Monday, November 28, 2011
Occupy LA Hits The Snooze Button
All citizens of Los Angeles want to do is wake up, go to work, have fun, and live their lives with definition ... the definition they choose to have for their lives. For seven weeks now, a bunch of imported professional agitators set up shop on the 1.5 acre South lawn park at City Hall, in the name of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. All they have been able to accomplish is attract a bunch of homeless, out of work students, and some media attention to the fact that .... and is the only consistent point ... they are there to "Occupy". All other potential political points to be made are subservient to the concept To Occupy.
Civilized cities call what these people have been doing in terms of "Occupy" is to trespass.
Today, this morning, we citizens of Los Angeles have been treated to wall-to-wall television coverage of the Los Angeles Police attempting to restore some order to this trespassing hoard. The Occupy crowd was prepared for a confrontation of eviction because, after seven weeks, the Mayor decided that trespassing will finally not be tolerated on the South lawn park area of the Los Angeles City Hall. With a 72 hour notice that the laws would be enforced at 12:01am PT Monday morning, all the people the Occupy Movement could muster, what with the imported protesters from San Diego, Oakland, and other cities was an estimated 700 to 1,200 people on the South Lawn.
The crowd, wanting to create more tension, spilled on to the street surrounding City Hall, and for about six hours, the Los Angeles Police Department packed the area with personnel dressed in "tactical response gear" (the Occupy Movement wanted the media gathered to report "riot gear"). The LAPD, after broadcasting via bullhorn that the streets will be cleared at 5:00am PT, started to move people off of the streets. Some shouting ensued, objects were thrown (a couple of bamboo poles/spears and bottles), and about five people were arrested and removed from the scene.
One of the news reporters stated that this Occupy LA encampment represented the largest gathering of Occupy protesters in the nation. So wrapped up was this reporter at romancing this event, she stated erroneously that this started seven weeks ago and had grown into this major protest. If this were the Tea Party, and folks were given 72 hours to gather at a specific park, there would be far more than an estimated 700 to 1,200 people standing around. In fact with a seven week notice from Glenn Beck, the Tea Party folks were able to amass over 750,000 people on the Mall in Washington D.C. prior to the 2010 elections.
The television coverage, after about an hour of dedicated Occupy coverage, with helicopter shots and on the street interviews, has resumed to its normal morning news coffee talk. The weather here is Santa Ana wind beautiful and the temperature is expected to hit the low 80's.
As for the LAPD, they seem to have employed a strategy of "show up and wait" with intent of wearing out the cell phone batteries of the Occupy LA protester's iPhones and boring them to death with the intensity of presence.
Time to hit the snooze button.
<article first appeared as Occupy LA Hits The Snooze Button at Technorati>
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Post CNN Debate: The Trouble With Gingrich/Romney And Conservative Reality
Just as in the process of panning for Gold, debates help to have the heavy metal collect at the bottom of the pan. The 11th debate between GOP candidates for president of the United States sponsored by CNN and two of the most recognized conservative policy institutions, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and The Heritage Foundation, helped to have the heavy Conservative metal show itself at the bottom of the pan and, on immigration, Newt's (and by comparison - Mitt's) metal began to pour out of the pan.
Newt Gingrich is pithy and well tested in the public arena. He generally gives great answers to many of the problems a (as polls show time and again) politically Center-Right citizen populous confronts in a Big Government world. However, when one begins to peel away the layers of a Gingrich onion, one finds a person who has made his career on governing from a "Ruling Class" and liberal position that government can and should effect people's lives over the Rule-Of-Law, the Bill Of Rights, and the Constitution.
Let us take a simple comparison between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney on the issue of a health care system based on a government mandate. Mitt Romney has trouble with Conservatives as being "Ruling Class" and liberal because he implemented "Romney Care" in Massachusetts that many say the Democrats based the national "Obama Care" mandated health care law on. It was only a few months ago that Newt Gingrich was comfortable with a national mandate for health care but Mitt Romney has always come down on the side of a States solution to health care and that a government mandate for a health care system had no place in this country. On this point, Newt was for a large federal government solution, Mitt felt that any health care solution applied to a populous, should come exclusively at the state government level - this is a more Conservative position, not great ... but more Conservative.
