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.

Where is John Galt?

With all of the bellyaching from the Occupy movements, Hollywood stars (!) and national Democrats about income inequality, "fat cats" and the "obscene" profits made by corporations, is it time that a John Galt steps up and says what needs to be said?

As many of you know, John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Galt is an industrialist/philosopher who basically had had enough with the assault on human independence, productivity and excessive government. He convinced a group of fellow "traders" to go on strike and leave the welfare state (and its creators and consumers) to its own destruction. If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, now is the time...

Galt made an address to the nation (after seizing the network in which the President was about to make a speech) and outlined the connection between the destructive moral beliefs of those consumers (mystical and material) of the welfare state and the loss of reason and human endeavor. When one group complains about the "greed" of another group, they impose their moral beliefs with an eye towards invoking guilt. That group wants something for nothing and the Galts of the world are having none of it.

The "beliefs" of the Occupy movements across the country are steeped in "gimme" morality and outright laziness. Why should any producers support these spoiled consumers? If the protests had been peaceful and expressed with some semblance of a coherent message, more people may ask themselves the same types of questions (Remember, at first, there was a subtle message against bank bailouts and excessive government support of the private sector). That message is long gone and has become a hodge-podge of whining about paying for their college (get a job!), socialism/communism (never worked) and outright anarchism (will NEVER work).

If these "takers" in our society (who have a healthy dose of personal entitlement) continue to rail against the producers, will the producers one day become so fed up that they will say "enough is enough" and stop providing them with the material goods they clamor for while at the same time disparaging the manner in which they are produced (or profited from)? Unlikely, but at some point, those who produce will not sanction anymore screaming and wailing from those spoiled consumers who dare not work to make society better but would rather simply scream and wail until someone listens to their screams and wails.

How will these "protests" against capitalism and free markets end? No one knows, but based on the level of violence we're seeing now, it probably won't end well. These supposed "peace and equality"-loving people are smashing windows, sexually assaulting minors, defecating on public property and embracing anti-liberty forces. To what end?

Once you read Atlas Shrugged, you will know "Who is John Galt?", but maybe we should start asking: "Where is John Galt?"

Teachable Moment Coming...?

There actually might be some burgeoning capitalists coming out of the Occupy movements across the country. The members of these different protest groups are learning that capitalist free markets are necessary for an ordered society. Case(s) in point:

In Portland, Oregon, a member of the Occupy movement filed paperwork to INCORPORATE their group in order to protect their financial assets.

In New York City, the Occupy kitchen staff is withholding the "good" food from people that don't WORK to support their efforts...actually those folks would probably then be in the 1% of the protesters because they will get the best food!

There are also stories of Occupy members, in conjunction with ACORN/New York Communities for Change (NYCC), are seeking VENTURE CAPITAL to purchase supplies and "pay salaries"...now I understand that using the word "venture capital" may be a stretch because they are going door to door and lying to people about the true nature and use of the donations, but regardless, they realize that money is needed to support their efforts and they are "working" for it.

The country may be better after all of this is over because many of these young people will be learning a valuable lesson about life in the real world.

GE and the Left

Making connections between political actors can be fun sometimes. Especially when those connections highlight a hypocritical aspect of their stated beliefs and notions. In this case, the connection is between standard leftist thinking and the actual facts of a modern corporation. The Occupy folks have been railing against corporations, capitalism et al. for weeks now. It has been shown that they are a tad bit disingenuous about their protestations considering they are using Apple iPhones to communicate, wearing Gap clothing and drinking Starbucks coffee as they scream about the corporate takeover of the country.

I want to make another connection and it starts with GE (General Electric). GE's CEO is Jeffrey Immelt, who just so happens to serve as President Obama's informal economic adviser. Obama has spoken out against fat cats and private jet users, so it's curious that he would name the CEO of a multinational conglomerate as his adviser, but whatever. GE's business is pretty broad-based. They are involved in consumer appliances, loans, media, aviation, oil and gas among other things. The particular connection I want to make today has to do with their aviation and media businesses.

GE Aviation builds aircraft engines for civilian and military aircraft. Pretty much all of the military aircraft's engines are made by GE. From the F-16, F15 and F117 to the B-1, B-2 and C-5, GE has pretty well cornered the market on powering our military's aircraft. No problem right? Right. Now, let's go to the media. GE is a 49% holder of NBCUniversal, which has a cable division called MSNBC. MSNBC is a combination of two corporations: Microsoft and NBC. As most people know, MSNBC is a left-leaning news organization that competes with FoxNews, which is a right-leaning news organization. Still no problem.

Here comes the problem: leftist are usually about peace and love and harmony and such right? Well, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has set up a foundation with his wife Melinda. You've probably heard of it. It's goal is to help underdeveloped regions of the world. Noble goal. So, the problem comes when the global conglomerate that makes engines for some of the most advanced killing machines in the history of the world, runs a peace/love/harmony-loving media outfit that is partnered with a billionaire philanthropist helping in some of the regions that those aircraft have or could be dropping bombs. Not to mention that the anti-corporate messages coming out of the White House in support of the Occupy movement belie the fact that one of the largest (actually the 6th) corporations in the country has its hands in some weird, disparate operations.

I'm not saying that any of this is corrupt or illegal, it just struck me as overly hypocritical on the left's part to not see this connection as problematic for their beliefs.

