Occupation On The Street

Image by david_shankbone via FlickrIt began as a small protest at a park near New York's Wall Street, the financial capital of America.  Then it spread to other cities across the country to a degree that hasn't been seen since the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations of the 1960s.

They call themselves Occupy Wall Street, and they're protesting against what they see as the corporate takeover of the United States at the expense of the ordinary folks they claim to represent.  Their list of complaints go like this:  How politicians have been bought and sold by corporations.  How many jobs are being created overseas and eliminated here.  Why banks and corporations get a bailout and the rest of us do not.  Why more financial profiteers besides Bernie Madoff deserve to be in prison after the collapse of 2008.  And why the rich should be paying more taxes than they already do.

Republicans have largely pooh-poohed the movement, essentially telling the protesters to get a life.  Democrats are offering their support--sort of.  And the rest of the country is looking on with puzzled expressions.

The mainstream media is owned by several large corporations, many of whom happen to have a presence on Wall Street.  That's why you haven't seen much coverage of Occupy Wall Street, unless you're a devotee of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on Current TV, which has offered extensive coverage.  In between the networks' coverage of Amanda Knox's acquittal and the death of Steve Jobs, the media only gets interested when there's conflict.  A little police brutality here (to date, hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested), pepper spray there, and soon you'll have fodder for the Six O'Clock News.  "If it bleeds, it leads", you know.

Occupy Wall Street claims to represent the 99 percent of us who aren't rich and never will be.  They're not unlike members of the Tea Party except that they don't wear funny costumes, wear their racism on their sleeves, or are funded by corporate backers.  And just like the Tea Partiers, the protesters we've seen seem to be 99 percent white.

Fortunately for Occupy Wall Street, there is a Democratic President in the White House.  Had someone like George W. Bush or any other Republican been President, there would have been a crackdown under the Patriot Act to rival, let's say, Syria, China or Iran.

Forgotten in all this is that we've just reached the 10th anniversary of the American military invasion of Afghanistan.  How come nobody's protesting that?  Oh, that's right.  We love Our Troops, even though they haven't done a damn thing to earn it.

Folks, this isn't 1968.  We appreciate what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do, but it may be too little and too late.  Wall Street is more concerned about computer hackers and European countries defaulting on their loans right now.   Politicians aren't going to give up the money and influence they get from their corporate backers, thus they're not going to stop passing legislation favorable to Big Business.  Banks will just keep raising fees and foreclose on more houses.

Oh, and one more thing:  You think it's tough trying to get a job now?  It'll be doubly harder when potential employers find out that not only did you participate in the marches, but that you were thrown in jail as well.  Not a good thing to put on your resume, unless you're planning a new career in activism.

Steve Jobs: Making The 21st Century As We Know It Possible

Image via WikipediaOn Wednesday, October 5, people from all over the country gathered in New York and other cities to protest what they believe is corporate greed.  To spread the word about this, they used their smart phones to text, tweet, take pictures and go on Facebook.

On the same day Steve Jobs, the co-founder and former CEO of Apple whose products he helped create made the 21st century as we know it possible, died after living with pancreatic cancer for several years.  He was 56.

Jobs was the man who brought you the Macintosh computer, the iPhone, the iPad, the iPod, and iTunes.  He changed the way we communicated, how we bought and consumed entertainment, and even the size of the computer itself.  He was what was right about Corporate America as far as innovation went, and for having a sense of what he thought the public wanted.

Jobs was also responsible for helping start Pixar, the computerized animation studio best known for such films as "Toy Story" and "Up", before selling it to Disney in 2006.

Apple had its failures, of course.  But they have had such a winning streak that no one seems to remember the misfires now.

New product launches became big events among Apple-philes and the media, because that's when Jobs would go into master salesman mode introducing his latest gadgets.  Before that happened, it's been said, this new product would undergo many changes before perfectionist Jobs approved the final version.

What will Apple do without Jobs?  Other companies such as Google and Microsoft see an opportunity to put out their own versions of Apple's devices that are faster, cheaper, and more compatible with their networks.  But they face an uphill battle.  Apple's products have become so successful and iconic (never mind the price tag) that, in the public's mind, anything else is a mere imitator.  But if Apple starts dropping the ball creatively, they're in big trouble.

