Thoughts on the “new” list of demands by Occupy Wall Street.

This “Occupy Wall Street” movement is providing so much fodder for me. My fondness has been a roller coaster of emotions. First I was unsure. Then I was hopeful and optimistic. Now I have a simmering dislike for it. I’m getting sick of talking about it and having it on my mind. Hopefully, this will be the last time I discuss this for a while.

After seeing a debate on Facebook from an old high school friend, I was directed to this “new” list of demands. It is “new” in the sense that I just discovered it. I don’t know if it came after the other one or not. Also, it's been out for about a month.

I want to go over it point by point, demand by demand. The first paragraph in response to the demand will be about the issue addressed. The second paragraph will be an analysis of language, spelling, syntax, and things of that nature when applicable.

Here we go:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

I support a living wage. I’m not sure if tariffs are a good idea. I believe that they do more long term harm. As evident during the Great Depression, nations raised their tariffs and international trade fell, hurting the economy more. Twenty dollars an hour is a bit excessive and it contradicts wanting a “living wage” which is about $10 to $12 an hour. It was a wage that I could live comfortably on. I’m not exactly sure how a living wage connects with free trade.

Grammatically, the last sentence is odd. Also, “freetrade” is two words, not one. I know a spelling error is minor, but you don’t look serious if you can’t spell what you’re mad at. Maybe it was an innocent typo.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Universal Healthcare has its pros and cons. Explain them to us and show us why the good outweighs the bad. Explain how it is constitutional as that is one of the major criticisms of Universal Healthcare. Also explain how it would be funded and how it won’t contribute to the deficit/debt.

Stop abbreviating. Don’t use run-on sentences.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

I thought this was addressed in the first demand…

Demand four: Free college education.

Another demand that sounds pretty good. Describe why higher education is a right. With the demand of Universal Healthcare, explain how it will be funded and won’t contribute to the deficit/debt.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

I disagree with a “fast track” process of getting the US off of fossil fuels. I agree that we need to transition towards cleaner and renewable sources of energy, but it should be a slower process. We need to let our nation accommodate to a green-only energy supply as to avoid massive economic disruptions. The US should be spending more money on renewable energy as we will inevitably run out of oil and coal.

Sentence feels a little like a run-on. It definitely should be broken up into two sentences. I am a little confused with the end of the sentence. I think it is because of its redundancy. If you are going to rid the country of oil, you should replace it with an alternative energy to meet “energy demand”.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Another demand I think is reasonable. We do need to fix and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure.

I’m not sure if assigning a number is necessary. Do we need exactly $1 Trillion for our infrastructure? Do we need more? How about “An adequate investment into infrastructure”? I don’t know if you need to give me examples of infrastructure, I know what it means.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

As much as I love saving and preserving the environment, what place does this have here? I think the focus should be on the economy for now. If you tied it in with creating jobs, maybe it could work. I don’t like Nuclear Power either, but this may not be the best time to bring this up.

We have another run-on sentence. The part about shutting down Nuclear Power plants (I have no idea why I like capitalizing those words) should be in a separate sentence or in a whole different demand. Again, do we really need to specify the amount to be spent on this?

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

I really disagree with the need for an Equal Rights Amendment. I believe we have enough laws, both Federal and State, on the books and enough judicial precedence to guarantee and enforce gender equality. I am sure there are still gaps, but an Amendment will not fill them (especially the very shortly worded ERA). The laws designed to enforce the Amendment will fill the gap. All we need are laws, not an Amendment. I do understand why people would want to have it on the books and in the Constitution. I would not oppose ratification and passage of the ERA. On regards to the “Racial equality Amendment” we have that. It’s called the 14^th Amendment. I know many in the movement think that it has only been used to protect corporations (it has), but it has also been, and can be, used to protect people.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

In an age of terrorism, I don’t think I want completely open borders. Also, that would be more of an international issue. I think this is referring to illegal immigration, in which case, go into more details! Provide a comprehensive plan of worker visas or something. Define “anyone”. Define “anywhere”. This needs to be more thoroughly explained.

Capitalize “Anyone”. Is it really that hard to right-click on a word with error lines under it and select the correct word? A little bit of effort, people. When I’m getting distracted by spelling mistakes, I’m missing your overall message.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

I’m not sure what America’s standards are. Compare and contrast our system with the international standard. Elections are important to a strong democratic nation like us. I do distrust electronic voting machines. An overhaul or reform of the system is not a bad idea.

