And somewhere between lies the truth...

We've all seen them. The photo or video of the "pepper spraying incident" at UC Davis.

Just in case you missed it... Wait. What, have you been under a frickin' rock?!?!

There is, making the rounds, a video that claims to show "what really happened". I'm no professional, but the video shows several clips from several sources, assembled in what appears to be chronological fashion. It looks like all the clips are from the same event to me. Watch it, and make your own judgement.

Regardless, the only thing you seem to see on the news are the picture from above, or the edited video from which the picture was taken (I say edited, because the video only ever shows the pepper spraying, not the before or after).

Face it. You KNOW there was an "after" image to this. But this is just damn cute...

At best, a video or picture captures just one moment or split second in time. There is ALWAYS more context to what you are seeing. In this case, right from the word go, I knew that there HAD to be.

My feelings on the Occupy nonsense notwithstanding, It is really easy to say that no one deserves a face-full of pepper spray for engaging in a peaceful protest. If you abide by the law, follow the instructions of those who are charged with keeping the peace, and keep yourself totally separate from those who want to cause problems, you do not deserve to get pepper sprayed, tear gassed, or tazed (or shot with beanbags, rubber bullets, paintballs, etc.). At first blush, this is a cop spraying kids who are sitting down, and doing so calmly, with no apparent threat, while a crowd boos his actions (frankly, if he WAS so callous as to pepper spray indiscriminately and without cause, as has been suggested, knowing there were dozens of cell phone cameras recording his every move, the guy's got some serious inner honey badger issues).

But, that is just that moment. What led to that is more interesting.

I linked to a video above, and offered all kinds of qualifiers. I wasn't there. I did not directly witness ANY of this (not even the kittens). I can only go by what is reported. And when the media fails to report properly, it's up to others to help fill in the blanks.

The narrative that was told was that the police showed up to dismantle an Occupy camp on campus, met resistance, and whipped out the pepper spray. Surprise, surprise, there is much more to it than that.

I watched the video. It shows the police offering several warnings regarding the legality of the camp. It can be inferred that several protesters were placed under arrest, possibly for resisting the police's attempts to dismantle the camp (which would have been done for the protesters safety more than anything, given the lower level of services offered on campus on the weekends).

According the the video, the other gathered protesters began to demand their release, quickly following the lead of one voice leading them in chants. Then the voice leads a "chant", in which the police are given an ultimatum. Let those arrested go free, and we will allow you to leave.

Think about it. Armed or not, you are one of a couple dozen police officers with a crowd gathered around you, chanting at you, and telling you under what circumstances they will let you leave. That the police didn't start spraying the mob down at this point goes a LONG way to show how much discipline they have.

Anyway, the mob continues to follow the lead of this one voice, who calls out new chants, and in general makes a bad situation worse. The chants go from "Set them free", speaking of the arrested protesters, and spread to one that includes "Fu*k the police!". The tension is escalating, no matter how much anyone wants to say "it's just words, and the police have weapons".

Do we really need to have a discussion about how words really mean things?

The police start to go down the line of sitting protesters and explain to them that when the vehicle comes for those already arrested, that they (the sitting human chain) will be subject to force. They ask if this is understood, and in at least one instance on the recording, receive a nod in acknowledgment. Think about that for just a second, if you will.

The police have offered warning after warning, after warning, and are now gently explaining to those who don't seem to get that there is a point to follow instructions, that they will be punished for their failure to do so. Is this REALLY the action of out-of-control, jack-booted thugs? If only those who really DO commit crimes were as polite. "Excuse me sir. I intend to beat you senseless with this crowbar, take your money, and I might just drag your wife into that alley and rape her while I'm at it. Do you understand what this means?"

But I digress. The police start to move a squad car into position while the crowd orders them (?!?) to stop their vehicle. Then the officers pull out the pepper spray, and begin to shake it. Now the mob starts to see that the police mean business. But rather than disperse, they begin to shout encouragement and offer advice to those about to be pepper sprayed on how to deal with it!

Final warnings are given, then Lt. John Pike begins what he told the protesters he would do.

This was not someone who "casually" pepper sprayed "peaceful" protesters. Lt. Pike showed amazing restraint prior to this point, but his hand, frankly, was forced. If the police did not do something to move the protesters, as they said they would, their credibility would have been eroded, and the mob would have had the impression that they could do as they wish, as long as they outnumber the police.

Every step of the way, according to reports and video clips, the police offered restraint and warnings. The protesters acknowledge that there was an attempt to restrict police movement (a threatening gesture, and not at all "peaceful protest"), and at the end of the encounter, the protesters, again led by the lone voice of the agitator, called out to the police that they would be "willing to give" the police "a brief moment of peace" to leave with their weapons and not be followed (quite frankly, I'm AMAZED that the agitator was not arrested for damn near inciting a riot).