Last night, Newt Gingrich articulated a position on immigration that may completely knock him out of the top tier of candidates for a Republican President of the United States, and rightfully so.
This excerpted and edited from Fox News -
Gingrich on Top of GOP Polls, Takes Big Risk Articulating Illegal Immigration Policy
Published November 23, 2011 | FoxNews.com
The Republican presidential hopeful, who has sprung to the top of the polling charts in the past two weeks, warned against a policy that proposes deporting illegals who have been in the country for 25 years. Gingrich said he would not "expel" those who have come to the United States illegally if it happened decades ago.
And in an appeal to family values, he said long-residing illegal aliens shouldn't become citizens, but neither should they be torn apart from their families.
"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families which have been here a quarter century and I'm prepared to take the heat for saying let's be humane in enforcing the law," he said.
Okay, so let's say anyone of us legal citizens did not pay their taxes for 25 years, but we were good citizens and good neighbors ... would the IRS just ignore the tax laws and not prosecute us and throw us in jail?
We were guilty of breaking the law for 25 years and now we have to pay the penalty ... would our family be able to join us in jail?
No, but those people who have been breaking the immigration law for 25 years, with nice families, been good neighbors, and good citizens can have their families join them when they leave the country if the current immigration laws were enforced.
In a 2007 Meet the Press interview, Mitt Romney outlined his views on illegal immigration and states the 12 million, or so, illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship (which allows for voting). During last night's debate, Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, only advocated for legality through amnesty, not citizenship ... a more Conservative position.
Without parsing, the "Gold Standard" for Center-Right voters has been, and will always be, the Rule-Of-Law, the Bill Of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. Sadly, both Mitt Romney (with his lead in the polls, experience in business, and government leadership) and Newt Gingrich (with all of his smarts, historical Speaker of the House accomplishment/perspective, and articulatory gifts) are not members ... on immigration ... of the Gold Standard and should be slipping from the pan.
Up next: The CNN Debate from Arizona, sponsored by the Republican Party of Arizona - November 30, 2011.
<First published as Post CNN Debate: The Trouble With Gingrich/Romney And Conservative Reality at Technorati>
Sunday, November 13, 2011
“The [CBS/National Journal] Commander-In-Chief Debate” From South Carolina
With the focus on National Security and Foreign policy, CBS News and National Journal partners with the South Carolina GOP to present the first Republican Presidential Primary debate on broadcast television.
The debate, the second in the last four days, is scheduled to be broadcast live for one hour only [given the local schedule] starting at 8:00 pm ET and is to be broadcast on all CBS stations nationally.
“The South Carolina Republican Party is excited to be a partner on the first nationally televised, broadcast network debate of the Presidential Primary season,” said Chad Connelly, Chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. “Presidential candidates and Republican activists across our nation know South Carolina’s historic tradition of successfully choosing the Republican nominee, a tradition uninterrupted for over thirty years. We look forward to the debate on Wofford College’s beautiful campus and continuing to demonstrate that in South Carolina, ‘We Pick Presidents.’”
The expectation is that these topics of National Security and Foreign Policy should play to the benefit of former Utah Governor, John Huntsman (also, former ambassador to China for the Obama Administration, he also served as ambassador to Singapore under George H.W. Bush and as a Deputy Trade Representative under George W. Bush.), Former leader of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, and Former Senator, Rick Santorum. The rest of the field, it is assumed, will be coming in with a crash course understanding of the issues and there lays the entertainment ... and the challenge of moderators, Scott Pelley (anchor and managing editor of the CBS EVENING NEWS WITH SCOTT PELLEY) and Major Garrett (former Fox News standout and current congressional correspondent for National Journal).
A short but possibly sweet debate #10 for the Republican field of presidential/Commander-In-Chief hopefuls.
In order for all to see the debate in total, we were instructed by Scott Pelley to see the last 30 minutes of the 90 minute debate by going to one's computer and log on to CBS.com.
The biggest contention with this format and debate is the adherence to time. Of course, Rick Santorum has trouble with this right away because he gets bogged down in the tall grass with describing policy.