Sentence sounds awkward.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

This demand sounds disastrous. Are you suggesting that the government acquires all the debt? Because that would greatly increase the National debt, and that would be “not good”. Multiplying the national debt by over 5.5 overnight might cause some problems! If you mean that all debt is forgiven, everyone starts with a clean slate, and it all simply vanishes, I’m sure the money supply will be greatly destabilized. You can’t remove that much and expect things to be fine. Also, this would encourage reckless spending. If you could spend without care knowing that it could just vanish without any repercussions, what is going to stop the average American, Corporation, or Bank from spending their money foolishly? Also, the US doesn’t control ALL of the world’s money as indicated in the last sentence. This is probably the most poorly thought out demand on the list.

It is probably the worst written on the list too. Is there a reason “books” is in quotations? The last sentences sounds much more casual than the rest of the list. Was it necessary to dramatically end the sentence with “…I mean all debt on the entire planet [,] period.”? I feel like that person who wrote the first list of demands has made a writing cameo.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

What are credit reporting agencies? Why are they bad? Explain!

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

I don’t know much about unions, but I do have an issue here. Am I to take it that they are asking to end the secret ballot, at least, when it comes to union voting? Why? I thought the secret ballot was a step forward for democracy. This seems to be a thing with unions that I don’t fully understand. I think the movement should clarify this demand and I think the reader should explain this to me.

Maybe it is because this is yet another run-on sentence, but I am confused as to what they are asking for in this demand. Commas are you friend! You can separate ideas into more than one sentence.

 These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

Okay, this is a very bold statement. Especially as you have not done anything to show that these demands would create “many jobs”. Explain to me how outlawing credit agencies will create jobs. Also, you do not need to reiterate the need for open borders. That was covered in the ninth demand.

If I had to give this a grade, I would give it a “D”. The "first" one would have been a “D+”. Some demands are unreasonable. Some aren't described in enough detail. Some demands go beyond Wall Street. It's not focused. In fact, this becomes less detailed than the first one. At least that one talked about specific legislation and only targeted Wall Street. I'm happy it doesn’t quote from Wikipedia or “documentaries” and opinions are dropped (overall). But the poor writing style still dominates this list. There isn't any real improvement from the first and in fact, this one is a little worse.

If you want to see “A+” work, go here. It is well written, well researched, and focused on Wall Street and the financial sector. That is the message the media needs to be reporting and the movement should be getting behind.

The Numbers Game 2, kind of…sort of…not really.

A few days ago, I saw a news story. A group of religious leaders want Americans to live on $31.50 worth of food a week, the amount that food stamps (or whatever they are called now) provides for a poor family. The point is, it’s not a lot to live on and you can’t afford fresh healthy food.

The story should have ended there, but the news has a terrible habit of “trying to be neutral”. The write up on the webpage ended there, but the segment that aired kept going. Although I respect neutrality and facts should be presented as they are without a lot of partisan spin, the media does it all wrong. This is why people don’t believe Global Warming is occurring. The media interviews a climate scientist and a person claiming to be a scientist who is really just a pundit or paid by some right-wing organization. People see two “scientists” disagree with something and the public believes that science is split 50/50 on the issue of Global Warming, even if the real number is more like 98/2, with 98% agreeing that Global Warming is happening. (I was really happy when NPR did a story on vaccines and did NOT invite a person who believed vaccines cause autism because there was NO evidence to merit that opinion on the show).

So after we get all the facts we need to know, (i.e. the poor are not living it up on welfare and in fact they should be getting more money) we have to get the opinion from some woman at the Heritage Foundation, a Right-Wing Think-Tank. (Of course, the same conservatives who complain about highly-educated, elitist professors at universities sitting around all day with six figure salaries and just "think" about solutions to societies' problems, have no problem getting their information and data from Think-Tanks. Care to explain the difference?) She makes the same stale conservative claim that government “handouts” cause dependency. But wait! She has numbers to prove it! Did you know that the average person on food stamps is on the program for eight years?!? That TOTALLY proves that government “handouts” are causing dependency!!!

Wait! NO IT DOESN’T!

There is no context behind that number at all. The only thing that that number indicates is that people are on food stamps for eight years. Is that number rising or falling from previous years? Is there any direct correlation you can show me? And if these “handouts” are causing dependency, then why are the people LEAVING the program after eight years? By her “logic”, shouldn’t they be on it for life if the government is destroying their motivation to earn it themselves?

In case link is no longer working, here is the story:

This pisses me off so much, as you might remember. There is no context behind the data and yet they come to this conclusion. AND NO ONE IN THE MEDIA EVER QUESTIONS IT. Hell, it’s not even the media’s fault. Where are the Democrats countering these claims? Oh right, they run away from it and concede defeat. How many times have the GOP candidates said “regulations are killing jobs” or “social security is bankrupt and beyond hope”, and no one ever asks them to back it up with any hard facts? Can you specify which regulation is killing which specific industry and show data directly correlating the two? Who needs “data” when I got a gut feeling about it? I would like to mention this again, but the purpose of the stomach in digestion is to produce shit. Yes, let’s use that organ as the example of good, logical decision making.

