Something about Iowa...

Okay, so aside from "first in the country caucus/primary", what makes Iowa so important that candidates are willing to spend millions advertising only in that state?

Latest polls show Ron Paul gaining traction in Iowa, and his campaign has outspent all other campaigns in that state, but how is Iowa indicative of the rest of the country?

In case you ever need to find it any other time but an election year...

Is the importance of Iowa overblown by the preponderance of media attention there? It seems to be the case more and more, that many allow the media to pick candidates by the use of language (front-runner, also-ran, or top-tier), and as the first nominating event in the country, the media loves to focus on Iowa. But is the opinion of a mostly rural state the best way to determine political trends in national elections?

Is Iowa important because the "middle-American" voters see more than anyone else in the country, or is it important because the media have told us it is? Who is really selecting our national candidates?

Those in "fly-over country", whose opinions are dismissed in virtually every other way? Those in the media, who see their role as more "kingmaker" than impartial observer? Those who think the "first is best, simply because it's first"?

Or do we decide, as a NATION who should lead us? Back in 2008, events were manipulated so that the only "reasonable" answers to the question of "Who should be president?" were a known liberal from the Chicago political machine and a "maverick" career politician who was known for "reaching across the aisle".

Aside from the caricatures, there's no reason to put this here. But Wow. You really can find almost anything on the 'net...

Now we have a political field of 8 Republicans, three of which are hanging on out of sheer orneriness (Santorum, Bachmann and Perry), and once again, all eyes are on Iowa, as though the answers can be found in the farmlands.

But are we focusing on what matters, or on what we are being told matters?

There is still a LOT of campaigning to do before the primary season gets underway. If you are one of my Republican friends, don't focus overmuch on how the politicos will try and shmooze those who in almost any other situation they consider rubes, and instead keep an eye on how they will treat the nation as a whole.

The US is more than just Iowa. Seeing candidates play along with the media-driven, over-importance of Iowa is no way to gauge how a man or woman will govern as a president over a nation.

Kicked out of the Park, is OWS over?

Wow. Two months. It was a little over 2 months ago, this very blog, that I stated what I have since seen in several blogs, editorials, and op-ed pieces (This is an excellent example of what I mean from today's Baltimore Sun).

Okay, Wall Street Occupiers. You have our attention. Now what are you planning to do with it?

(warning: Graphic language)

Or THIS?

You see, the problem is, it may well be both. We'll start with the video.

This is a black man who feels very passionately about the cause. So much so, he's willing to not only oppose the "1%", but he's willing to call for violence against the police, and violence against the trappings of the "1%". This is the face of the OWS "movement" that is seen most often. That of a passionate man or woman who speaks loudly. It doesn't matter if they are simply stating their own opinions. These are "the fringe elements" that get all the attention, like the TEA Partiers.

Part of me cringes when I see hats like this...

Any time you get groups of people together, there will always, ALWAYS be those who are a little too passionate for those around them. Holds true in anything, not just political circles.

The real trick is to remain a supporter while gently making sure everyone knows who the crazies are. In the case of OWS, it is tough to tell who the crazies are, because anytime you have people voluntarily live in the street for weeks at a time, in a "camp" that has health and sanitation issues, to say nothing of safety and security concerns, the lines between crazy and sane begin to blur.

How can you come out of a smoke-filled tent, push a drum aside with your foot covered with a sock full of holes, run a hand through your stringy, unwashed hair before grabbing a bowl of tasteless gruel (called lunch) prepared in an old Chock-full-o'-nuts can over a sterno, and expect to have any credibility when dismissing the sign waving anti-Semite as being "not part of the true movement"?

When trying to distance yourself from crazy, it helps to be cleaned up, and at least shaved (for a guy, anyway. For the women, maybe make sure you have a top on. I'm not kidding. I won't link to it, but type in "topless protesters occupy wall street" in a youtube search).

The second thing from above, the poster, is the "official" plan for November 17th. There is a call to "occupy" the subways, thus putting out thousands, if not millions of working folks, and march in the streets to "our bridges". Words simply cannot express how bad an idea this really is, and if anyone of the organizers for the OWS thought about it, they would not want to follow through. I anticipate huge numbers of arrests and/or fines for crimes ranging from disturbing the peace to jaywalking. It will be an absolute miracle if there is no violence stemming from this plan.

The poster itself, though is more along the lines of what caught my attention. Look familiar?

Yup. The OWS (or at least their well-funded backers who will print up posters for them) have decided that their cause deserves to be thought of like the man who stood down a column of tanks in Tienanmen Square in China in 1989.

The problem with the use of the imagery is that it simply does not apply. In China in the late 80's, the people had little to no political voice. The decisions on what was best for the populace were made by the Communist Party. All you, as a citizen, were expected to do was deal with it. You couldn't vote, and if you dared to speak out against the Party, you suffered for it (as many did in the so-called Tienanmen Square Massacre). Protest was put down, violently. You toed the line, and you shut up. That was it, end of discussion. The very idea that a protest could go on for several weeks would have made even the most freedom-minded Chinese laugh out loud. The government moved quickly to silence dissent.

This is not anything like what has happened at ANY Occupy protest in America. Yes, there have been some instances where police have had to use non-lethal crowd control measures, including beanbag rounds, rubber bullets and tear gas, but according to almost all reports, those measures have only been brought to bear AFTER the police were attacked by rock or bottle throwing protesters (see the video above for an example of what one might look like). And yes, the police have had to get aggressive in placing some protesters under arrest. It tends to happen when one antagonizes a man (or woman) with a badge, gun, honking big flashlight, nightstick, training, and the duty to get those who start trouble off the streets.

It really has nothing to do with the freedom of speech. People are saying plenty (again, see the video above). It has to do with the expectation that you are responsible for what you say.

Now look at China, late 80's. If the video above was shot there/then, the man would have been tackled, beaten raw, and dragged off before he ever got the chance to talk about Molotov cocktails. If he were lucky, he might be allowed to go free after spending a week or two in a prison that makes a Zuccotti Park tent look like a room at the Marriott. If he wasn't so lucky, and the local Party member decided he didn't like his haircut, well... People still get killed just for knowing where the bodies are buried.

OWS has even less similarity to Tienanmen Square than it does the TEA Party. The imagery of this poster, and the continued narrative that the OWS is this country's "Arab Spring" are flawed (First Amendment here, but not there and all that. Read my post a couple of months ago. It'll fill you in), and not the issue at all. Thus far, the focus has been on the noise makers, not on the change makers.

And with the questions about who the change makers are still floating around, OWS seems to have peaked, with nothing gained. We just had an Election Day pass. There were victories by Democrats in many races in New York, but commentary by the Governor did not seem to include any acknowledgement of the OWS "Movement". By contrast, the first Election Day after the rise of the TEA Party, it was possible to say that many of the results were influenced by, if not outright taken over by, the TEA Partiers.

It's like I have said before, and is now being echoed by the media and others. OWS needs to take their "movement" into the political arena now, and start MAKING the changes they seek, rather than expecting things to change FOR them. Elections are how things are done in this country.

To Echo the Baltimore Sun, it's time OWS grows up. The tantrum has been heard. Now make us understand why we shouldn't put you in the corner.