Recent news updates from Occupy protests read like a crime blotter: A man shot near the encampment in Oakland. A homeless person dead in Salt Lake City. A suicide in Vermont. Two drug overdoses and a molotov cocktail in downtown Portland, Ore. A sexual assault in Philadelphia. Hypothermia in Denver ... and a 53-year-old man unnoticed in his tent in New Orleans, dead for at least two days.
Even more prevalent are city concerns about sanitation. Thousands of protesters have lived outdoors with few toilets and no showers for the better part of two months.
Protesters in Chicago violated a noise ordinance; a protester in New York defecated on a police car. In Oakland, when police officers forcibly cleared protesters from Frank Ogawa Plaza this week, in part to deal with a rat infestation, cleaning crews hauled away more than 100 tents, dozens of molded mattresses and 27.8 tons of trash.
And now, as The Washington Post reports, cities are finally clearing out these cesspools in public parks. A group of some hundreds of New Yorkers protested the protesters earlier in the week, telling them to clear out. And the movement, which is calling for more fiscal responsibility, is costing the cities it's occupying millions of dollars.
With the clearing of New York's Zuccotti Park, the movement's birthplace, cities are finally taking back their citizens' public spaces. The true 99 percent is finally speaking up.
Gingrich Tells Protesters to
Interesting split. Would have been nice to see how this stacks up with party affiliation.
Gonna assume that's mostly
Gonna assume that's mostly Republicans agreeing with Newt. Republicans are generally much cleaner and better groomed. Also smarter. And better-looking.
The statement is stupid. That
The statement is stupid. That some one commissioned a poll with such a question is dumb. That 43% agreed with Newt, well, I guess that's one way of finding out what percentage of Americans are simpletons.
Some men, you just can't
Some men, you just can't reach. You, sir, I fear, are one of them.
No, Brendan, it’s not
No, Brendan, it’s not stupidity. It’s a propaganda tool in order to prevent the occupy movement being heard.
On
On topic...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
"On topic" Unusual. Yeah, I
"On topic"
Unusual.
Yeah, I know. They are unwashed, they abuse the welfare system, they even eat your tram ticket. This evilness!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZkSXeUVzUg&feature=player_embedded
You won’t win, Alan.
He wins by default. By the
He wins by default.
By the way, I hope you signed a model release when you agreed to play the old woman on the tram. (You're a natural -- not surprisingly!) Otherwise, you might not get any residuals.
First off... I didn't know
First off... I didn't know there was a competition.
Second... I don't ride "trams" or whatever the hell y'all call 'em. I drive great big, gas guzzling, 4 wheel drive SUVs. (Unless I'm in my wife's Jeep. It's 4 wheel drive, but not that big.)
Third... I've supported plenty of causes in the past. Especially environmental causes. Hell, I've helped lead some. But the OWS protests are just, plain stupid. And the demands are so scattered and hair-brained, I don't expect them to accomplish Jack Squat. It's like they are throwing a handful of corn at a target. They have no hope in hell of hitting the bullseye.
Fourth... Y'all need to come to Hollywood to hire some actors. The ones you're using are too ugly. (And what kind of goony, friggin' hat was that? Y'all oughtta stick to lederhosen and the dopey, pheasant-feathered hats. Or do you have shaving cream brushes on the hats? I get it confused with the Scots. Don't they hang the brushes from a rope belt on their skirts, and y'all put 'em on your heads? Still looks real stupid, but at least you can excuse it as a cultural thing.)
Momo,I don't understand why
Momo,
I don't understand why you consider your video to be on topic. What does the fact that the Germans are all still Nazis have to do with the Occupy protests?
Jay, About the only reason I
Jay,
About the only reason I come back to this site is... You and Henry still have the uncanny ability crack me up.
I loved Henry's description of Republicans. ...smarter, better looking...
Keep it up, boys.
You bizarros have given an
You bizarros have given an entertaining show on both threads today.