Obligatory Gaddafi (Khadafi? Qadafi?) Comments

I guess I may as well talk a bit about the demise of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi. The footage (h/t HotAir) of his body being drug through the streets of Misrata are graphic, but hey, I've seen plenty of Friday the 13th-type movies, so that didn't bother me. What kind of pinged in my head about this whole this is that, one minute he's alive (and not so well), being grabbed at by a bunch of NTC fighters, then the next minute he's on the ground with what seemed to be a gunshot wound to the head. The "cameraman" taking the footage is bouncing all over the place and there's a deafening cacophony of guns firing, screaming and "Allahu akbars" all over the place, so it's hard to really see what's going on.

The reason I'm a bit troubled by this is: should a democracy start like this? Granted Gaddafi was an evil guy, but can we honestly say that our expectation of a liberal rule of law standard will be at the forefront of Libya's effort at liberty? Hosni Mubarak is on trial after, while not as violent of a revolution as Libya's, a similar uprising. Both men were dictators who oversaw secret police and public oppression, so why the different end to their reigns? Hell, Saddam Hussein was captured (granted by U.S. forces) and put on trial and executed. Was it just the fervor of the moment? Was it because of the makeup of the various competing tribes in Libya that would have made a capture and public trial impossible (or inconvenient)?

The world (except for Louis Farrakhan) is glad Gaddafi's dead, but we should all keep a close eye on the processes that come out of the start of this new chapter in Libya's national story.

Dreaded Concern and the 2012 Negative Campaign

I was a Perry guy before he got into the race. I thought he had the best record and resume to go up against Obama. I still do think that. However, I'm a bit concerned about this performance thus far. Not in the debates, those are largely run by liberal media organizations that look for any opportunity to define the Republican field. I had a vision that the Perry campaign would be rolled out with such force and immediacy, that other candidates would fade into the background and it would be down to one or two others. Perry held things that way for a few weeks, but then "weak" debate performances had people freaked out. I hate debates and don't think they provide much information. What can you get from 60 second answers and 30 second responses (particularly when asked by ideological opponents)?

So, I'm still for Perry as my main candidate, but I've looked at Cain as well. Yes, he could win the nomination and would be better than Obama (who wouldn't?). However, I'm not really ready to go all-in for him at this point. Now, the one candidate who I've admired for years is: Newt Gingrich. Yes, he has baggage that would be relentlessly pushed by Obama 2012, but think about it: which Republican candidate wouldn't be pilloried next year? Can anyone possibly admit that if Romney is the candidate, Obama and the Democrats will be nicer to him than to Gingrich? People are scared to death of supporting Gingrich because of his personal issues because they're afraid of them being used in the campaign. What do you think will be done to Perry, Cain or Romney if/when they are the nominee? There are probably REAMS of research material on Romney's every business and political decision sitting in the Obama campaign headquarters. They will be brutal. Same goes for Perry and Cain. Obama is probably more scared of Romney than the others, so they will have every last bit of opposition research available.

This campaign will probably be one of the most brutal, negative and underhanded we've seen in a while. Granted we have a history of negative and sinister campaign tactics used in presidential races (Washington was "senile", Jefferson had illegitimate children, Lincoln was half-black, etc.), so I don't mean to overstate the almost-certain negativity next year, but why should that force us to support or not support a particular candidate? I was guilty of thinking the same thing about Gingrich, but looking at a complete package of experience, knowledge, technical competence and ability (along with the requisite conservative ideals), the best candidates have to be Perry and Gingrich. Hell, a Perry/Gingrich ticket would give us the best of both worlds. If people think Perry is a loose cannon cowboy type, let's marry him with a brainy intellectual. Unlike the current occupants of the White House, at least a Perry/Gingrich team would know how many states there are!

Iran and Saudi Arabia

Why would Iran try to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States? If you wanted to you could come up with all sorts of grand Tom Clanceyan conspiracy theories, but often the simplest answer is probably correct. Iran and Saudi Arabia are regional rivals for power in the Middle East. Because the Iranians know that targeting a US or Israeli ambassador would mean certain war, they chose the next best thing to accomplish two goals: demonstrate their power to the Sunni Saudis and show the U.S. that they have a global reach.

Using our southern border shows our vulnerability; not to mention highlighting the ease with which the Mexican cartels (armed with Fast and Furious guns) can be used to continually degrade our national security.

The operation was amateurish and thankfully failed, but it does give one pause that there may be some destabilizing elements in the highest reaches of the Iranian regime. What if this was a rogue operation? Will the Saudis reply militarily? Do they have the capability to considering they had to pay off their "Arab Spring" protestors? Will this provocation increase Israeli fears of Iran's reach or do they already know their capabilities to operate in the west?

There are many other questions that could come out of this incident...stay tuned.

A New Start

Well, it's time to get back on the horse and start bloggin' again. My last post was pretty uninspired, so I'll try to do a bit better. I just (re)-downloaded Blogger on my Android-based phone so there's no excuse for me not checking in to IntRam more frequently.

So, what's been happening? Herman Cain, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO is running ahead of pretty much everybody for the GOP nomination. I like his down-home, plain-spoken manner, I'm not sure about his 9-9-9 plan, but it's a start to get people talking. I was really excited that Rick Perry jumped into the race a couple of months ago, but he's been underwhelming. Although, that view is mainly coming from the left and people who don't like him on the right, so I'm still for Perry until he gets beat. Romney is just another slick-ass politician who will disappoint a lot of people if he's elected.

It's a shame that Gingrich has so much baggage in his past. He's clearly the smartest candidate we have and has the most robust intellect which would serve the country well. A general election campaign with him against Obama would just be brutal. All the rest of the candidates: Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, Santorum, Huntsman (am I forgetting someone?), are pretty much unelectable and may be vying for a cabinet post or appointment...

Well, that's it for now. Let's try to keep this going. I've been ranting and raving about a lot of stuff and I need to get it down on "paper"...

I wonder

Will posting a message from my phone actually work?