What If Occupy Really Wanted Change?

Let's assume that the Occupy protesters have good intentions to actually change the system they feel is onerous and tyrannical and is not just a means to create havoc for the sake of havoc. What could they do to actually make their case for substantive difference in our system?

1. Stop acting like spoiled brats and remember that they aren't the only ones with rights to move freely. There are people in the areas they are protesting in that have rights as well. Those people want to live and work in peace. It's tough for them. They couldn't take TWO MONTHS out of their schedule to sit around and meet. What about their rights??

2. Actually have some stated goals, not just "the 1% sucks". Squatting in a park on Wall Street did not affect one trade or bond deal. If they wanted to get a media hit out of it, they could have gotten a permit to march for a couple of days with their "hand-made" signs and 1960s slogans to start things off. Then, more substantive actions could have been taken: for example, there was an activist in California, I believe, that pushed the idea of moving one's money from the national banks to local credit unions. What better way to get the attention of major companies that hitting their bottom line and making them compete for your business?

3. Don't treat PRIVATE property as your own personal outhouse. Come on people! Really? Defacating on police cars and sidewalks? Public urination?

4. The most outrageous of the behaviors is the outright crime going on in these areas. The supporters of the "movement" don't want to talk about this, but the idea that rapes, child molestation, drug use, murder, assault, theft and any combination of these is going on in these supposedly peaceful protest areas is sickening. Why would anyone listen to your demands when you have basically created an outdoor prison environment?

5. Of all the places in the country where the Occupy movement should have been protesting is Capitol Hill, Washington DC. The traders and banks on Wall Street could care less what you people do because Congress will continue to fund their largess. Go to Capitol Hill and ask the congressional leadership (both Democrat and Republican) why they gave billions (if not trillions) of dollars to companies that were "too big to fail". After that, march on over to the White House and demand the answer to the same question. THOSE are the people that made this system the way it is. Why would you blame the recipient of ill-gotten gains and not the donor?

6. Don't be partisan. If you really want to change things, become an anti-incumbent movement and throw all the bums out! The Tea Party flirted with this idea, though they are largely a Republican organization, but they started out of dissatisfaction with both parties and their spending habits. Actually, there could be some solidarity with the Tea Party (if you drop all of the communist, union support, oh, and the rapes and drug use) on some issues if the Occupiers were so inclined.

Those are just a few things that the Occupiers could have done to make their movement more effective. But, we all know there is no interest on their part to actually change anything. They are bored, overwhelming white, middle to upper class kids that don't like homeless people and want to "do something". I guess every generation has to have their college protesters who think they are the best and the brightest, but turn out to be nothing of the sort.

2012 Supreme Court and the GOP

Just some quick thoughts on today's decision by the Supreme Court to accept review of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). The fact that the Court will probably take the full term to decide the case, will take us to June 2012. This will be right before both major party conventions, so how will it affect each candidate? Here's what I think:

If Mitt Romney has more or less clinched the nomination by this point and the Act is found constitutional, he's toast. Every Tea Party conservative, who won't be happy about his eventual nomination anyway, will blame him fully for starting this ball rolling. He's already getting hit on his RomneyCare efforts in Massachusetts, but if the Court finds it constitutional, there will be quite a raucous convention and once election day comes, he better have a tremendous ground game in operation.

If the Court finds it unconstitutional, then Romney gets a reprieve (though it will be a slight slap in the face, again, because he started this mess) and could say: "see, the way I did it was different. Obama is just trying to seize power over all of us", blah, blah, blah.

Now, Romney is the only one who really has to worry about the Court's upcoming decision. If Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain or Rick Perry are on the way to win the nomination by June of next year, regardless of the outcome, they will have a great issue to run on. Each man can rail against its constitutionality and promise to work towards repeal or take a victory lap and say the country is at the dawn of a new era of freedom and liberty.

Along with Romney's trouble if the Act is found constitutional, is the Democrat's efforts to hold the Senate and regain the majority in the House. If the Court somehow finds this atrocious piece of legislation constitutional, then look out! The House and Senate will gain super majorities for the Republicans and the Act will probably be repealed anyway (I say probably, because predicting legislative behavior is like herding cats). It could potentially be a realignment that hasn't been seen in generations. Remember, the Democrats have to defend 23 seats in the Senate to 10 by the Republicans. The GOP already has a leg up, so the Court's decisions could help either way.

Of course, the Court could just split the difference and say the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the rest is okay. I still think that won't make much difference because the mandate is the key. Whatever happens with that will determine if Obama beats Romney or Obama is CRUSHED by whomever is the Republican nominee.