Incidentally your desparate reactions show that you really have no arguments at all against the occupy movement. This is why you take to the racist and personal slurs that are the only thing you pitiful lot can bring about.
See what I mean?
See what I mean?
Right backatcha, Alan. Your
Right backatcha, Alan. Your hillbilly humor, coupled with Jay's amusing insanity, are endlessly refreshing. Although I have to say, if this thing with Candace continues, those two need to get their own thread ...
Alan,Yes, Henry Hart is more
Alan,
Yes, Henry Hart is more like "Henry Art", and he keeps me coming back. I will always remember with fondness the "artfully deranged" post he left for Brendan, in which he discussed his deserted office, his penis, and a cleaning lady of unfortunately advanced age. That performance outshined even his most embittered sparrings with Brolly, which are in the pantheon of oD rivalries as the most erudite ramblings of crankiness ever penned.
I appreciate the kind words
I appreciate the kind words from you both, and the sentiment is definitely returned. Were it not for Jay, the term "douchebag" very likely would not have remained such an actively used and cherished part of my lexicon. And Alan's straight-to-the point acerbic arrows are always sharp and fly true.
But Jay ... I think you have me confused with someone else. The post about the cleaning lady ... I have no idea what that is, but I'm almost positive I didn't pen it. Now Brolly, I remember...
Now now, Jay: Momo is no
Now now, Jay: Momo is no Nazi. That would be an improvement.
She's a nihilist. A modern iteration of Safire's nattering nabobs of negativity. She relishes only hostility. If she can't say something contentious, she's not happy. Think "joy in joylessness."
The main tool for preventing
The main tool for preventing the occupy movement from being heard is giving them plenty of media exposure. They demonstrate how empty, irresponsible and self-centered the movement truly is. When the entertainment value wears off, it's time to break out the fire hoses and sweep away the refuse. Nothing to see here...time to move along.
OWS's worst enemy is OWS.
This from the only individual
This from the only individual here posting outright falsehoods about OWS. At least the others only poke good natured fun, you stoop to outright lies. Get stuffed sociopath.
Explain, please. I really
Explain, please. I really want to understand. Why are you calling Jay’s and Henry’s behaviour good natured fun? I have never in my life met people who dehumanise so unashamedly. With every post they are saying that I am not entitled to human dignity for my nationality, and you call that fun?
Momo,I am speaking more
Momo,
I am speaking more specifically about remarks directed at OWS. I'm not sure about comments directed at you, I tend to skip over that. There's a notable difference in my view between malicious juvenile provocation aimed at your person (not good) and posting groundless smears, lies and disinformation as well as normalizing state sponsored brutality by any means possible (er, just like the Nazi's did, very, very bad. Sociopathic.)
I'll give you some advice though, if you completely ignore efforts to undermine the argument with such inanity, eventually the discussion tends to veer back onto the tracks. The only person I hold no truck with here is Iron Mike. He's beyond redemption (politically).
Ahhh ... we seem to have come
Ahhh ... we seem to have come around to yet another self-pitying cycle in the NatNabNeg's personality pathology. This should be good for several days'/weeks' worth of unremitting self-indulgence and whining ... not to mention the resultant pain for anyone who cares to read her drivel. Think I'll pass.
double post
double post
There's no need to tell lies
There's no need to tell lies about OWS. The truth is sufficiently damning. No matter what international flavor of OWS, they reveal themselves as outrageously empty of any coherent message....probably because they are busy crapping on police cars, destroying private property, harassing innocents, physically and sexually assaulting each other, spreading disease, etc. etc. etc. All of which has NEVER been part of any Tea Party protest. To loosely quote Forest Gump, "A sociopath is, as a sociopath does." And I'd say that applies to Canadian activist organizations that inspire them and George Soros who funds them.
“Interesting split. Would
“Interesting split. Would have been nice to see how this stacks up with party affiliation”
What do you expect? It would be more interesting to know how agreement with that statement correlates with additives in the water supply.