All in all, there is, as I and many other suspected, a LOT more to this story than the MSM allowed to be reported, and shows once again, that virtually any involved in the Occupy protests simply do not understand what peaceful protests and assembly are. The police did not "react" violently to their "peaceful assembly".

The police offered repeated warnings to the Occupiers to remove their illegally set up camp. Had they done so (even if only until the police left, and reconstructed their camp), the escalation that led to several students getting to experience pepper spray first-hand would never have happened.

This crowd, for instance, dispersed peacefully, with no pepper spray used.. Granted it took a few warm days, but...

It all goes back to one, very simple point. You have a God-given and human-codified right to free speech. You may exercise it as often as you want, wherever you want. But, that right doesn't exist in a vacuum. You MUST BE PREPARED to accept responsibility for what you say. When your free speech steps over the line of legality, as a responsible citizen you MUST recognize that you may well face consequences.

The police did not have to show the restraint that they did, and this instance is very, very far from the brutal, out-of-control, stomping of anyone's rights as it has been portrayed.

More than anything, this is a teachable moment. What the media tells you is true, might not be the whole story. There IS a bias in the MSM, AND in the "alternative" media. True journalists don't exist anymore. EVERYONE has their slant on a story, and makes it known, one way or another.

It's up to us, as citizens who want to be informed, to expose ourselves to what we are told, and to dig a little deeper. We need to be willing to step out of our comfort zones to find the truth, or at least the other side's idea of the truth.

It's an old saying, "There are three sides to every story. Your's, their's and the truth". Modern "journalism" has made it incumbent upon those who want to be fair and reasonable to seek the truth that lies between the biases.

While it makes for fun times to be able to fly off the handle about your political preferences, and point to something in the news as support, remember that the news is being reported, not by true journalists, but by those who are after ratings or newspaper sales. The truth is as a homeless person, left out to wander in the street, noticed by only a few.

Seek the truth, and don't let the media define for you an entire person on the basis of a single moment in time.

After all, just about all of us have some picture of video that we wish didn't exist, and would not want to be judged on the basis of that one snapshot of our lives.

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.

The 9-9-9 Plan for Dummies...

There's been a lot of talk lately about the richest 1% vs. the rest of the country, and flat tax versus what we have in place now, and how "fairness" plays into all of it.

The short answer: it doesn't. Nothing about finance is "fair". The sooner this is realized, the sooner it might be possible to get to a point where there is at least some measure of justice in how taxes are collected in this country.

There's always going to be some economist or accountant who talks about how someone who is richer can pay more, and so, should, while someone who is barely getting by should be allowed to pay less (in terms of taxes). The current tax structure is this way. The richer you are, the more you pay.

In terms of socialist thinking, this is fair. This is right. This is how it should be. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". In terms of rational thinking, this kind of thought is stupid.

There are those who are able-bodied and get from the government (who gets by taxing others), but put nothing in. So much for "from each..."

So, how to make things closer to "fair" with taxes? First, let's look at how things are now.

The top tier of wage earners pay the most, and get the least "benefit" from the government (yes, there are the programs and departments that taxes pay for, such as the military that benefit everyone, but in terms of getting something tangible from the government, the "rich" don't. They just pay for it). Those at the bottom pay nothing, but get benefits ranging from medical assistance (if not outright total health care), food stamps, and even welfare "benefits", effectively, money for doing nothing.

To many, there is a lack of common sense to this. Many get without giving, and some give without getting. But to others, this is totally reasonable. If you make more, you have more to spare for the "greater good", and so should be compelled to give more to the government to distribute as it sees fit. Take the fact that you are talking about money out of the equation, and this approach just doesn't make sense, and is hardly "fair". The 9-9-9 Plan seeks to change all that by leveling the playing field a little bit, and giving each American a dog in the economic fight.

Say you are the best worker in your team of 100. You take the widgets, combine them with the thingamabobs, and produce more whatchamacallits than anyone else in your group. You enjoy being the best in your group. It means that you have accomplished something that not everyone can say they have.

One day, management tells you that orders are starting to fall behind. You know that there is a need for 1200 whatchamacallits a week, and you are doing all you can to meet that goal. Management even gives your group special privileges as incentive to produce more, but you, and some of the other hardest workers can't use those benefits, because you devote most of your time to making the whatchamacallits.

Yet no matter how hard you work, you keep falling short of the goal. The ones that get missed in a week still need to be made, and ultimately, your group starts falling behind Despite this, sales keeps promising more and more units to customers. You keep falling behind and work that needs to be done isn't being done.

