Bad, bad analogy brother ...

I dont know what "mainstream" outlets you've been watching, but both MSNBC & FOX have dedicated hours of footage and coverage. And here's what I've gathered thus far ...

The "occupy" movement has spawned 12 accusations of rape; 74 accusations of sexual assault (these are official police filings mind you); 2 deaths; multiple drug possession charges; and over 1000 arrests. They have vandalized public and private property, including a trash can through a window of whole foods. Deficated in public, including #2 on top of a squad car. The average participant is college educated. Multiple, MULTIPLE interviews of "leaders" on MSNBC (they seem to like Al Sharpton's show) have in the clearest of terms stated this is not about "reforming" what we have (the republic and capitalism), but "burning it down" and starting over. "Revolution not reform!" is the common cry. The vast food, telecommunications, PR classes, and newspapers (yes, they have sophisticated levels of each) are funded primarily by unions & a few uber wealthy donors. They also have numerous celebrity endorsements, including Rosanne Barr who said those who disagree should be given the opportunity to attend a reeducation camp, but if need be, beheaded (this from a woman worth $50 million). And a common complaint (probably THE most common after "eat the rich") is their distress over their student loan debt. And that's before you get to the multiple speakers espousing the virtues of communism.

Does that sound like Coxey's Army? You tell these kids that they have to march, on foot, across Pennsylvania and they'll turn up their Ipods and go back to chanting "death to big corporations."

The true dividing line in this country isn't between the 99 and 1%. It's between the 53% of us that pay taxes, and the 47% that don't.

Coxey's Army

A phrase that my grandparents used to throw around and that I have adopted over the course of my life is "... we've enough food here to feed Coxey's Army!" In short, it means that far too much food has been prepared for the people that will eat. It really reflects just how old my Dad's folks were... Coxey's last march on Washington occurred in 1914, but must have had a huge impact on society at large for the term to remain in common usage well into the 30s and 40s.

Jacob Coxey was a business man and politician from Ohio who, in 1894 (during the worst economic depression the country had ever seen outside of the Great Depression of 1929) and again in 1914, marched 500 unemployed men from central Ohio, through Pennsylvania and into Washington DC, gaining followers all along the way. The crux of their protest was that the Federal Government should enact a public works program to put unemployed people to work on a national road system, pumping much needed cash into the pockets of providers that had no unemployment insurance or Federal relief programs to assist them during a period of national unemployment that reached 19%.

The "Panic of 1893" was the second half of a longer era of general economic depression that began in 1873 and didn't actually end until the start of WWI. The depression was rooted in protectionist policies and Federal monetary actions that severely limited the Fed's ability to spend money without raising taxes and tariffs. As many as 22% of all banks in the country failed during this crisis, taking as much as 40% of all the savings within those banks with them. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were suddenly without jobs and without any sort of savings... mostly out west, but in the heartland, too. Bankruptcies and foreclosures reached heights that wouldn't be seen again until 1930, and had never been seen before. The price of gold on the global market (although the price was fixed here in the US) skyrocketed, and the price of silver (the monetary standard of international trade) plummeted.

Coxey and his bunch knew that increased taxes (payroll, sales or otherwise) would dampen the recovery, and they knew that there was no liquidity that could be pumped into the economy the way there is today because there was no central banking agency of the Federal government (today, we have the Federal Reserve). They were not asking for entitlements (per say) so much as asking for temporary public employment that could see them through the depression without undue hardship or even starvation. Both Presidents Cleveland and McKinley denied this logic and refused the efforts of Coxey.

Why do I bring this up?

The parallels are not perfect, but this is strikingly similar to the "Occupy" protests of today. Granted, the "Occupy" folks want less corporate influence and greater wealth equality through Government action... rather than public employment... but the efforts and reactions are surprisingly mirrored, I feel. Both protest efforts blame bad government policy and corrupt big business dealings on the economic crisis (both with some validity), and neither is getting a whole lot of consideration from the mainstream media. The general population seems a bit ambivalent toward the "Occupy" effort, as they did in '94 and '14 respectively.

Are there any conclusions that can be drawn from this?

I'm just curious ...

