Occupy Wall Street...Bust or Must?

With the Occupy Wall Street still in full swing along with the recent upheavel concerning Occupy Oakland, there are still those who believe that the protests lack a consensus, a commonality, a specific kind of leadership that is neccessary for the Occupiers to progress the movement. As I agree that leadership is good to have, especially with such a growing force, I disagree that the lackthereof will cause the protests to fail.

With so many people, so much diversification, all over the country and even beyond, it is hard to imagine that such efforts will go unnoted simply becuase their ideals are not "bunched" or grouped into one. Additionaly, with the growing numbers in so many varying places, finding complete common ground is near impossible. However, even though every man and woman is protesting with a slightly different passion, they all express a general frustration that I believe is enough to make the Occupy protests worthwhile. The 99% have a ridiculously reasonable argument that is hard to deny is anything but the truth, so their voices are both loud and clear. Therefore, while leadership and commanlity could always be a good thing, it will not inhibit those protesting and the people they are representing from fighting the injustice that our country has submerged intself it.

It is difficult to believe that they will be silenced. It is even more difficult to believe that suddenly the protests will just "end," like nothing ever happend, (unless of course all of our problems can be solved dramatically quickly, which is unlikely) like the weeks spent away from the comfortability of their homes meant nothing. I do not feel they will give up that easily, and even if the protesting is all over the board, it is not a fault that is detrimental to the cause. The Occupy protests are only the beginning to what may be a nationwide revolt against a system that has not been able to properly represent the majority of American citizens.

Will We Give Obama Another Chance?

R.W. Sanders, a blogger on Huffington Post, wrote an article yesterday entitled "I Might Not Want to Vote for Obama, but I Have to." As the title already eludes to the upcoming argument, I was entrigued by the idea and the possibility that Obama may actually have a chance at a second term because of this exact attitude.

Sanders began his blog by backing Obama's cause, his shaky past as president, and an explanation on why nothing has changed, as had been promised. Sanders writes that while Obama could have taken an immediate action towards the country's economy when he first entered office, he instead focused on health care reform. With the little "political capital" he had and a history without "any meaningfuly health care reform in at least half a century," the president set a bold, noble goal for himself and his presidency immediately. Sanders also adds that while this may not be apparent to the American people today, and as change usually is not noticed until sometime later, if the health care plan works, it could strike a deadly blow to the "economic morass we find ourselves" in today. While I'm not positive if this is a strong enough argument to support Obama's fervent will to reform healthcare, I do agree that Obama made a decision that was understandable, considering his circumstances.

Lets face it, Obama entered the White House with already the baggage of the previous administration and had to do something to make his mark on the presidency. As for if health care is that shining moment for Obama or not is up in the air, but I do think that it was a gesture that meant well. On top of that, Obama has to deal with a Congress that hates him, a House of Representatives dominated by Republicans refusing to pass anything that Obama puts forth. As Sanders eludes to, I'm actually quite proud that the president accomplished anything at all considering such circumstances. "By paralyzing government, a major weapon in this fight against another economic depression is taken away," writes Sanders, further explaining how this "frozen" Congress refusing to budge because of their personal agendas is not only tainting the reputation of Obama, but ruining our country's ability to fight our economic problems.

So, as Sanders' blog furthers, Obama is at a stand still. Of course he means well, of course he wants to present change to the American people, but their is only so much the man can do. As for his contenders, I'm not sure I trust someone who will simply correlate his agenda, just go along with the people that have "frozen" any decision making entirely instead of fighting one of the root causes of a "no change country." Therefore, Obama is the best choice, and I agree with Sanders that another chance may be worth it.