One day you look at the numbers for your group. You, alone, account for something along the lines of 380 whatchamacallits each week. The next four guys seem to be able to manage another 200 between them. The next five guys can manage about 110 or so. The next 15 guys each manage about 10. The next 25 guys between them manage along the lines of about 11 whatchamacallits a week. The next 3 of guys eek out about one each on a good week. Finally, you see that the remaining 47 guys in your group produce nothing, yet they still get the benefits of being in the best group, which you and some of the hardest workers cannot use, because you are too busy working.

Management comes to you, and tells you that you, as the best worker in your group, needs to do more, and maybe convince the next couple of guys down from you to pick up more slack, and try to fulfill the backlog that has developed. When you explain that 47 in your group have done nothing to help out, and that if they could just be made to produce a few whatchamacallits, you might be able to ease up a bit, and maybe not burn out.

Management tells you that things will remain as they are. It's okay to give special privileges to those who aren't really working, and to expect that only the best workers will shoulder the full load.

This, in a nutshell, is the current tax system. The best workers (the rich) are those who are producing the whatchamacallits (taxes), that management (the government) use to fulfill orders and offer special privileges (national debt and public welfare programs). Sales keeps promising what isn't there, and you get farther behind (Congressional spending and deficit spending). As the best worker (the wealthiest 1%), management has told you that YOU need to tell those closest to you to produce more (government won't stop promising, but expect the highest earners to pay more taxes to support out of control spending).

Using the same general set-up, let's say that you are still the best worker. Management has cracked down and now requires that all employees produce at least 9 whatchamacallits a week. You still aren't hitting your goal, and in fact are producing fewer, but management has changed things so that now additional production can result in access to the benefits previously offered (but unavailable to you and some others because of your workload).

You are also asked to train new employees to produce the minimum of 9, while keeping up the your higher production rate. Since this is easier to do that the frantic pace at which you worked before, you are all for it.

Obviously, there are those in your group who complain about having to produce 9, where they didn't have to produce anything before, but as the orders are able to be fulfilled, and with new hires and training in place, eventually surpassed, the benefits they enjoyed before can now be shared more equally by ALL the people in your growing group, and by working harder, some additional benefits can be bought by anyone for 9 additional whatchamacallits produced.

Everyone is now producing 9 units each (9% income tax), and more employees can be hired and trained by those whose level of work won't suffer (9% payroll tax), and the increased benefits bought for additional work (9% sales tax) will ultimately lead to the backlog of products being eliminated, and a surplus can be realized quickly.

This is what Herman Cain has proposed. Those who haven't produced will now be called upon to do so, but it will ultimately benefit everyone else.

It is not an instant fix. There IS no instant fix. It's not even a perfect plan. But it is one that allows those who currently stand to lose nothing (because they add nothing to the economy) to take some degree of ownership, and as a result, pride in keeping things going forward, in addition allowing those who are able to create jobs (the rich corporations) to have more money to do so, adding more payers of taxes into the mix.

The idea that any of this can take place in a vacuum is a flawed one.

But the rich will pay less taxes, and just hoard their money.

Wrong. You don't get richer by sitting on money. You spend it in ways that will produce some dividend. By having more money, the rich will find ways to try and make it into yet more, which in the past has been shown to happen by expansion of a company. Expansion of a company = need for more employees. More employees = more being paid into payroll taxes. More taxes spurred by greater hiring = economic growth. Economic growth = people more willing to spend money on new goods = greater taxes collected on the sales of said goods.

Like I said, it's not perfect. But it is a damn sight better than the stagnation we have experienced with taxes to date, which make rich men (and women) out of only two groups. The accountants who prepare tax documents for the rest of us, and the economists, who try and predict how the next economic disaster can be turned into justification for themselves.

TEA Party on Wall Street?

Joe Biden said on Thursday that the Occupy Wall Street "movement" (OWS) had a lot in common with the TEA Party. He said, "There's a lot in common with the tea party. The tea party started why? TARP. They thought it was unfair -- we were bailing out the big guy."

This is one of the most intelligent things Biden has said in a long time, and one of the stupidest at the same time.

He is correct. Both groups started because of dissatisfaction with financial issues affecting the richest people and organizations in the country. But beyond that, the similarity between the groups can be likened to the similarity between oxygen and plutonium.

Where the TEA Party has tried to affect change through the political process and democracy, the OWS protesters seem to have no real rudder. The TEA Party gathered and held rallies, making a point, and speaking of change through effective means, and MAKING the changes they wanted through the use of the political system.