At what point does the Tea Party, in each locale that "Occupy Wall Street" exists, start asking for a refund on all the permits they paid for?

The CNN National Security Debate

This was a telling episode in the ongoing drama series that is the GOP Presidential race...

Huntsman did a fantastic job of asserting himself over Romney, and Cain did a fantastic job of making himself an even bigger non-factor in the race by forgetting Wolf Blitzer's name.

Santorum needs to learn that agreeing with everyone else in the debate is NOT a good way to make yourself a stand-out candidate for President. He agreed with Bachmann, Romney and Huntsman over and over again, never giving even a small indication of what he would do different than what they are advocating... with the possible exception of Ron Paul's extremist views, which he countered twice. Since none of the others agreed with Paul, either... this isn't a big win for him at all.

Ron Paul... the man is amazing. His pleading tone that he takes whenever he speaks of keeping America's nose out of foreign problems is SO unbelievably juvenile that I am amazed he got even the applause that he did (more than any other candidate on the panel). His insistence that we were never attacked, and that there is no threat outside of what we have brought on ourselves via foreign policy is almost obtuse. He epitomizes the pre-WWI isolationist views that cost America and the West so much after 1918... fight when attacked, intervene when Congress approves, keep business and money only within our own borders. In this day and age, can anyone seriously think that the US can prosper WITHOUT a strong international presence? Can anyone seriously think that that strong international presence won't need a strong foreign policy and a stronger US military to protect its interests abroad?

I'm so disappointed that the only really strong showing at this debate (in my opinion) was someone I can't stand... John Huntsman. He embarrassed Romney and Perry, stood his own very well against Gingrich, and showed a surprising (to me, anyway) grasp of how important it is to have ideas ready and waiting to present to the questioners at the debates.

Ahhh... Beck...

I haven't heard his show in months. His punditry (is that a word?) is so far outside of what I think as realistic that I have taken to spending all my radio time with ESPN and the Catholic Channel.

However, your news that he has endorsed Bachmann is no surprise to me. He wants (so badly) to be able to support a Libertarian candidate... but he can't reconcile his own foreign policy understanding with the daydreams and delusions of people like Barr and Ron Paul.

Gingrich has made himself irrelevant, as has Cain. Romney is simply running as the "I'm not Obama" candidate... and the last time that strategy worked we ended up with Carter. I had relegated Bachmann to the same level of "what was"... but she might be the last hope of the majority of Tea Party supporters.

Ron Paul is simply too far out there to be taken even a little bit seriously... yet he is a poll leader in Iowa right now! Were that man to win Iowa, and then go on to be even top three in New Hampshire... then I'd start checking the temperature in Hell to make sure the water pipes weren't in danger.

I think Bachmann is simply too much of the GOP now. Sure, she talks about cutting deficits and eliminating waste... but she is talking about ending Obama's policies, which does not equal the same thing. She can talk about ending the Department of Education all she wants, but she won't do it any more than Reagan did in two terms, either. EPA, FEMA, Interior, Labor... they are as safe as can be in a Bachmann administration, I promise you. She'll roll taxes back to 2008 (which is a start), but nothing more. More importantly, she won't win Congress' help any better than Clinton did after '94 and Carter did through his whole term.

In short, she isn't giving me anything all the others are giving me, too: cut spending, reduce government, lower taxes, strengthen our military. The same mantra we've heard from every GOP candidate since 1972... and without a single original idea to back it up.

Top it off with the very real possibility that, even as unpopular as Obama is right now... she might not be able to beat him in a general election. The status quo is always preferable to the unknown, and I'm kind of afraid that much of her promises and visions fall into the wildly "unknown" catagory.

And the endorsement goes to...

Well, I can take heart at least that this site will likely again jump to life once the presidential campaign begins in earnest... which is around the corner.

Today Beck decided he would forgoe what he, & all hosts of the top tier, usually do. Namely, abstaining from endorsements within the Primary. His choice - Representative Michelle Bachmann.