You gentlemen drop me a line
You gentlemen drop me a line when this 'merican circle jerk has ended. At that point in time, perhaps, I can point out how you are all seemingly unable to differentiate OWS tactics from the rather clear and concise OWS message, which is indeed resonating quite broadly.
You know, enough people out there seem to believe that 2012 means "change" and that constant meme may be enough to instigate something when the next crisis emerges. Europe seems ready to provide one, don't you think?
I'm not making any predictions here, but I am watching with some interest.
...the rather clear and
You mean the, "Get the rich guy to pay the pizza delivery boy" message, or the "Eliminate all private property and have the people work in harmony for the people" message?
On second thought, Brendan,
On second thought, Brendan, I'll play along...
What, exactly, and concisely, is the "clear and concise OWS message" (in your opinion)? What are the goals, how do they expect to achieve them, and what specific improvements will they accomplish if their changes to society are implemented?
Brendan,I am with Alan here.
Brendan,
I am with Alan here. You were leading the criticism in this forum against the "Teabaggers", deriding the movement as nothing than a throng of racist fascists. The Tea Party movement was lampooned in the press just like the Occupy spectacle, but with a little digging you could find out that the Tea Party was most concerned with spiraling American debt and the impact it could have on America's future. At the end of the day, it was a quiet, well-organized campaign that managed to galvanize enough support to actually elect some new leaders to Congress and change the course of American politics at the moment.
Occupy appears to have no such potential. It is noisy and unorganized, and with a power-to-the-people ethos that causes them to resist any leadership or spokesmen. They themselves did not even know why they were occupying. They started drafting their policy statements AFTER they had been in Zuccoti for some period of time. There is still no agreement on that, hence no plan of action, and no course for change.
Now Brendan, this movement is getting its well-deserved backlash. These are rebels without a cause, and it is hurting the Democratic Party. I can't think of anything in recent memory that better exemplifies the difference on the ground between the left and the right. Unlike Europe, the American people will not tolerate violence in political demonstrations. Go out into the streets and "raise our awareness" if you like, but when you start fighting with the police you lose all credibility.
Mark my words, this movement is having the exact opposite effect on American politics that the Tea Party had, which is to weaken the political support for the candidates that could help you.
But, if I am wrong and you have some secret agenda that Adbusters forwarded to you as a fellow Canadian, then please let me know where I am wrong.
The Tea Party was lampooned
The tea party was lampooned by some in the press, but it was largely a creation of FOX. Go have a look at some video that compares the fawning prime time personalities who LOVED the tea party and promoted it. Look at the vitriolic hatred they smear the OWS with now. The hypocrisy is amazing. I would argue that Teabagging was given its momentum by the cheer leading efforts of FOX and that the 43 percent of Americans who agree with Newt G are mostly the simpletons who watch FOX to form their opinions. And they are probably also Republican. I'll let you make the inference.
This is not surprising. Corporate media serves corporate interests, just as the tea party does at the end of the day. OWS has no mouth piece, its tactics offend conservative Americans, but even with those disadvantages it is an opening for discussions about possible reforms, in the US, but also in a global market of ideas. Are they having any effect? We are just about to find out. It largely depends on it being a global movement that is able to move forward from these tactics to others and use the attention to drive issues and politics.
The Tea Party as a movement has also run it's course now. That was it, it has delivered it's message about debt, thanks. From here forward it becomes an anchor that the Repugnican party will wear into 2012.
Sure thing Alan, I'd be glad
Sure thing Alan, I'd be glad to answer that question. It's the first time any one of you naysayers have taken a moment to ask what the hell is actually going on, rather than regurgitating the corporate media sound bites.
There is a long explanation and a short one. I'll leave you with the short answer first as I was already going to post something to HH at some point that I hope might dispel some of the confusion and focus the discussion on what is important.