The OWS gathers (and stays), hold rallies (and stay), have chants and signs that attack what they call "The 1%" (a separate blog on that to come very soon), but not really doing more than that (except defecating on police cars and trying to storm the National Air and Space Museum). At TEA Party protests very few arrests have been made (no numbers easily available), and it is hard to say that any of those have been TEA Partiers. Whereas the OWS movement has had (at least) 700 arrests attributed to its members.

Think about that a second. The movement of "evil" conservatives, who "hate" many groups of people in the country and oppose the rich getting enriched by government aid have been more peaceful, less disruptive, and better behaved than the group of "thoughtful" liberals, who are tolerant of all, and oppose the rich not "paying their fair share".

The OWS is not just citizens who are disenfranchised with the government bailing out big corporations as presented by the more liberal media outlets and on the liberal blogosphere. They represent a group of citizens who do not like the idea of capitalism. The seek to not allow those who have money, whether earned or not (and let's be honest. There are more than a few big executives who hit the freakin' lottery with the position they are in and salary they "earn"), to keep it. They refer to "The 1%" of the super-wealthy who, in their estimation need to do more to help the other "99%" of the "middle class" and poor in America. Because operating giant national and multi-national companies that employ millions of people (many of whom, while not in the fabled "1%", still make more than enough to be considered richer than "middle class") isn't enough. In the estimation of those protesting, all people need to be given a "living wage" (a socialist idea given new life. The idea is that employers should be REQUIRED to pay employees enough money to live on, no matter the type of work done, service provided, or level of difficulty of the task involved), so that "social justice" is achieved. "Social injustice" is defined, of course, as "making more money than me" and/or "making more money than I think is reasonable". The whole "movement" is concerned with the absurd idea of "fairness".

I work more than 40 hours a week engaged in physical labor, processing used oils and sundry items like by-products from floodwater clean-up in ways better than has been done since the new owners took the company over, driving a 6-year-old Hyundai, renting a place to live, and only seeing my family for barely more than 30 minutes daily (except on weekends), while a first grade teacher who doesn't regularly engage in heavy lifting in the course of her job at my kids' school drives a 2-year-old (if that) Jaguar to her owned home, with a set schedule, and known vacation time, AND did her job so poorly that my daughter went from looking forward to learning at school to dreading the thought of having to sit in her homeroom.

I defy a single person to tell me how that is "fair". Yet this teacher is paid (much) better than I am for what she does. I suppose I could protest something like that. But what exactly will that get me? Sure, I might get some satisfaction in making the teacher in question feel bad about herself, and she would cry all the way to her home in the "rich" suburb, dabbing her eyes while listening to uplifting music on an in-car sound system that is better than my in-home sound system, but what does that do for me?

I'd rather engage the system by doing something of value, like voting for school board members who agree that there just might be some teachers who are overpaid, and, if elected, start cutting some salaries.

And that also happens to be the major difference between the TEA Party and the OWS.

TEA Partiers might occasionally act crazy, dressing up like colonials, or wearing hats with teabags hanging from them. But they aren't just making noise. They are engaging, and have engaged quite successfully, the system. You ask a Senator or congressman to consider some piece of legislation, and one of their first thoughts is now "how will the TEA Party members react to this, and if it is negative, can I overcome it, or will I have to negotiate?"

The TEA Party has, like it or not, agree with them or not, MADE themselves a voice in the places where things happen. They have gone from protests to actual involvement in the democratic process in this country.

Senators and congressmen don't think "how will one of those zombie-dressed, like-a-bandit-bandanna-wearing Wall Street Occupiers react to this, and if it is negative, can I overcome it, or will I have to negotiate?" At this point, the OWS "movement" is nothing more than hot air. They have no real political power.

They like to think of themselves as being similar to the "Arab Spring" movements that overthrew decades-old regimes in the Middle East, but there is a fundamental difference. One reason those protests in the Middle East had any sort of effectiveness was the fact that the governments did not know how to deal with THAT much dissent. They were used to crushing individual and small groups (100-200 people) of dissenters with the police and/or military, and that was that. They didn't know what to do when it was a veritable sea of dissenters, and NOT call down world-wide condemnation. Tienanmen Square is a footnote rather than a turning point in Chinese history, because, while the actions of those students were brave (I mean, staring down a column of tanks. That guy had some gramba, that's for sure), they were doomed to fail because their group was too small.

The OWS has one thing that the "Arab Spring" protesters or Tienanmen students did not have. The God-given (and human codified) RIGHT to protest, speak out against the government (or whomever), and gather in large groups of like-minded people. There is no similarity, because they don't understand what they already have, and take for granted in the worst way possible (again, defecation on police vehicles comes to mind).