I have long said that Beck's overall media presence (radio, tv, & print - now owning his own publishing co), was greater than that of Rush, Hannity, et al. And certainly greater than the standard television & print media outlets (his online television network now has more paid subscribers than Oprah's channel has viewers). We shall soon see if Bachmann will benefit. Perry & Cain are imploding (Cain's getting baffled by where & what Lybia is surpassed his maddening abortion take), & while Gingrich is coming on strong I think overall Bachmann has an opening given conservative Republicans still regard Romney as the "if no one else shows up" choice. Lets see what she.can do with it.

My thoughts...

Just a rambling rant to try and generate some activity here...

On PSU:

I heard Sandusky's interview with Costas... and that is one twisted individual. When asked if he was a pedophile, he said "No." When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys, he gave a long answer and had to be brought back on track by Costas to say No. The man might not think he is doing anything wrong... but he is. He needs real help.

Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, met with the President about a new "committee" that the USCCB organized called the Defense of Religious Liberty Committee. I'm delighted to see Archbishop Dolan making the effort of the Church to end abortion and curb the trend of States legitimizing same-sex marriages by making it a "defense of liberty". Too long have traditional Christian values been seen by the public and the media as infringements on liberty, rather than liberties in and of themselves. I must hear the "call to prayer" over public address systems in the Detroit suburbs... but I cannot look at a Nativity scene in a public park, or a statue of the Ten Commandments in a town square. My kids can wear Che t-shirts, but not t-shirts with Christ's face on them. Who's liberty's are being infringed?

And the Green Bay Packers?

Wow. That's it. Wow.

"Second Mile"

That's how I had it figured... you don't need an explicit law to fire, turn in, or otherwise remove an accused pedophile, especially with first hand witnesses. If you combine the 1998 and 2002 incidents, those alone would be enough to (at the very least, assuming you're concerned with being sued if the accusations are proven false), put the assistant coach on paid administrative leave as an official investigation was conducted.

Given that fact, either Joe Pa knew and should be fired, or he didn't know (I agree, impossible) and should be fired as incompetent (an adjective which never before applied to Paterno). Being fired has a different threshold then being prosecuted. And while Paterno may have not met the latter, I think it's reasonable for the trustees to claim he did meet the former.

My subject title refers to Sandusky's charity organization. The very organization which apparently gave him access to young children. I just heard at top of the hour CBS Radio News that the president of that charity has resigned and a second charity, based out of New York, has come forth to announce an investigation. Apparently, in coordination with Second Mile, they sent children to bunk at Sandusky's home as they attended Second Mile events. You're right, this is going to get much, much worse.

As I was thinking more about this whole disgusting affair something occured to me, and it's the part that bothers me the most about behavior of the PSU staff involved: Sandusky is a predator, and his particular vulgar predilection is incurable. Pedophiles don't just "stop." Joe Pa, the President, the athletic coordinator, the campus security chief, and anyone else in the loop at PSU all knew why Sandusky was being made to quietly "retire" a few years back (and in fact were directly responsible for that chosen course of action). The inescapable conclusion is they were convinced - to the point of removing him - that he was committing sex acts with children. And since they allowed him to just walk away they are responsible for each and every criminal act Sandusky may have committed between his retirement and his indictment. I other words, they didn't have the authority to fire him from his charity, did they? Meaning he was still presumably affiliated with that charity, to one degree or another, and had access to kids. Right? My point being, if you have enough evidence to convince you that an employee must be fired over pedophilia, then you have enough evidence to go to the police. You don't just let him walk away, especially when he has a charity that affords him ready access to children! If you're a member of the board of trustees and you're looking at that, combined with the fact that Paterno was a primary shot caller (if not "the" primary), then Joe Pa has to go if for no other reason then he can no longer be trusted to make executive decisions.

By the way, and I say this not in jest but rather because it is news worthy... some years back Sandusky wrote a book based primarily on his "charity" work. The title of the book?

Touched.

One more thing...

There is a factor in this PSU situation that I think some forget (not Ryan... just "some"):

The sacred trust that educators are held to.

Penn State University has a sacred trust. It's primary role is as an institution of higher learning, where young minds are molded and broadened into more capable men and women ready to lead the world in action, thoughts and words. This is true of any learning institution, from pre-school to the highest level of graduate study.