I'll have to answer Jason later, but my hatred of that simpleton Ayn Rand has much to do with my Tea Party aversion. That, and for a time it looked more like a Lynch Obama party than a reform movement.
While I cut the relevant short form for you over here, have a read of this article that came out yesterday if you have the time or inclination.
Okay. I read your article.
Okay. I read your article. Two points jumped out at me.
1. "While Fed officials say that almost all the loans were repaid without losses..." Sounds to me like it may not be as bad a deal as some want to make it seem. I mean, what the heck? The Fed didn't lose any money. The banks didn't go belly up. The loans were repaid. Where's the problem?
2. Some banks made a profit. Okay. Which would you rather have, a bank with cash reserves, or a bank that's belly up? If I have my money in a bank, I'd like to think it can hand me a wad of cash when I need a new lawnmower. Or, if I want to start a new business, or buy a home, which bank is most likely to loan me the money, the one with a large cash reserve, or the one that's belly up? I kinda think it is a good thing to have healthy, profitable banks, with lots of cash on hand. Seems like they might be a little more amenable to loaning money to hard working, average schmucks like me. Or am I missing something? Oh yeah, the "secrecy" part. Let's see... What was a common occurrence in the Great Depression? Bank runs. The mere suspicion that a bank might be in trouble would lead to a run on the bank, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know there are people who think keeping anything secret must mean the secret is covering some evil misdeeds. I disagree. Sometimes it's best to shut the fuck up.
Okay. So you hate Ayn Rand. That's your prerogative. Seems like a lot of her fears of "socializing America" are coming true though. Like her or not.
Alan,Nothing backs the Fed
Alan,
Nothing backs the Fed when it does those transactions. Nothing. Your dollar is a worthless piece of shit, not worth the paper it is printed on. Garbage. Do you understand now? This is the biggest confidence game ever.
You need to take caution,
You need to take caution, Brendan: You're beginning to sound as bitter, soulless, joyless and repugnant as our resident misanthrope.
I responded from my phone, so
I responded from my phone, so I had to be brief, but seriously, that money comes from where exactly? It's great that Alan prefers that his bank has some money to lend rather than none, but is that a serious attempt to understand the dynamics and scope of the problem? Also, the banks did not start lending when this money was doled out, at least not as expected. They rolled it back into guaranteed payouts and swindled huge profits.
I get a little short when people overlook GIANT holes in their logic, and perhaps their world view.
EDIT: Er, whoops, I linked to the wrong article there. That's a good one explaining how American Finance has become a corrupt oligarchy, but this is the scam you need to read about,
The Dow jumped almost 500
The Dow jumped almost 500 points today on news that the Fed was going to make it easier for Europeans to get their hands on dollars. Apparently, others don't share your pessimism.
Hi Alan,The Fed did not do
Hi Alan,
The Fed did not do that alone, it was in concert with every other central bank in the western world. It's simply pooling our tax payer risk and exposure to your US fiat currency to increase temporary liquidity in the markets. Why would a positive market reaction be an indication that something good is going on? There's a struggle for the status quo, sure. There is now an increased exposure to the rest of the world from your printing of funny money.
Turns out that Iran was correct, that US dollars are not appropriate for international trade in oil. So now the US and Britain (Actually, most likely the City of London Corporation) are going to start a war to protect that same status quo. It won't work though, and this is why we need the conversation offered by the OWS.
A more detailed post has been in the works, but time is limited at the moment. The snow is coming soon and I am re-flashing the roof to stop the ice from causing water damage.
Just finished a similar
Just finished a similar project myself Brendan (the reflashing, not a long, potentially boring and sure to be mostly wrong-headed post). Take caution in your efforts, we don't want a bad fall (in either effort).
So, I gotta go read a story.
So, I gotta go read a story. In short there are two important things that OWS seems intent upon. Both are worthy of some civil upheaval to achieve.
