans to be in debt. Wall Street wants Americans to suffer because of the debt that snowballs and causes them to struggle every day. Wall Street created a corrupt system based on keeping and growing their wealth that is designed to keep the poor little guy down. They must hate me, because I didn't fall for it.


When I first went off to college at 18, one of the schools I liked would have cost my $25,000 per year ($100,000 for a full four years). I had good grades, a great SAT score and a full list of extra-curriculars, but I still would have needed to take out at least half of the amount in student loans. Banks offered me the loans, chomping at the bit and hoping desperately that I would fall into their evil grasp. My parents, totally scammed by the system, offered to cosign my loans. After careful thought, I arrived at a decision: not wanting to be weighed down by $50,000 in student loans the moment I graduated, I turned down the loans and chose a school that I could afford. After two years, I joined the Army. They taught me several skills, paid me for my time, and are now paying for me to finish my degree - free of debt. Take that, Wall Street!


I decided, after joining the Army, that I didn't really want to be helping to finance a corrupt system by keeping my money in a bank that engaged in predatory lending practices and exorbitant fees. So I thumbed my nose at "Big Finance," closed my account, and kept my money safe and secure at a military credit union. Owned by the members, Credit Unions are smaller and more directly accountable to their customers - and they are still obligated to follow all federal laws concerning safe lending practices and deposit insurance.


When my ex-husband left a few years ago, he left me with the sudden need to find reliable (and affordable) childcare and no working vehicle. Because I was already broke, I knew that I couldn't afford to take on a car payment and an insurance payment (not to mention gas and routine or - God forbid - emergency maintenance). Sure, I could have taken out a car loan and gone into debt. I imagine that thought alone was causing them to wring their hands in anticipation. But once again, I held my ground against the oppressive, money-hungry crooks and walked to work for six months instead.


My financial situation was so desperate that I had credit card companies sending me pre-approved offers at least two to three times a week. I had the fat cats drooling so much that I had to dry the envelopes before I could even read the offers. But my stance was firm, and Wall Street failed again.


The fact of the matter is, Wall Street wants your money. Wall Street knows how to get your money. That's pretty much their job description. What Wall Street hopes you never figure out is that it's your job to learn how to keep your money. Stop whining and do it already, teach Wall Street a lesson!