Huntsman's first answer is short and probably the most popular. He looks to isolation and extraction from current involvement save some small force for intelligence and training the government forces of the country we are leaving.
Gingrich hits the problem on the head recognizing this problem is much larger and complex than the way we are addressing it. Then Gingrich goes on to make the case for defending Christians throughout the world from Muslim persecution.
Perry turns the focus back to Foreign Aid and spending as the first issue that informs our foreign policy.
Bachmann on Pakistan - A difficult area and harbors terrorism. They have Nuclear weapon and worldwide connections are aligned against Israel ... we need to stand with Israel.
Gingrich agrees with the Perry approach starting with Foreign Aid at zero every year and have countries that we currently support argue for its maintenance.
Santorum on the Nukes - Pakistan must be handled as a friend because they have the bomb. It is important to keep a solid and stable relationship. Money on foreign aid is spent here in this country first on the manufacture of weapons before they are used to secure our relationships.
Gingrich stiff arms Major Garrett on a question relating to how he characterized Romney [as a good manager] on a national radio show - Laura Ingraham | 9:00am to 12:00pm ET - by shaking his head NO! "We are here to replace Barack Obama" as president and we all would be better than the current president.
Parry makes a pitch as being a decision maker [over others hopefuls] as Commander-In-Chief.
Bachmann - Obama has the ACLU managing the activities of the CIA.
Paul - Water boarding is torture. Torture is uncivilized.
Huntsman - Recites his resume then comes down on the side that water boarding as torture.
Pelley then asks Romney about Obama's killing of an American born terrorist in Yeman by an unmanned missile ... Was Obama correct in this act?
Pelley begins to argue with the people taking part in the debate about the Rule-Of-Law. Gingrich fires back that individual people who are creating war with America are defined by a panel as "Enemy Combatants" and therefore not subject to America's Rule-Of-Law (to uproarious crowd applause in agreement with Newt's point of order).
Major Garrett gains control of the direction of the debate by asking Foreign Trade questions of Romney and Perry.
Pelley allows himself a follow up question with Romney on Foreign Trade ... taking precious time away from other respondents.
Huntsman - We do not need a trade war with China. We need to engage the younger, internet connected generations in China on issues of trade for them to have an effect on the Ruling Class ... Author comment - this does not make sense.
A Twitter question asks of Gov. Perry if Israel would start at zero in foreign aid? Perry said YES and that this should be applied to the budgets of all of the Federal Departments he had trouble naming in an earlier debate.
BREAK - most people throughout the nation either miss this part of the debate or they tune in to CBS.com on their computers.
In Palm Springs, the affiliate cut away for local news and so the internet came into play.
There was a problem with the transmission and it seems that the internet connection did not have enough bandwidth to handle the demand – choppy video and consequently, choppy audio. Further investigation found that this bandwidth problem was actually with the main server contracted for use by CBS ... REALLY?!
CBS is a bush-league outfit to schedule a Republican presidential debate, title it “The Commander-In-Chief Debate”, and broadcast only a portion of the debate on a national basis, then provide inadequate internet service to carry the balance of the debate.
Hey CBS, why sponsor and hold a debate if you are not serious enough to carry the whole debate?
If this were a Democrat Political Party debate with eight contenders, would you have only enough television broadcast time slot bandwidth to carry a percentage of the whole debate and after debate spin?
Why on Earth would the South Carolina GOP [and the NRCC] agree to such a half-handed set-up … is this the best they could negotiate?
Monday, November 07, 2011
Baylor University's Sponsored Illegal Immigrant Activism ... Sparks Response
Hispanic leaders in Texas are joining a student’s fight against a political culture they say seeks to pigeon-hole minorities as reliably liberal. Daniel Cervera, a senior at Baylor University, filed legislation at his school’s student government in response to what he describes as selective enforcement of university policy. “The school essentially sponsored a speaking platform to an illegal immigrant enrolled in our law school, who then used that platform to speak in favor of civil unrest to push a political agenda,” said Cervera.
Greg Torres, a member of the student senate, agrees to the proposition the University’s decision to sponsor illegal immigration activism violates established policy and precedent, “It’s embarrassing for all Hispanic students whose families have worked hard to make a name for themselves, as opposed to doing it illegally and in a way that university policy clearly opposes.”