First, prompting a solution for the central problem of the corrupting influence of corporate money in the United States political system by Corporations and unions. This has already been done in Canada, although the story is still unfolding.
Second, the role of government. It has gone too far from being for the people, by the people and morphed into something of an oligarchy. People sense that. The proof of that can be found in the article I posted if you care to read it. I am no communist and I want no free lunch, but dammit, Adam Smith wanted a strong role for government to regulate a fair playing field, and he also stated that it was imperative to have fair competition and transparency in all respects. Even to the point of the state providing education for all to increase the number of qualified competitors in the "market" of ideas as well as trade. I'm with Adam Smith, so are the basic ideas of the OWS movement. Whatever the demands of individuals and their bullshit, it's not what is bubbling to the surface here.
Also, the abuse by police officers and such in the face of mostly passive resistance to city ordinance is disgraceful. On that note I gotta go.
Yes. Even your position has
Yes. Even your position has been marginalised by the neoliberal tyranny. I have to grin whenever one of them calls you a leftist.
Actually the main aim of occupy! is to restore a political spectrum and the respective discourse in a political spectrum (for instance about your outrageous ideas on VAT…). The 99% of left, centre, and even those right-wingers who are not completely destructive and murderous, in short.
Even your position has been
I completely agree. Only by some extra ordinary contortions can my views be pigeon holed as 'leftist'. I argue vehemently with genuine leftists all the time. Even though there are some objectives we may both find desirable, the ways and means of achieving those same objectives are a world apart.
I do think of myself as a progressive person however, and I think that may be where some confusion arises.
Actually the main aim of
I suppose that is supposed to mean something, but I'll be buggered if it makes sense to me. What specific legislation needs to be passed to restore respective discourse in a political spectrum? Has anyone introduced a bill yet? HB6969, perhaps? I'd like to read it. Or is it just throwing a handful of shelled corn at a target?
You are right, it is supposed
You are right, it is supposed to mean something and I am very sorry that you don’t get it. I should have reckoned with that.
Apparently you can’t imagine so un-authoritative ways, but I am not talking about legislation (yet). I mean discourse when I say discourse. And if you had informed yourself about occupy, you would have noticed the discussions there. New and old questions are being asked and the taboos of 30 years of neoliberalism (on top of the older anticommunism) are questioned and discarded.
It’s a growing number of people who question your dogmas, and not only the people who actually take part in the occupations. It is a development that started a few years ago and that is now gaining momentum. Scary for the neoliberals and their apologists, of course. We see that in the reporting about occupy. We can see the reaction on these boards too. The uneasiness with the debate. The attempts to drown debate in all sorts of insults. If that doesn’t work, in silliness. (Btw., I am amazed that you don’t notice how bizarre your loud demands are to find humour where you happen to see it)
The discourse is there, Alan. It is clear that neoliberalism has failed. It is not clear where we are going to. It’s what the discourse is about.
If all they want is
If all they want is discourse, they can pack up and go home. They have had the right to open discourse for over two hundred years. It's assured by the Constitution. Propose any idea they wish, as long as it is in a peaceful, lawful manner. No one is stopping them from offering up ideas. But, stupid ideas are subject to ridicule. Just like with Gebyat's "expert government" ideas. You can toss out any idea you want to, but there is nothing in freedom of speech that promises all ideas must be treated equally. If you can't convince others your ideas are valid, you might as well save your breath.
"New and old questions..." Yep. No doubt. But you're short changing the age of the ideas when you say "30 years." Most of these silly, old ideas were discarded in the early to mid-70s (except in a couple old hippie communes). So it's probably closer to 35-40.
"Anticommunism is being discarded"? In your world, maybe. Only the tiniest of a sliver of a minority in this country would think converting the US to a communist state would be anything but the scheme of a nitwit.
"Uneasiness with debate..." Are you serious? Look, just because we take a hippie revival as nothing but a laugh-riot joke, does not mean we are shivering in our boots that the new-found communist revival is about to take over the banks, businesses, and homes and pass them out to the hippies.