From the California garage where he and Steve Wozniak co-founded what became Apple, to the multi-billion dollar Silicon Valley operation, the products, and the multitudes of fans he left behind, Steve Jobs is being hailed as a modern-day Thomas Edison.  But Jobs didn't build a better mousetrap.  He just reinvented one.

Chris Christie: Taking No For an Answer

Image via WikipediaChris Christie, the current Governor of New Jersey, has been in office for less than one term.  In that time, he's distinguished himself nationally as a tough-talking, take-no-prisoners executive who enacted headline-making budget reforms.  He's also just as embarrassed by the effect Snooki, The Situation, and the rest of the "Jersey Shore" gang has had on his state's image as you are--enough to deny the TV show a tax credit.

When the Republicans began pestering Christie to run for President in 2012 as an alternative to the Romneys, Perrys and Bachmanns of the world, the Governor always told them no, he's not interested.  He's also said the same thing to the media in what seems like a thousand times.  Trouble is, the more Christie keeps saying 'no' (and he's been using more elaborate settings like the Reagan Library to get his point across), the more party officials and political pundits take that to mean he's coming around to 'yes'.

What part of 'no' don't they understand?

Christie may be reluctant to challenge President Barack Obama because his abrasive style might be at odds with the diplomatic demands of the job.  One wonders what would happen if he met with, let's say, Chinese leaders and told them what he really thought of them in less-than-diplomatic language.

Christie may be a conservative, but not as far-right as the other guys are.  That could hurt him with a Tea Party-fueled electorate cheering executions and booing gay soldiers.

Sorry, but this has to be said.  Governor Christie might become the first overweight President since William Howard Taft, who also happened to be Republican.  Television wasn't around 100 years ago, and nobody gave a rip about obesity back then.  The Presidency is a demanding job, and Christie may or may not have the stamina for it unless he loses a few pounds.

If Christie really wanted to run for President, he should have started a long time ago.  Campaign financing and the crunch of primaries being what they are, it may already be too late for him to jump into the race.

Finally, Governor Chris Christie has been saying no because he just isn't interested.  Period.  Check back with him in 2016.

UPDATE:  Christie has officially announced that he's not running, which means that the GOP is stuck with either Mitt Romney or Rick Perry as their 2012 standard-bearer.  And we haven't even had the primaries yet.

Obama's Last Stand?

Image via WikipediaPresident Barack Obama, aware that his own job is at stake, recently announced a program that would bring employment back to Americans to the tune of $450 billion.  Thus far, though, Congress and most of the public have been skeptical of the plan, given the President's pleas to "pass it right away".  If the recent past is any indication, "right away" means several minutes before the deadline.

Now we come to how the American Jobs Act will be paid for.  According to the White House, $1.5 trillion would come from the wealthiest individuals and corporations, $1.1 trillion from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over $580 billion from entitlement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.  That adds up to over $3 trillion.  It won't make a dent in the federal budget, but it won't add to it either.

The part about taxing the rich has been dubbed "The Buffett Rule" in honor of Omaha's own Warren Buffett, who claimed that he paid less in taxes than his secretary.  Well, other billionaires can say the same thing, but that doesn't mean they have a real problem with it.

As you might expect, the Republicans who control the House aren't crazy about this plan, and have substituted more tax cuts for the rich in its proposal.  Some Democrats don't care for it, either, preferring instead to break the plan up into easily-digestible pieces.

While there has been overwhelming support among ordinary folks who may never see a million dollars in their lifetimes, there are two possible ways that the so-called "Buffett Rule" can be circumvented by the wealthy and the corporations, even without help from their GOP servants:  (1)  Tax increases will simply be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, so we'll all be paying for this one way or another, and (2) the increases will become an excuse for the wealthy and the corporations to skip the country and move to tax-free havens with their money.

There's no mystery as to why Obama is throwing this Hail Mary pass.  His presidency is floundering, with poll numbers sinking to its lowest since he took office.  Republicans have so far succeeded in making the President resemble some of those emasculated men on TV sitcoms, putting the odds of getting re-elected as a tossup.  Liberals and independents are deserting him.  And whatever happened to the Democratic party?