How about this great line from junkscience.com on refuting the 98% “nonsensus” of scientists over global warming?

The study’s premise that unless you’ve published 20 papers on climate your views don’t matter or are uninformed is patently arbitrary and absurd.

Yes, it makes sense that you are not going to listen to someone’s opinion with very little researched, peer-reviewed data. This person apparently does not understand how the scientific community works. Of course it’s some “Lie-beral”, “Dumb-ocratic”, “Obonehead” government conspiracy, even though the same scientists were saying this under Bush in 2007. If those links don’t help, go here and “look at the evidence yourself”. I forgot that science is democratic, with minority opinions holding more weight! I guess I’ll have to read one of the books on the left that is being advertised to get the real truth. That article was probably the poorest excuse for countering Global Warming I have ever read. 

On a side note, I once got a book called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science”. I completely misread it and my sister’s boyfriend pointed out that I had bought a right-wing science-bashing book. I don’t know why I was so dumb that day as I was familiar with this series of books. Unfortunately/Fortunately my dog, Copper, peed on the book, so I have never had the chance to read it.

 Don't worry. I'm not mad at you.

And one more thing. I am so sick of this “bootstraps” mentality from the Right. I am so sick of them thinking that the unemployed are lazy leeches (that somehow, 9.1% of Americans have chosen to be unemployed), that everything that you get out of life is proportional to what you have put into it, and that everyone can be the next Carnegie, or Rockefeller, or Vanderbilt, but everyone is just too lazy and wants the government to give them everything.

I love seeing a nicely dressed, highly paid, highly educated, individual “working” for a Think-Tank bitching about the poor being lazy. They are so f*cking disconnect from reality. They have no idea what it is like to be poor and have to work three jobs for a living, but they pass judgment on them because they think “Work will make you Free” and the ONLY reason why they are not rich is because “they aren’t working hard enough”.

That is the biggest load of Bullshit that has still somehow managed to stay prevalent in mainstream thinking. I can kind of understand Herman Cain’s way of thinking. He was poor, but through hard work he was able to be very successful. He looks around at people complaining of a stacked deck, but he was able to rise up against adversity, why can’t they? 

Not everyone can be Herman Cain, Herman Cain. Not everyone can work hard and become rich. How many miners in 1849 went to strike it rich, worked to death in gold mines, and came out poorer than when they started? And not everyone wants to be “rich”. Making a little under $30K a year, I was happy. I have a nice place to live. I don’t want a huge house or expensive car. I didn’t buy a lot of luxury items, I didn’t want a lot of luxury items. I was able to save about half of my money in a year. I lived well within my means. I worked, I did my job, no complaints. My reward? I lost my job. Never told me why, but the only explanation I received was that “it wasn’t due to performance”. So, Herman Cain, what did I do wrong? Was it because I showed up every day? Was it because I did my job as I was told and never complained (as there was no reason to complain)? Was it because I never screwed around and got back to work early after break (for the most part)? Or could it be that some Businessman with a huge resume of prior “experience” forced his way into the company, had all these “brilliant ideas”, told us to our faces that he wasn’t going to “clean house”, and then does so two weeks later?

Oh, I’m sorry. I’m blaming the wealthy guy. I’m clearly engaging in class warfare. Sorry.

It's a PC Halloween, Charlie Brown!

So, here is this story I saw on CNN. I saw it from a friend’s post earlier, but seeing it again, it’s really getting under my skin. There are these five pictures of students holding up a picture of a Halloween costume that is a stereotype of their race/ethnicity/religion. They all include the words “We’re a culture, not a costume” followed by “This is Not who I am, and This is Not Okay.”

This might be one of the reasons I’m not a full blown Liberal, because I hate Political Correction (I do believe the Right also partakes in it, but I’m going to complain about Left-Wing Political Correction here). I just can’t stand this oversensitivity towards offending minority groups. You can’t say this, you can’t do that, and Star Wars is racist, blah blah blah. It’s just a freakin’ costume. That’s kind of the point of Halloween; exaggeration. I went as LBJ one year and I exaggerated his personality and his movement. Is the Johnson family going to complain? If you know it’s a stereotype and not at all reflective of who you are, why get offended? If the person who is dressed up like that thinks it is an accurate representation, they are a freakin’ idiot. Don’t let idiots get to you, you’re better than them.

But I want to know, why were minorities only chosen for this photo project? Let’s look at some other costumes and see who they offend (and wonder why they weren't asked to participate in the photo project):

 Germans

 Jews

 The Scottish

 Egyptians

 The Irish

Italians/Those who have died at the hands of the Mob

Scandinavians

French/Those who suffered during the French Revolution

Catholics

Christians in general

Greeks

Early Man

Buddhists

The Elderly

 Dead Singers

Assassinated Political Figures

PETA

 Wiccans

American Southerners

...Okay, this is pretty funny...