As for my bizarre demands... I figure they're a good deal less bizzare than demanding the world dismantle capitalism and hand all the loot over to the liberal arts majors.
Now you've gone and made me post another semi-serious post. Dammit.
"Anticommunism is being
"Anticommunism is being discarded"? In your world, maybe. Only the tiniest of a sliver of a minority in this country would think converting the US to a communist state would be anything but the scheme of a nitwit
Who is talking about “converting the US to a communist state? Is it just sloppiness, or is it another attempt at malignant misrepresentation from you? I said that the taboo to discuss anything else than unfettered power of corporations is losing strength: your reaction is no longer the uncontroversial norm. The political sphere is back and it is re-sorting itself.
By the way, the ideas under discussion among the majority of the occupy movement oscillate between ordoliberalism and Keynesianism, not communism. If you weren’t content with pidgeon holing you could have noticed that.
“old hippie communes” … “scheme of a nitwit” “new-found communist revival”
Alan, why are you doing that? Can you give a reason for this behaviour of yours that is not contemptible?
"Uneasiness with debate..." Are you serious?
Yes. Personal and group-focused vilifications instead of arguments: this is what you do. It’s what the media you get your world view from do, so it’s no surprise that your uneasiness finds an expression in exactly this behaviour.
You never argue. Your worldview is static. You try to destroy debate, because with your lack of arguments you feel uneasy.
“If all they want is discourse,…”
Of course it’s not all.
First, prompting a solution
Okay. How are you going to do that? What legislation are you (or OWS) proposing. I mean, do you want to abolish unions and privately held coproations, or just limit contributions? Or do you want to impose term limits on legislators so "money" can't own/influence them as much?
As you know, I am part of the government. And part of my job deals with regulations. Although it is in a completely different field, I have a similar problem to the federal government. There are not too few regulations, there are too many. We have tried to micromanage everything to death (and we're succeeding). The hunting regulations for Tennessee, back in the late 1950's, early 60's, used to be printed on two sheets of paper, front and back, that you could stick in your back pocket. Those were all the laws of hunting you needed to know. Our hunting guide is now 80 friggin' pages long. We have added laws, and added laws, for fifty years, and we wonder why we are losing hunters. We have made things so complicated, people quite rather than try to understand all the stupid laws they need to know to play by the rules. My mission, for the past decade has been to reverse that trend. I have finally convinced a lot of others that we need to simplify the government regulations before we put ourselves out of business. I don't see the federal legislature in any different a position than Tennessee's wildlife agency.
Okay. How are you going to
Alan, it starts with efforts like this one. Doomed to failure on the first at bat, because it does not stop all ALL large donations and third party campaigning. In short it doesn't clean up the whole mess that has become your politics. You know, politics here suck, but even a cursory glance at our southern neighbors makes me feel like I'm blessed I tell you.
The Occupied Amendment should stick around long enough to prompt a better, more comprehensive approach that may have a chance at succeeding.
Brendan,You do realize this
Brendan,
You do realize this is purely a publicity stunt, don't you? He's proposing an amendment to the Constitution. It has no hope in hell of passing. Even if he could pass it, he would probably be old and gray (or long dead) before it passed. Amendments to the Constitution are intentionally very, very difficult to pass. Heck-fire, the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in 1923 and has not passed yet. It's a stunt, done for his own political gain.
Also, I was particularly amused by the part where his proposed legislation was going to prohibit "malicious attack ads" in campaigns. Ha, ha. By damn, that's a hoot. He's gonna legislate everybody to play nicey-nice? And just who's gonna decide who's being too mean and who's being nice? Santa?
But, if he wants to, I have some suggested wording for the "Play Nice" section of the Amendment:
Subparagraph 1. Section 1. Please disregard all protections provided in the Bill of Rights regarding "free speech". Henceforth, freedom of speech will only apply in such situations where pleasantry and cheerfulness abide. Meanness of Speech is prohibited.
