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.

Some Considerable Trust Issues

Gloria Borger, the CNN Cheif Political Analyst and a regular on such well-known shows such as "The Situation Room," expressed her view in a CNN article that American's simply don't trust government. We want our leaders to get things done, we want such things as Social Security and Healthcare to be fixed, but the level of confidence we place in these leaders to accomplish such feats is at a crucial low, making our relationship with governement completely bittersweet.

I believe Borger has a point here. Maybe its in our DNA: our ancestors fought for indepedance away from a governement unable to directly represent them, which isn't much different from the attitude that many Americans possess today. Where is all the change we were promised and continue to be promised? Where are the signs of progression? It is likely that we are completely turned off by the governement because we are not seeing the results, we are not experiencing the bond between governement and its citizens that is created when the public's interest is being put first. Instead, as Borger adds, politicans make pitches back and forth, completely demeaning the other while simutaneously making promises they can't keep all for the sake of "winning," all to gain some kind of control or power (which is irrelevant when that control has no respect, which we see occuring all throughout the world lately). We simply aren't being represented, instead, being overlooked by petty indifferences between leaders.

Republicans vs. Democrats, Liberals vs. Conservatives, its all nonsense when nothing is accomplished, and that's exactly where America is at. We believe in what our leaders say is possible, though sadly, we don't believe that they can accomplish it. Nobody is working together while everybody is finding something to pick at, while all this time we could be coming together as a nation and focusing on problems we all are affected by. Quite honestly, I find it more effective to have somone in office who cares less about making themselves look better and more about acting on the issues at hand.

On the other hand, it is possible that maybe leaders of both the past and present have skewed our views on governement entirely. Borger adds that Americans so desperately want the government to fix whats broken, even though they know full well that it is entirely made up of "scoundrels." The Bush Administration, for instance, viololently shook American trust with the government, allowing us to question their decisions, question their ability to govern. Why should we trust a body of people who have been known to lie and decieve? Presedient Obama, Borger explains, wants his administration to help, wants America to believe in him and the government itself. This, sadly, is impossible when the entire structure is questionable. Borger says that "the more Congress fools with people's lives...the more the public turns off," or rather, the more we flip flop between having faith in government and not having faith in government, the more we distrust it altogether. There has to be a solid foundation in order to build a respectible government, which has been shaking for some time now, and in order to to do this we have to be able to believe they are capable of what they vouch for. All in all, Borger is completely correct: most American's don't trust the government, even though we so desperately want them to get the job done. One serious lump of irony? I think so.

It All Comes Down to the Power of Choice

Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota expressed her disgust at the CNN Tea Party Debate concerning the federal mandate, under the new health care bill, that requires health insurance companies to cover various contraceptive methods, including the controversial "morning-after" pill, with no co-payment required.

This emergency contraception, which does not abort the pregnancy but prevent it from ever occuring, is not only approved by the Food and Drug Administration, but allows those paying for insurance in the first place to be able to prevent an un-wanted pregnancy, giving women more power for their money. Bachmann views this is a means of control by the U.S. government, a new level of power for Obama, and therefore something that needs to be avoided. However, the fact that insurance companies are required to cover various means of contraceptives, sterilization procedures, health screenings, such as those for HPV, and this morning-after pill is irrelevant. They are still only being offered not forced onto patients, which are two very different things.

While these companies are now unable to choose if they want to cover such things, those with health insurance plans, specifically women, are able to get the medical screenings, birth control prevention methods, etc. that they need or CHOOSE to have without paying more. Therefore, the power of choice is being flip-flopped, which should be viewed as a good thing. The Obama administration even added an amendment to the regulation, allowing religous institutions offereing health insurance to their employees to choose if they want to cover contraceptive services, therefore not stepping on any first-amendment rights.

The below article further illustrates the topic of governement intervention with health insurance and coverage of birth control and is very informative concerning this current political issue. Just as a side note, I find it be extremely interesting in that even when choice is extended for the general public, there is a distinct possibility that the choice of big businesses is still being considered. And it makes me wonder: can Bachmann's drive even be out of personal views towards contraceptives?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/13/truth.squad.contraception/index.html?npt=NP1