And now for something completely different...

THIS is why I love ESPN:

MVP Debate

This is classic "Driveway" debate... yes?

Nope, I don't think so...

I agree, it isn't a perfect analogy at all... nothing ever is, since history never fully repeats itself... but the facet I wanted to compare between Coxey's Army and "Occupy" was the dissent itself, not the worst of the bunch.

Historically speaking, there have been many "occupy-type" protests... The Bonus Army of the early 30's, Cox's Army (another pro-public works march from PA led by a Catholic priest named Cox), the March from Selma to Montgomery... and all have had less-then-savory elements associated with them. However, I was trying to keep the protest intent separate from the protest in actuality.

Whenever America has been in a time of crisis, people have sought a reason along with a solution. Most here (and indeed, across the country) think the current fiscal crisis is due to unsustainable spending and over-blown credit extensions in both the public and private sectors... but not everyone is agreed on how to fix it. The more radical elements in the Occupy movement seem to think that corporate greed is the cause... and that violence and disdain are acceptable means of protest against this. This stems more from the ideology of their views than the validity of the protest itself, and certainly factors in to how people view the protesters and their causes.

Successful group action relies on a higher ethical and/or moral fiber... MLK's non-violence in the 60s, the Tea Party movement today... and while I agree 100% that the Occupy movement lacks that fiber, my main point was that it shouldn't be seen as "unprecedented" or a new facet to our society.

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.