Congress has been faring worse in the public's eyes, generating a favorable rating of only 12 percent.  Not that it matters, particularly to Republicans, because they don't really care what the public thinks.  The way elections are currently set up, many of the same people now serving in Congress will probably return in 2013.  And beyond.

Unemployment is at around nine percent, and no new jobs were added last month.  If President Obama's jobs bill is defeated or altered in any way, he could be looking for work himself come next November.

Is It Time To Junk The Mail?

Image via WikipediaThat old poem about how the mail doesn't stop for weather or anything else was written at a time when people really depended on what is now the United States Postal Service to deliver letters and needed packages.  For some, seeing the mail carrier was the highlight of their day.

We have less need now for the USPS, thanks to modern technology.  We read and send e-mail, ship through Fed Ex and UPS, use Facebook and Twitter, and even pay bills online.  As a result, we're sending and receiving less mail than we used to.  Most of what we do get tend to be bills and credit card offers, but that's another story.

But now the USPS--a quasi-governmental agency-- is at least $8 billion in the hole, and is seeking Congress' help in making major changes.  They want to . . .

• Close over 250 mail processing centers, eliminating 35,000 jobs.  It would also mean slowing the normal delivery time from one to two days.
• Eliminate over 3,000 post offices.
• Cut back mail service to five days a week, which means dropping Saturdays.

You can't just blame changing times on the decline of the Postal Service.  They brought some of this on themselves through ever-increasing postal rates, which is what made the "Forever" stamp necessary.

How about inconsistent delivery times?  In our neighborhood, depending on the carrier, the mail can get delivered any time during the day.  It might be morning one day, 12:30 the next, 3 p.m. the next, and  . . . well, you get the point.  If the mail doesn't arrive by at least 6 p.m., you might as well assume you didn't get anything.  It doesn't take Cliff Clavin to figure out why they call it "snail mail".

Granted, the United States Postal Service still performs a valuable service.  They are really the only ones who can handle your personal correspondence, such as a greeting card, in your own personal handwriting.  Post offices are often a small town's link to the outside world.  Their rates are reasonable, compared to the other guys.  And it has history on its side, with a legacy that goes back to Ben Franklin and the Pony Express.

Before we send the USPS to the Dead Letter Office (or whatever they call it these days), consider this:  Online communications are vulnerable to severe weather, computer crashes and hacking.  The mail is not.

Politics 2012: Christians vs. Lions

With two debates in one week, the Republican presidential field has essentially boiled down to a matchup between former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and current Texas governor Rick Perry.  Oh, there's six others who are vying for the nomination, but they've been reduced to bit players.

In Tampa, Florida Monday night, the Elite Eight candidates gathered for a debate sponsored by the Tea Party and was televised by CNN.  Besides host Wolf Blitzer, the questions were being asked by Tea Party members either in the audience or at a remote location.  In practice, this sounds like the TV beer commercial in which a football coach's post-game news conference is dominated by dudes asking all the questions.

Governor Perry took most of the heat this night, trying to live down his comment at a previous debate in California that Social Security was a "Ponzi scheme".  This time, after a lively discussion with Romney, he flip-flopped by saying he now wants to reform it.  Romney, on the other hand, once again tried to distance himself from the health care program he helped create in Massachusetts by promising to repeal President Barack Obama's health care law once he gets into office.

(An aside:  Romney gained a supporter in former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who is now working on his campaign.  Remember how Pawlenty knocked Romney's health care plan as "Obamneycare", then wouldn't say that to his face during a debate?  Now we know why.  He didn't want to offend his future boss.)

Most of the debate was centered on candidates' rehashes of their positions, which we've all heard before along with plenty of Obama-bashing.  But there was one pivotal moment.  It came when Perry admitted  regretting his decision to mandate 12-year old girls in Texas getting shots to prevent cervical cancer without first clearing it with his Legislature.

That's when Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann, whose standing in the Tea Party has been eclipsed by Perry, lit into the Governor for forcing government-funded vaccine on the girls and their families without an "opt-out" clause.  She also accused Perry of taking campaign contributions from drug manufacturer Merck in exchange for his executive order on the vaccine, which was later determined to be close to $30,000.  The following morning, Bachmann went on NBC's "Today" claiming the vaccine caused mental retardation, which medical authorities refuted.