The staff and teachers of this University must lead by example, and they cannot be guided and directed solely by the "letter of the law" simply because no body of law is ever 100% complete. It is impossible. If they cannot be guided and directed by purely "legal" aspects of the society they function in, then a moral and ethical standard must also be maintained and followed, strictly and completely.

Perhaps Paterno was acting within the legal framework established by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (of which the University is an departmental organization)... but one cannot deny that if that legal framework fails to adequately protect and defend the most helpless among society (in this case, pre-teen children), then that society can expect those associated with the University to follow a greater, broader framework of responsibility based on general principles of moral and ethical standards.

If Paterno did suspect what Sandusky was, then he failed to make sure he was removed entirely from the football program, its staff and students, and the University in general. That might not be spelled out in the legal framework of his position at the University... but it should be understood in a moral and ethical sense by any right-thinking individual hold that position.

If Paterno did NOT suspect or know anything about Sandusky (patently impossible, according to the grand jury testimony)... then he damn well should have, given the level of control and authority he had over that program, and indeed, the entire PSU campus.

Perhaps this was Paterno's one and only "bad judgement call"... but it was "bad" enough to injure and put at risk at least 11 (and counting) children over the course of the last 16 years... and these are only the kids that are allegedly abused while ON PSU property by Sandusky.

I think the right call was made. Paterno had to go. Period.

So sad...

And I'm not even a Penn State fan.

However, having become immersed in this nightmare that is the PSU child abuse scandal over the last two weeks, I think it was inevitable: Paterno had to go.

I think the "didn't do enough" factor became a primary issue when it came out that Paterno knew Sandusky was at practices, in the facilities, with children AFTER the 2002 incident with the 10-year-old in the shower. They knew Sandusky was at the practice with a child, and they knew Paterno was there, too... and this was as recently as 25 days ago. Perhaps nothing happened THAT time, but the possibility that it could happen again was enough.

With a coaching staff that is that entrenched... some have been there more than 30 years... it is difficult for me to believe that there was NO (read ZERO) knowledge of this sort of criminal behavior between the various coaches, and (at the very latest) it should have ended completely after the 2002 incident (it should have ended in 1998, but that wasn't a PSU call... that was a district prosecutor that chose not to indict). That means Sandusky was no longer allowed, in any way, shape or form, onto PSU property or at PSU games.

I feel bad for the school and the students. This is going to be a stain on a top-ranked school for decades to come, and the healing process is going to be slow. I also fear it is going to get worse before it gets better. Decisions were made, calls made... and those that chose to make the calls (or NOT to make the calls) are answering for them now. Paterno was a BIG decision maker at that school, and if the President had to go, then I think Paterno did too. Let's face it... Nittany Lion football WAS Joe Pa, and the problem seems to have been with what the coaches knew and did/didn't do. Tough not to hold the Head Coach responsible.

Can I ask our in-house PA resident a question?

Understand, this is absent any and all sarcasm.

Why exactly did they fire Joe Paterno?

I'm serious. And I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the reasoning. I haven't read the 23 page Grand Jury report, but it occurs to me that Paterno isn't in any legal trouble. To the best of my limited knowledge of PA state law in these cases any school official, from kindergarten to graduate school, whom witnesses or suspects sexual abuse of a minor must report it through one of three official channels: the police, Child Services, or his superiors. From what I've gathered Paterno did just that, in the case of the latter.

So again, why did they fire him? I can't find a definitive answer in any of the coverage or reports. If I had to guess it would go something like the following - the offender was allowed to retire unscathed. He worked directly for Paterno. Paterno has more authority within that school and his program than any three deans combined (presumably). If you add those 3 factors together the trustees must have come to the conclusion that the only way Sandusky could have "walked away" without arrest is if Paterno signed off on the maneuver.

Clearly Sandusky should have been fed to wolves (the actual police). But according to the letter of the law Paterno fulfilled his legal requirement. Is it just an assumed fact among locals and the trsutees that in this case, with Paterno having so much influence, so much sway, that they can not fathom that such a thing could have been hushed up and made to "go away" without the knowledge and consent of Paterno? Because if that's the case, I get it. That seems a reasonable position for the trustees. However, doesn't that leave Paterno some legal room to claim his contract was unlawfully terminated? If he was inclined to preserve his reputation, on the face of it, it would seem he'd have a case.