Alan,You do realize that
Alan,
You do realize that similar legislation has been enacted here in Canada in the last 4 years? So, as I clearly pointed out that this particular amendment is doomed to fail for a variety of reasons, I also believe that it signals an inevitable move toward electoral reform in the US. Maybe one that does not require an amendment? Or is the sum total of your thinking capacity based on the perfection of the status quo? If so, read a book. Travel somewhere outside of the US. You may then notice other equally valid social contracts exist in the world and you may then have the mEans to think more critically about your own country.
Okay. Let's take this bit by
Okay. Let's take this bit by bit.
First, a little background. I have about 175 people who work for me. All day, every day, they come to me with problems. I encourage it, and they are not bashful about pointing out problems. Big and small. They also, often, propose solutions. I also encourage that. If they have a good solution, I'll back them 100%. If they don't, they have to live with whatever I come up with. I need two things from them. I need a specific problem, and I need a specific, workable solution. I don't need a Miss America "I want the world to live in peace" solution. Don't give me something that wastes my time, your time, solves nothing, and leaves the problem intact.
You say Canada has enacted election reform legislation (I assume it's solved all the corruption problems in Canada). Okay. Fine. Please tell me the wording you think should go into legislation to be passed in the US which would eliminate the undue influence of corporations on American elections. (I have my own ideas, but I want to hear your ideas first. Just like I do with my employees.)
You think I want to preserve the status quo? Not on your life. I'd like to throw most of the elected officials, we now have, out of Washington, and start afresh. (Beginning with Obama.) I want a complete reversal in the approach legislators take in the way they evaluate success (From: If I pass the most new legislation, I'm the best Senator, To: I am the best legislator because I repealed the most useless, burdensome regulations.) And I want term limits (which does not require a Constitutional Amendment).
Read a book? I read lots of 'em. But I will give you this... Most of the books I read have nothing to do with politics. I hate politics. That's why, most times, I joke about shit on this site. I can't take politics seriously. Even though I have to deal with politics, and politicians on a daily basis, I don't do it in the same manner they use. I don't use politics on politicians. Every one of them that I'm forced to deal with gets the same speech. "If you ask me a question, I will give you an absolutely truthful answer, to the fullest extent possible. I won't hide anything. I won't word it in an attempt to influence you. I will not lie. However, if you want something, to appease a constituent for a vote, and I think it is detrimental to the people, or the wildlife under my charge, I will oppose you as much as I can." I don't make deals. I don't trade favors. I fight for what I think is right. If I win, fine. If I lose, fine. But I will not avoid a fight because I fear losing.
Travel somewhere outside the US? Guilty. I would love to travel more. But I work too damn hard, and don't have wads of hundreds falling from my coat pockets. In 26 years, I have never used a day of sick leave. I have never used a day of annual leave. The only vacations I take are little mini-vacations. I can't remember the last time I took five days in a row off of work, and I worked overtime on the other days to make up for it.
I'm sure there are lots of ideas around the world that would be helpful to us. The problem is, they have to fit within our Constitution, and they have to survive a test in the Supreme Court. On top of which, they have to be an American solution to an American problem. I'm sure there are other social contracts which work very well in other lands. We have one social contract which trumps all others. The Constitution. I assume you're not suggesting we should scrap the Constitution and adopt the Sudanese Agreement of Federation, are you? (That's a joke.)
This country will try new ideas. It will change over time. But we will be the ones who change it. You seem to support the goals of OWS. That's wonderful for you. But I'll be damned if I know what they are (other than the nebulous, stupid, "banks and businesses are bad, politicians are corrupt, the world should live in peace and harmony" bullshit that is on a par with Miss America responses). You want the OWS to have an impact on the US? Fine. Give me one specific problem, and one realistic solution, and I will listen. Just like I do with my employees.
Post new comment