One university official defended the school's decision claiming that Cervera’s proposal threatens to stifle debate on campus. Dr. Elizabeth Palacios, Baylor University’s Dean for Student Development, is quoted in the November 3, 2011 edition of the campus newspaper with the following, “As a university, we are never going to be Tier 1 if we censor thoughts that are incongruent [with our beliefs].”
Garrett referenced a report from the March 4, 2011 edition of the campus newspaper, with Palacios defending the private Christian school’s decision to deny the Sexual Identity Forum, a GLBT-advocacy group, an official charter.
“When it’s apparent that there is a stance being taken by the language, by the spirit or by the intent of a group, then it takes on a different purpose and it takes on a different slant,” said Dr. Palacios, explaining the school’s decision to deny a student group charter.
Duke Machado, president of the Hispanic Republican Club, says Cervera’s action marks the importance of minorities becoming more independently engaged. “It needs to start with us,” said Machado, “It’s important that minorities aggressively counter abuses of racial identity for political gain.”
Felipe Reyna, a retired appeals court justice and Baylor Law graduate, also weighed in on the matter, “For a Baylor Law student to speak favorably of engaging in unlawful activity to push a political view is really shameful. I sincerely hope university administrators will rethink their decision to defend sponsoring such an event.”
(ht: Baylor YCT)
We, at MAXINE, believe it is time for all citizens to embrace the concept of defending legal immigration and the right of citizens to pour value back into the proposition of actually being a citizen of the country they wish to have protected and defended.
<Article first seen as Baylor University's Sponsored Illegal Immigrant Activism ... Sparks Response at Technorati>
Tea Party vs Occupy Movement - Boston Herald's Confusing Take
Over the weekend, the Boston Herald posted an article that tried to make the case of commonality between the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy (wherever) Movement. The proposition that the article tried to make from a national poll with 1,005 American adults (no background on demographic ... assume random) was that people were becoming tired of public political activism.
While the title of the article delivered a direct comparison and linkage of the Occupy Movement to the Tea Party Movement, the first five paragraphs were devoted to the Occupy Movement, the next three paragraphs were devoted to the Tea Party Movement, and the balance of the analysis placed the two movements side-by-side with the conclusion as follows:
This excerpted and edited from the Boston Herald -
Thumbs down for Occupy, Tea Party in new nationwide poll
By Joe Battenfeld - Originally posted November 6, 2011
The Occupy Wall Street movement may be starting to lose its luster with the American public, with four in ten now saying they have an unfavorable view of the protests, a new nationwide UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll shows.
But the UMass Lowell/Herald poll shows one clear trend — that Americans have a more negative view of the Tea Party movement than the Wall Street protests.
More than 71 percent of all American adults have an unfavorable impression of the federal government, including 72 percent of Occupy Wall Street supporters and 86 percent of Tea Party sympathizers. And about three-quarters of all Americans say that political action committees and large corporations have too much influence in politics.
This indicates the most successful strategy for winning office in 2012 would be running against both Washington and Wall Street — a strategy already being tested in Massachusetts by Democratic Senate challenger Elizabeth Warren and the current incumbent, Republican Sen. Scott Brown.
But while Tea Party and Occupy supporters may share some views, they don’t have much else in common, according to the UMass Lowell/Herald poll.
Nearly two-thirds of Tea Party sympathizers describe their political views as conservative, while just 14 percent of Occupy Wall Street backers call themselves conservative.
A third of those who have a favorable view of the Occupy movement say they are liberals, while just 5 percent of Tea Party backers describe themselves as liberal.
The following poll was featured in the sidebar on the right side of the Boston Herald article:
Where do you stand on the Occupy and Tea Party movements?
27% - Occupy campers annoy me
14% - I back what Occupy has to say
7% - The Tea Party annoys me
36% - I’m all for what the Tea Party stands for
4% - I like them both
12% - I dislike them both
Total Votes: 2,018
What if the poll answer choices were arranged a little differently as in like-with-like questions:
36% - I’m all for what the Tea Party stands for
14% - I back what Occupy has to say
7% - The Tea Party annoys me
27% - Occupy campers annoy me
4% - I like them both
12% - I dislike them both
When arranged in this way, one comes away with a completely different picture of the attitudes of the two thousand plus Boston Herald reader respondents.