And look, I don't want to have to do the thing where I qualify all this with stating how serious I take the charges, how vulgar and heart breaking it all is, and how many victims there were - we all here would serve that pedophile up to an electric chair, in a heart beat. I just want to be sure of the "he should have done more" standard. If you suspect sexual abuse of a minor, as a school official, and you don't approve of how your superiors are investigating the accusation you reported, are you to conduct an investigation yourself? If Paterno doesn't get a satisfactory action on the part of the school president after he reported the accusations, is he obliged to go directly to the authorities? Morally, I would unquestionably say yes, and loudly. I just get a little uncomfortable with the "fire everybody" mentality when those positing such a demand don't offer specifics on how Paterno should have done more.

Unquestionably the coward of the century award goes to that spineless twerp whom actually witnessed the sex act in the showers with the minor. In that instance I say yes, you personally interfere, right then (and I mean in the shower). And then go directly to the police. I'm simply saying that if a member of the coaching staff comes to Paterno and says he saw Joe's offensive coordinator committing this crime, and that coordinator happened to be a 20 year friend of Paterno, it might be understandable if Paterno turned around and reported it to the school president and the chief of campus security. But after that, if the two of them both decide they're not going to the police (lack of evidence, fear of hurting the school reputation, etc), is Paterno liable to the point of being fired for not going above the head of the President, to the police? And if so, OK. But why was the campus security chief and the athletic coordinator - both in the loop as much as Paterno, neither of whom went to the cops - not fired as well?

Again, I think anyone involved in sweeping this under the rug & letting that animal simply "retire", deserves to be fired. I guess what I'm asking is, if Paterno reported it to multiple school officials, and then they did nothing, is that cause enough to say Paterno participated in the "sweeping?"

Romney will be the nominee ...

This is becoming clear to me. He is just devastatingly lethal in these debates. The man is a born and bred CEO. He just doesn't make mistakes.

I caught parts of the CNBC debate tonight, and immediately at its' conclusion I got a call for a push button poll (happening nightly around this time I might add), this one from Ron Paul.

Look, I prefer a more conservative candidate than Romney. This is a general complaint, I understand, but in my gut I'm just not sure behind closed doors I can trust him not to pull a George H. Bush. But at this point all Romney has to do is not lose, just survive. Cain is a contender, and he held his own in tonights's debate, but he's getting crushed as now the 4th woman is coming forward with sex allegations. Shockingly the Left of the 1990's suddenly cares about such behavior. More disconcerting to me is his bizarre take on abortion. He seems to be for it before he was against it, and it's a personal choice government should make illegal - ya, got it Cain, thanks, the Ramstein goes in the doohickey to help the thingamajig. I was sorely dissapointed with that issue after the promising start of 9-9-9. And the nearest challenger after Cain, Perry, effectively ended his primary campaign tonight. If you haven't heard I'm sure it will make the chattering class rounds tomorrow. He was in a dust up with Ron Paul over what government departments/agencies he would do away with. First off, don't try to out cut Ron Paul. He will always see your number and raise. He'll cut things you didn't know existed. It'll be him and two volunteer park rangers by the time he's done. At any rate, as I said, Perry was in a dust up with Ron Paul and he says, "There are three agencies of government that when I get there are gone, Commerce, Education, and ..." He just stood there, mouth gaping for what seemed like an eternity. Then he asked himself, out loud, "what was the third?" Again followed by a few moments of mouth gaping, body cringing uncomfortableness. Then Ron Paul says, "you can't name the third?" And in an attempt to make himself recall, Perry started over saying, "The three I'd cut are Commerce, Education, and ..." Again nothing, that engine just wouldn't turn over.

The incident couldn't of ended worse. Finally, and I don't know if it was murder or a mercy kill, but a voice pipes in and says, "EPA?" Perry responds, "Yes, thank you, EPA." Guess who the off camera voice was? If you guessed Romney, you win the prize ... which is more than Perry will win in Iowa.