I dismissed at one point, on a friend's facebook wall, the majority of the OWS as being spoiled college kids who are wasting mom and dad's hard-earned money by listening to hippie professors who never came down off that last high who describe participating in democracy as protesting and making noise while "fighting the power", rather than actually, oh, I don't know, VOTING (I'm pretty sure that most of the parents of the younger protesters would rather their kids study and live in the dorm rooms rather than sleep in a park for a few weeks shouting slogans and carrying signs. Call it a hunch). I stand by that dismissal.

Too many of these protesters, including the more "mature" ones, like that guy in that video railing against Fox News (really. You could take all his "points" about the actual protest and edit/condense that video to a few seconds. Instead he hits on all the major liberal talking points slamming Fox News, Newscorp, and several prominent conservative TV and radio hosts, not all at FNC) seem to think that protesting is more important than actually DOING something.

Really, I'm all for assembly, protest, opposition, what have you. I support, and have participated in, several of the annual Marches for Life in Washington DC, as a for instance. But just protesting, marching, and making noise is not enough. You MUST back it all up with action in the political arena. Abortion issues are always a topic debated in national elections, not because they have protesters and counter-protesters, but because those various protesters, on either side of the issue, try to vote and put into place those who support their views.

Some have said that this is not an option for the OWS "movement", because all the politicians are in "The 1%". Well, maybe so. That just means that you find someone from your ranks who is willing to run, and you throw ALL your support there, and stop supporting those who have narrowed the political process in America down to "Thing 1 or Thing 2".

It worked for the TEA Party. If you want the Wall Street Occupation to mean more than the "Million Man March", it is something that has to be done. Otherwise these thousands of voices raised will be barking in the dark, and the similarity to the TEA Party will forever be just a punch line for fake news pundits like Jon Stewart.

Update:

Representative Nancy Pelosi is STILL floating the myth that TEA Party protesters spat upon Congressmen they disagreed with on the steps of the Capitol building. Thing is, no one was ever arrested or even fined for doing so.

Spitting on someone is a personal thing. You likely are going to remember the face of anyone who would spit upon you, especially when they are doing so from behind a barricade, or in the presence of a police escort, and have those people dealt with. Maybe Nancy should concern herself with ACTUAL things, and not mythological occurrences in an attempt to find some moral equivalency between the TEA Party and the OWS.

To date, one group has conducted itself in a proper, mature, and legal manner, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the group I'm speaking of is NOT the one sitting in a park in New York for the past several weeks.

Aretha Franklin and Erasure had it right...

I just watched a very distressing video clip. The "ladies" on "The View" going back and forth about whether or not NJ Governor Chris Christie, a possible Republican candidate for president, is "too fat" to be president. This "issue" has become something being discussed on op-ed pages across the country now.

Quips from "The View" included how fun it would be to have a president who could say "Cheetos not vetoes", and when asked about what he would bring to the race and/or presidency, Joy Behar called out "Krispy Kreams".

In this day and age of taunting a person being called "bullying", in what way is treating the governor of a state in this manner acceptable?

Can you imagine the outrage if there were a candidate for president who were gay, and a panel on Fox News were to have a member who said that this candidate brings a mesh tank top to the race?

Yet suddenly Mr. Christie's weight is fair game. It is being discussed as readily as his stance on taxes, even though he has not even declared an intention to run. Is this some sort of indication that "bullying" is acceptable, but only if it is directed at the "right" victim?

Homosexuals or alleged homosexual behavior are off limits. Same for Muslims. Gender-based comments are forbidden. Don't even THINK about skin color. But you have a person who is overweight? It's okay to tell them to "put down the fork", or "eat a salad". In fact it almost seems to be encouraged.

Maybe it's time for a new viral video campaign. One that declares "it gets better, unless you're a fattie". Skinny models, actors and actresses, and everyday people can record quick youtube commentaries saying that just being you is fine, and something you should be proud of, unless of course, you are fat. Then, you are a punchline.

Let me be clear. I don't care if a political candidate is black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or Arab. They can be Catholic, Jew, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Zoroastrian. They could be fat as Jabba the Hutt, or skinny enough to make Kate Moss look corpulent. They could be a 7 feet tall giant, or a 2 foot tall dwarf. Straight, gay, or somewhere in the middle. If you believe in what you preach, and I happen to agree with it, you will have my vote.

So I would, in fact, vote for an Inuit, lesbian, little-person, who worships Tiamat, and is built like a blimp who holds to the same conservative philosophy I do sooner than I would vote for a Caucasian, straight, Roman Catholic, knockout who looks like Angelina Jolie who holds to some views that I do not agree with.