For those having a positive view of either approach, just add "I like them both at 4%" to the affirmative question posed for each movement.
For those having a negative view of either approach, just add "I dislike them both at 12%" to the negative question posed for each movement.
Tea Party Movement
Positive - 40% / Negative - 26%
(66% response attention)
Positive - 18% / Negative - 39%
(57% response attention)
TP Positive - 40% | OM Negative - 39% = 79% similar attitude camp
OM Positive - 18% | TP Negative - 26% = 44% similar attitude camp
Sorry, it just seems that the Boston Herald has its focus on the wrong set of information numbers and thereby performs a disservice to its readers with the conclusions they choose to highlight and put forward. The media seems bent on using polls to shape opinion as opposed to inform opinion.
Why doesn't the Boston Herald look at their own reader respondent poll which seems to be as vetted and directed (with twice as many responses - over 2,000) as the poll they used for the development of the original article that ultimately tries to paint the Senate seat contest between Democratic Senate challenger (OM attitude camp) Elizabeth Warren and the current incumbent, Republican Sen. (TP attitude camp) Scott Brown as ... wait for it ... a toss-up.
A deeper look at the sidebar poll seems to suggest a different projected outlook.
<Article first appeared as Tea Party vs Occupy Movement - Boston Herald's Confusing Take at Technorati>
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Homes Of The Progressive And Occupy Protest Minded
If one reviews the public information available through arrest records, one finds out that folks who get arrested at an Occupy Movement protest rally might be good candidates for a reality TV revival of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
In an investigative report and slideshow originally issued by the Daily Caller, it becomes pretty eye-opening to see just who the self-called 99% of the people really are if arrest records are any gauge.
District of Columbia: An Occupy Wall Street protester arrested on October 1 — presumably penniless and from a blue-collar family — lives in this $850,000 home in the nation’s capital. Caption and Image Credit: Daily Caller
This excerpted and edited from the Daily Caller -
NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury
By Will Rahn - Published: 12:45 AM 11/02/2011 | Updated: 10:32 AM 11/02/2011
For each of the 984 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested in New York City between September 18 and October 15, police collected and filed an information sheet recording the arrestee’s name, age, sex, criminal charge, home address and — in most cases — race. The Daily Caller has obtained all of this information from a source in the New York City government.
Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States.
Some of the homes where “Occupy” arrestees reside, viewed through Google Maps and the Multiple Listing Service real estate database, are the definition of opulence.
Texas: This mansion has five bedrooms and, from the looks of it, plenty of space for a drum circle. Its economically disadvantaged occupant was arrested while “occupying” Wall Street on October 5. Caption and Image Credit: Daily Caller
Using county assessors and online resources such as Zillow.com, TheDC estimated property values and rents for 87 percent of the homes and 59 percent of the apartments listed in the arrest records.
Even in the nation’s currently depressed housing market, at least 95 of the protesters’ residences are worth approximately $500,000 or more. (RELATED SLIDESHOW: Opulent homes of the ’99 percent’)
The median monthly rent for those living in apartments whose information is readily available is $1,850.
Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. The median age of “Occupy” protesters taken into custody is 27 years.
New York: The pricey brownstone with the red door on a street where homes go for $850,000? It’s home to an impoverished Occupy Wall Street protester arrested on October 15. Caption and Image Credit: Daily Caller
Exposed to this type of eye-opening information, one could easily project that this Occupy Movement is NOT what the protesters say it is about. This protest action is just Progressive Chaos Creation 101 for a big, bigger, biggest federal government thanks to the SEIU, AFL-CIO, any public sector union, community organizing groups formally known as ACORN, and the Democrat Political Party. This is just another episode in the Lifestyles of the Progressive And Occupy Protest Minded rich people!
Socialistic "champagne wishes and caviar dreams" ... where is Robin Leach when we need him?
<Article first published as Homes Of The Progressive And Occupy Protest Minded at Technorati>