What was Bachmann thinking?  Does she really want to give girls the choice between cervical cancer and mental retardation?  It makes the congresswoman sound cruel and heartless, as if she's against the prevention of cancer for political gain.  Whatever the case, her grandstanding did little to keep her floundering campaign afloat.

There was a similarity between the debates in Florida and California, and that is the tendency by the live audience to be a little bloodthirsty.  At the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library appearance, they cheered when it was mentioned that Governor Perry has executed more than 200 prisoners during his term in office.  In Tampa, CNN's Blitzer asked Texas congressman Dr. Ron Paul a hypothetical question about a 30-year old man refusing health insurance, then getting deathly ill.  Paul responded by saying that life is about risks, and that government shouldn't be paying for that man's care.  The audience applauded. 

There you have it, the Republican Party in a nutshell.  As the Great Recession rears its ugly head again and the GOP is hellbent on making the situation worse, the people who want to replace President Obama have taken the concept of saying anything to get elected to a new and disturbing level.  It's time to bring on the Christians vs. the Lions (and we don't mean Detroit), live from the Roman Colosseum.

9/11/11

Image via WikipediaChances are you're already done with every media outlet putting their spin on the day when four hijacked planes took aim at New York and Washington, killing 3000 people in the process.  A day for which there is still no name, just a date.  September 11, 2001.

Well, here's one more.

Since that day ten years ago. this country has become the Not-So-United States of America.  Politically, economically and socially everything has been split down radically different paths with no one daring to venture down the middle.

In New York, where the World Trade Center once stood, the place they call "Ground Zero" is a construction site soon to be filled by a memorial and a new tower that its backers believe will be terrorist-proof.

Orwellian terms became part of the language.  Police, firefighters and paramedics are referred to as "first responders".  National security is now "protecting the homeland".  Soldiers became "troops", and so on.

Because the hijackers were believed to be of Arabic descent and worshipped Allah rather than God, Muslims living in this country have been victims of a witch hunt reminiscent of the early Cold War years.  The only thing missing is a publicity-seeking politician with a list in his hands.

Two wars have been (and still are) fought in the name of 9/11, sending thousands of soldiers home in body bags for reasons that are no longer valid.  Yet government, the news media and Corporate America insists that we call them "heroes", even though they don't really deserve the honor.  They weren't defending our freedom so much as they were invading another country on the basis of lies.  Just like they did in nearly every war since 1945.

The men who sent the soldiers into harm's way, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have been largely unrepentant in the tactics allegedly used in fighting the War on Terror (some of it illegal, but never really proved) since leaving office.  Bush's successor Barack Obama has continued some of those policies, even though he had said he would not.

It's true that there hasn't been another spectacular attack on the United States since September 11, 2001.  Al Qaeda isn't what it used to be since the murder of Osama bin Laden last spring, though they are rumored to be planning new attacks.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, even if it doesn't seem like they really are.  And intelligence and law enforcement have gotten a lot better at capturing terrorism suspects, though there are some that slipped through the cracks.

However, Homeland Security officials tell us that the biggest threat comes from the "lone wolves", the Lee Harvey Oswald-Timothy McVeigh types who have a major beef with government and want to take as many lives as possible to prove their point.

Meanwhile, the government constantly reminds us to "be vigilant" of suspicious activity.  "If you see something, say something", the signs say.  Well, we'd like to help, but what is there to be vigilant about?  And just what do you mean by "suspicious activity"?  Sorry, but that information is classified.  Go back to whatever it is you were doing.

All the signs of paranoia are there.  Concrete barriers in front of government buildings, shopping malls and other public places because somebody tried to enter the front door using a vehicle containing bombs.  Airline passengers, young and old, searched from head to toe because somebody tried to hide explosives inside his shoes and underwear.

So who really is winning the war on terror?  If the terrorists' goal was to destabilize America after 9/11, then they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  They didn't have to create fear, divisiveness, a stagnant economy, and rendering the Constitution as worthless as the paper it's printed on.  The Americans did that all by themselves.  And that's why, ten years after planes crashed into skyscrapers and the Pentagon, the terrorists are winning.