In politics, these labels are all meaningless to me. All that matters is that you believe what you say you do, and I'll vote for the one(s) who most closely match what I believe in.

In life, I am the same way. I don't judge anyone by how they look or what they do in their spare time. I listen to what they say or believe as a person. Why is it so damn hard for everyone else to do the same, and stop with the categorizing of others in ways that suggest that SOME people are worthy of respect and encouragement in themselves, but others are not?

I refuse to fall back on "can't we all just get along", because that is a garbage tagline anymore. Can't we all just stop behaving like petty piles of crap to one another, and start behaving like humans to each other? Is simple respect so damn much to ask?

So... That happened...

And now it's back to what counts as "normal". I arrived home from a week in Florida where I went to a zoo, got into gulf coast waters for the first time in my life, and hid in my dad's air conditioning.

And now it's back to the grind. I anticipate that I'll have some clean up to do on my first day back to work, in addition to the typical workload, and here at home, I have a lawn to mow, some boxes to finish unpacking from the move, dishes and laundry to wash, and cat hair to vacuum. I turn 37 on Wednesday. Chicken in in the fridge to be prepared for dinner tomorrow night.

In short, back to "normal". Except not really. I have a feeling. Maybe it's a subconscious thing about my birthday. Maybe it's a wish to be closer to my family. I just don't know. I feel like I'm flipping along through a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book.

The weekend after next, I have a trip to Maryland for my nephew's baptism, which I am looking forward to greatly. Not only for the event itself, as a new soul enters my faith, but for the chance to see (most of) my family. We don't get together as often as we should, and I hate to think that the next event that brings us together might be a death in the family, as it turned out to be a few years ago when mom passed (words cannot describe how much miss that lady).

Efforts have been made, but there always seems to be a snag. I know that I bear part responsibility for that, and I have pretty well promised myself that I am going to restructure my priorities, and make sure that I am not a part of one of those "we all have out separate lives" kind of families. We do have separate lives, but dammit, siblings are always siblings. Marriages and kids don't change that, they only add to it. Letting distance build up between my sibs and I is something that I can really say I hate.

I don't know. It seems that I came back from Florida more pensive than usual. I almost feel like I have a big choice to make soon, and I have no idea how to deal with it, let alone know what the choice might be.

"May you live in interesting times". Boy, the Chinese really knew how to make an innocuous sentence into a curse. While I ponder all that, I get a fortune cookie tonight that reads "Soon, life will become more interesting".

I'm not one to put anything into a mass-produced slip of paper in a cookie. But I have had a feeling that something is going to happen soon. It's a feeling that started around about Wednesday while I was on vacation. I almost feel like I am about to turn to page 15 if I choose to go left, or 34 if I choose right.

So, Universe, what's up? What are you trying to tell me? And why do I think it could be absolutely fantastic, but only if I make a critical choice, without the ability to back-track because I didn't take my finger off the last page?

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon". Fun and...

Violent. Oh, so very violent. If you don't like watching stuff get blown to $#|+, do yourself a favor, and skip going to this movie.

Robots blow all kinds up stuff up, and even get some down-n-dirty fighting in that would make a UFC champ flinch (don't expect "Cybertronian street fighting" to show up as an MMA fighting style anytime soon). There were holes in the story, especially where the characters are concerned (Why did Megatron choose an Earth vehicle form, after shunning the idea before? And why did he pick the one he did?), but that happens in all but the very best movies. I also had a couple of other issues that I go into great detail about in a moment.

Visually, the opening sequences that involved the lunar landing were spec-freaking-tacular in 3D. I mean, right up there, quality-wise, with the Imax movie "Magnificent Desolation". The 3D throughout was really good, and once you adjusted to it (took my about a half hour, including the previews), you start to really get into having depth in what you are watching, and it just seemed to be "natural". I mean even the leaves on a tree in the background looked good. And it was just set dressing.

As a side note, 3D technology has been in movies for decades now. It's only recently that it has been possible to really enjoy it without losing any of the true coloration. Gone are the red and blue 3D glasses, and thank goodness. Having said that, there were only a couple of places where I felt that something was tossed at the viewer just for the 3D effect, and a really wish directors would knock that off already. The 3D effect stands on its own very easily, and I don't need the reminder of the gimmick (as a side-note to the side note, I just wonder when someone will design disposable 3D glasses that don't make you look ridiculous. I know I'm not the best model to begin with, but I'll post a picture tomorrow on facebook of what I mean).

The story itself was a lot better that I would have thought, given that this was sequel number 2. I would say that this was the strongest of the trilogy, by far.

