I found this statement of solidarity with the Occupy Los Angeles movement on Facebook, and it incensed me.
For me, the hardest part of attending Stanford was not getting in. It was finding a way to pay for it. My parents were proud that I had won admission to a prestigious university, but they were terrified of the cost due to their modest teachers’ salaries. With two younger siblings, their funding my Stanford education was simply not an option.
I told them not to worry. My ROTC scholarship would fund 80% of the tuition, and two other merit scholarships would cover all but about $200 a year for the other 20%.
They reluctantly agreed, and I flew to a college campus nearly 3,000 miles away.
I have been on my own from the age of 18.
But I had it “easy.” My low six-figure college education was cheap compared to what it would be today. Continue reading →
Suffice it to say, my coverage of the movement has been anything but balanced.
However, I am sympathetic to the movement’s argument that there is too much corporate financing of election campaigns. I would contend that union-financing of elections is similarly egregious. I personally would ban private institutional and individual donations to political campaigns entirely. In its place, I would establish a public fund available to both political parties, in equal allocations.
The main wrinkle to this proposal is that third-party candidates would lose out. Therefore, the fund would have to allow for a process to accommodate these interests as well. I just don’t know how to achieve this solution in an equitable manner at this point.
In the interest of a more balanced approach to the OWS movement, one progressive blogger recommended that I post the following video. He believes it might provide readers with a more sympathetic view of the movement. I disagree, primarily because the behavior of the people in the video seems far too communitarian for my tastes. The video also shows the group organizing via modern mobile devices, which the very corporate interests OWS opposes have made possible. The same progressive blogger has answered the second criticism with the following comment on Whatever Works:
“This argument gets used a lot about the environmental movement, too. I don’t think it’s fair in either case. People are part of the society they live in. There isn’t really a feasible way for them to opt out of corporate America and still live within their homes and families. It’s difficult to impossible to abstain from corporate America, even for the Unabomber.”
Either way, you can decide whether this video via The Maddow Blog and MoveOn.org inspires or annoys you.
“If we stay up all night without sleeping bags we’re going to get sick and we’re going to look crazy on TV…Activist burnout is a real thing. If you can, take one night to sleep at a friend’s house and rest up.”
The Occupy Wall Street protestors face an odd dilemma on Friday. Because Zuccotti Park is private property owned by Brookfield Properties, the demonstrators must abide by the owners’ rules, with one stipulation. Due to its zoning laws, Brookfield is required to keep the park open to the public at all times. However, it has the right to impose “reasonable” rules of conduct.
On Friday, Brookfield Properties intends to enforce this right. Continue reading →
Today, Foreclosure on Wall Street West conducted a demonstration against Wells Fargo Bank. The protestors also blocked customers from accessing their funds. Overall, the protest seemed quite small, as far as San Francisco protests go.
I planned to conduct some ad hoc interviews with participants following the march. Sadly, they were all gone by the time I got off work (sigh).
That said, I’ve attached some photos I captured of today’s march to give people a sense of its size and scope.
In a recent post, he suggested that “Wallbaggers” would be an apt label for the movement, to rival the negative connotations with the term “Teabagger.”
For those not in the “know”, tea-bagging is a reference to a horribly lewd sexual act; suffice it to say, it is an insultingly crass label for an entire movement of people.
Since my favorite Canadian blogger has brought this issue to my attention, I think I have arrived at the perfect label for this nascent movement. This term simultaneously captures its amorphous demands and entitlement attitude, and also has a similarly lewd connotation to “Teabaggers”:
People engaging in sexual demonstration at OWS protest, Source: toddkinsey.com; Note: This photo replaces a prior image of a young male defecating on a burning American flag that toddkinsey.com erroneously attributed to OWS protestors. The male in question defiled the American flag at a 2007 anti-war protest.
Some have argued that the Occupy Wall Street protests are simply the left’s version of the Tea Party.
I could not agree more. Only Occupy Wall Street is a kind of bizarro Tea Party. Continue reading →
Instead, they are now proposing a five percent surtax on incomes of more than $1 million a year to pay for President Obama’s $447 billion “Stimulus Lite” bill.
As far as I am concerned, this class warfare rhetoric will go nowhere in preventing another recession or creating American jobs.
Earlier this week, I came up the following plan, which I think may actually help reverse American job losses and stimulate the U.S. economy.
My seven-point plan is not perfect. After all, it only took me about an hour to create. However, I believe it is better than any other proposal currently on the table. Continue reading →
Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands), Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Update: Click here for the most recent jobs statistics.
On the first Friday of every month, I update the unemployment numbers so that I can compare the unemployment rate under President George W. Bush with the unemployment rate under President Obama at that time. The genesis of this ritual began when I felt compelled to respond to some left-leaning sites that were comparing Obama’s first two years and four months in office with Bush’s last and worst economic year (the above chart shows the most recent incarnation of this narrative).
Things don’t look so good for President Obama’s chances in November 2012. According to Intrade.com, a site that makes prediction markets for hundreds of real-world events, investors believe that Obama currently has a 47% chance of being re-elected in 2012. This number marks a steady progression down from a peak of ~70% in May.
Why should one care about this outcome? It turns out that people are investing real money on these events. And people tend to be more thoughtful about their decision-making when being wrong means losing money.
Here’s how it works. If I believe Obama will be re-elected in 2012, I can buy 1 share for $4.70, which is 10 times the implied market probability that he will be re-elected. If he wins, my profit is $10.00 minus $4.70. If I am wrong, my profit is a negative $4.70.
Alternatively, I can short the outcome that President Obama is re-elected. If he loses, I gain a $4.70 profit. If he wins, I lose $5.30.
It seems the “smart money” is currently betting against Obama.
“These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.”
— Lloyd J. Hart, precocious and Jefferson-esque author of Occupy Wall Street Demands
I recently discovered this list of demands from an Occupy Wall Street protestor. Here is a quick and dirty summary of his demands, along with some sarcastic commentary from yours truly. Continue reading →
Reflections of a Rational Republican 