The first was good, but mostly for the "lifelong geek fanboy getting to see Transformers blow real crap up on screen" kinda way. The story was kinda "meh", but I was more than willing to overlook that because of the whole "lifelong geek fanboy" thing. That it helped to revive a 20-year-old story and garner new interest in what started out, basically, as a commercial for toys really said something.

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" was not as interesting, in part because it did what far too many long-term stories have done. It rushed elements that needed time to simmer. The character of "The Fallen" was a fairly recent addition to the Transformers mythos, and deserved a much larger build-up than what he got. It took them years to get around to him in the comics (the only vehicle for the better Transformers story for a number of years), and given his mythic proportions, should have been a much more developed character.

As it was, he was portrayed as a mere shadow of his potential, and cut down far, far too quickly (kinda like Venom in the "Spider-man" movies. It took DECADES for the comics to develop and flesh out Venom. Now, anything Spider-man has Venom as a foil to the hero almost instantly, and usually with a weaker than should be background that fans will recognize as a rushed origin). The titular villain in the second TF movie was a disappointment, which was a shame. And the overly done, attempted kid-friendly, forced attempt at comic relief with the Autobot twins really didn't help the second movie at all.

But, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" pretty well made up for all that. A look (even if all too brief) into a little more history of the long conflict on the home world, and weaving Transformers into human history (covered up and kept secret, of course) helped to make the story a little more interesting (not to mention having Buzz Aldrin and Optimus Prime having a mutual respect moment. That was just so FREAKING cool). My jaw hit the floor at the moment the true enemy was revealed, if for no other reason than how (seriously, it was both brutal and saddening at the same time. Poor guy can't catch a movie break, after being killed in 1986's "Transformers: The Movie" as well). Old enemies return (though definitely worse for the wear), and heroic deception works like a charm, as it always seems to.

"Transformers" was like a paint-by-numbers kit. In the end, you get exactly what you set out for. Pretty to look at, but just not as good as the original. You just KNOW that something is missing.

"Revenge of the Fallen" was more like someone took the paint and carefully tossed it at the wall. I say carefully, because it wasn't random. There were in fact recognizable patterns in what showed through, if you looked hard enough. It was almost an abstract look at the Transformers.

"Dark of the Moon" is like a fine reproduction. You know it's not the original work, nor does it claim to be, but you feel like you can hang it up without embarrassment.

Having gushed on at length, now I must speak to my disappointments in the movie. The first one had to do with the fact that for the first time, humans were not just simply "collateral damage", being hurt or even killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the previous movies (and of course cartoons), humans were not targets. Sure, they would be hostages, and threatened with bodily harm, but ultimately, they were off-limits to the wages of the Transformer's war.

This time around, it is implied (and shown explicitly) that any human with specific knowledge was hunted down and killed for knowing too much. Also, after conquering a city, several humans were used as "examples" to strike fear into the hearts of the others, and specifically targeted by Decepticon guns, and seen to explode (literally. I'm glad that Michal Bay decided to NOT have sprays of human blood from those who were slaughtered in this manner, but that one skull rolling around was a bit much). Sure, I understand that the idea is to show war, and all its evils, and be as realistic as possible (with 40-foot tall shape-shifting robots). The deaths of characters in movies is not something to make me squeamish. Even in the "Transformers" movies (and current cartoon show).

On the contrary, I think it is a good idea, because of the times we live in. Back in 1984, America was not involved in any wars. Sure, kids understood what war was, and that people died, but it was an abstract thing. Now however, with our country involved in a few wars, death of the combatants in fiction, even kids fiction, is almost needed. Too many kids in our country have either lost parents, siblings, or other relations, or they know a peer who has. The fact that people die in wars is not as abstract a concept as it once was, so having characters who are fighting a war die seems to be a natural progression, even in kids entertainment. And, it offers a chance to open the discussion with kids about death without having to have a relative or even a beloved pet die.

But, the purposeful destruction of non-combatants, even if by the "bad guys" seems to be too much. It's like Anakin in "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith". He became evil, and just to cement that in the viewers' minds, the first thing he did was to go and slaughter children. Might as well had him kick a puppy while he was at it, so there was no doubt as to his new status as the "bad guy".

Evil is easy to spot. In "Dark of the Moon" it was in the attempt to go back on the promise of safe passage (setting up the heroic deception of later in the movie). It was in the promise of making humans into slaves (not at all unpredictable, and in fact done many times in the original cartoon series). The blasting of non-combatants "just because" was unnecessary, and, to me as a parent who has kids who want to see this, off-putting.

Another problem I had was with the heroic deception I mentioned a couple of times. In every iteration of Optimus Prime, he has placed the importance of the life of all but his enemies above all else. Hell, in the comics, he once laid down his life because his actions in a virtual competition with his rival Megatron caused the death of non-combatant video game critters. Now I am to think that he would allow people to be killed, just to make a point?

The movie Optimus has done a few things that I just simply cannot reconcile in my head with the Optimus Prime I know as a lifelong geek fanboy. The the first movie he would willingly sacrifice himself to keep the Allspark from Megatron, but such an action would leave humanity undefended against his foe. In this one, he lets humans suffer so they can see how wrong they were about trusting his enemy. Even if all else is the same about Optimus (which it really seems to be), this seems to be something the writers just forget. That, above all, Optimus is all about protecting those weaker than him, not leaving them to the wolves, so to speak. I can't explain this flaw, except that they want Optimus to be a little more "ends justify the means".

But to lifelong fans, we know that he just never believed that. Optimus Prime was always a principled rock. He would never compromise his beliefs, and didn't buy into allowing some to perish in service of the greater good. Better to save all. And that was just one reason I laughed out loud in the theater (I was the only one), when Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy) said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." If you need the other reason why I would laugh at that, then you obviously don't know me.

But I digress (okay, I followed that tangent like a trail of breadcrumbs). With one of two minor issues (one a characterization thing, the other a "let's make something blatant because movie goers are idiots" thing) causing an exception, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" was a thoroughly fun movie. Pretty much the epitome of non-award-winning summer blockbuster.

Because, you know, the only movies worth getting non-technical awards are those that have 18th century period dress, "prithee" in the dialogue, or involve heart-rending tales that are designed to make a Doberman cry.

Intentional cluelessness?

Either that, or Good Morning America gloriously missed a point.

This morning, they aired a segment in which they talked about Disney Channel actress Demi Lovato and her public apology to her fans via social media. I have no idea what she had to apologize for, outside of hearing about her having some sort of fight with a back up dancer or somesuch at a concert. *shrug* I dunno.

I know she stars in a show my kids have watched (and truth be told had a couple of really clever segments. I liked the one in which she and a couple of co-stars played the part of Disney princesses on a "Real Housewives"-type of show. Hi-larious), and I know that Disney is doing all they can to squeeze every cent out of her tween/teen years by having her do a whole pop star thing as well (like they do with almost every actress on any of their shows) before dropping her when she decides to shed her squeeky-clean image (that's a whole other blog right there), but I digress.

The point here is that GMA this morning sees her addressing her fans via social media as "the star taking control" of her re-emergence after being out of the public eye, rather than allowing the traditional media to have a hand in it.

The reason they miss the point is that there is no comparison to Hugh Grant, Jamie Foxx, or any other star that has ever engaged in an all-out mea culpa media campaign.

While the examples I stated above can show up on Leno, Letterman, Dateline, etc to be seen by their fans, tween/teen stars cannot. Their fans don't WATCH Leno, Letterman, etc. Their fans will pay attention to social media like Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube.

It's less that the star involved wants to take control of their own exposure, and more the stars involved want to be seen by their fans, so they are doing what traditional media has failed to do, and recognize that social media is the way to do this.

These young stars and their handlers see that the "old media" just simply doesn't speak to the Internet generation(s). Sure, CBS has Facebook pages, and Leno's monologues can spread like wildfire if there's a funny clip involved, but the vehicle by which such things take place remains the same. Social media.

For years, the national attention span has been dwindling. If it cannot be communicated within a few minutes, as dictated by Youtube limitations, then it is just simply not important enough to know.

While I recognize that this is true, it is sad. That the important news of the day (of which Demi Lovato, or the Royal wedding are NOT) gets lost in quick stories, and the majority of what we laughingly call news is garbage like this. Thousands are dying in what is basically a civil war in Libya, and the only indication that too many Americans have about this is rising gas prices.

But teens know all about Pippa Middleton, an English girl who is sister to a future princess. They know all about Charlie Sheen's mental breakdown, including a video where he is seen drinking from a bottle and waving a machete from a rooftop (video on Youtube).

It seems that the traditional media might need to keep up with social media in order to keep any sort of relevance as those who seek their news online become those who MAKE the news as elected officials, business owners, and the labor force in this country.

Otherwise the United States faces a collapse from within, as did Rome. When people have their bread and circuses, they tend to not worry about what is really going on, leaving those who are making things happen to allow divisions to take hold.

And right now, our young have all the circuses they could possibly want, while the decision makers are divided. History doesn't have to repeat itself, but it sure looks like it is heading in that direction.

And the "old media" is too busy paying attention to the wrong things, and too busy wondering why no one under the age of 30 seems to listen to them, to notice and report it.