 America's Founding Fathers

Government Employees

Fire Fighters

Astronauts

The dozen or so people who died/The Environment/Gulf Coast residents

Cowboys

Pirates/Victims of Pirates

Anyone with a shred of Decency

Where are the complaints about these costumes? Where is the outcry from the Italian community or German Community or the AARP or the Anti-Defamation League? My German culture is being stereotyped as a bunch of lederhosen-wearing, beer-drinkers! My religious leader is being sold as some cheap costume!

Just looking at the costumes about race/ethnicity, why is it alright to make fun of one group but not another? Why are Christians free-game, but Muslims are out of bounds? Why is it racist to make fun of Mexicans but not Germans? Why can we laugh at a "Stupid Red Neck" but not a "Lazy Mexican"? I try to live my life as consistent and un-hypocritical as possible. When I see this blatant double-standard, it confuses me. You have to laugh at EVERYTHING. Nothing should ever be off limits. I understand that timing-wise, a joke should be held off (That episode in which the Simpsons go to New York City), but only briefly. Don't laugh at a joke at the expense of one group, only to get offended at a joke made about your group.

My point is this; don’t take these costumes so seriously. Like I said before, if you know it’s a stereotype and not at all reflective of who you are, why get offended? I thought it was absolutely hilarious to see the French translation for the “Tacky Tourist” costume was “American Tourist”. I know what the stereotype is of Americans tourists overseas. But I know it’s just a stereotype and I was able to have a good laugh at it. Halloween is about pretending and light-hearted fun. It’s the only time people can walk around, dress up, and act as something they are not (outside of a convention). Exaggeration is part of that. (I would like to know why no one at my College complained about the clubs dedicated to perpetuating Pirate and Ninja stereotypes). Don’t take a costume personally. I didn’t find the “Tacky Tourist” or “Bavarian” costumes to be personally offensive. And you shouldn't be offended either.

I might have to come out with another "In-depth Explanation" post as my explanations might not have been the best. Basically, why are some groups off-limits and others are in-play?

Occupy Wall Street Explained

This was the other post that I received some flak over, albeit for a different reason. Like with Columbus, I hope I can clarify my thoughts.

Occupy Wall Street has a lot that I and I’m sure a lot of mainstream Americans can get behind. I believe Americans are more fed up over Wall Street greed, deregulation, and the growing wealth gap than they are over “government is out of control” fear mongering. Hell, my self-described Republican father supports the movement and will most likely vote for Obama. This is something that should have a lot of support. But you have to turn it into meaningful change and an actual movement. Organize!

The Tea Party started as a “leaderless, unorganized” movement. I thought it would be a phenomenon of 2009 and would die. It didn’t. It stuck around because it started to organize. There are local organizations around the country that hold meetings. They might not exactly have a big national organization dictating orders to all of the groups, but they don’t need too, because they have a somewhat coherent message on limiting government power. I understand clearly what the Tea Party wants because they have effectively sold its message to the people.

They were able to achieve their goals because they latched onto a major party, the Republican Party. They got their members into the GOP and overthrew rank and file members to get Tea Party Republicans into the House, Senate, and various Governor’s Mansions. I was really hoping that it would split off, so it could divide the Republicans (like in 1912!). Conservatives are very good at sticking together and backing the Republican Party. Ron Paul could be running for the Libertarian Party ticket (as he did in 1988), but he knows he’ll have more traction if he runs as a Republican, even if his views don’t match up. Liberals? Not so much. Yes, I have qualms about Democrats and Obama. I think Democrats are weak and ineffective. They blew their chance when they had power. They aren’t perfect. I never said they were perfect. They shouldn’t let Republicans and conservatives dominate the voice of this country and immediately let a debate start from the far-Right. But instead of outright dismissing them and hating them with the same passion as Republicans, try to fix the problems within the party to make it better. I’m not advocating blindly supporting the Democrats. (Apparently, nobody saw that post that was posted along the same time as my one on the Wall Street Protests). But don’t abandon them at a drop of a hat. The Right focuses its attention on hating Democrats. The Left divides its attention between hating Democrats and Republicans. It took conservatives six years to start distancing themselves from Bush, but it only took about a year for liberals to outright abandon Obama. A liberal is like a child who doesn’t get their way; they cry and whine and storm out of the room. Are you really surprised that a politician didn’t deliver on his promises? Maybe if we didn’t build Obama up to be the next messiah, the Left wouldn’t be so upset.

If you want to be taken seriously, create a better “manifesto”. How would the Declaration of Independence look if it were written like this?

When things get bad, we have a right to change them! God gave us rights and stuff and no one on earth can take them away!

We’re all equal as humans. We have a right to do things because of God or something. Like Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Thomas Paine said in his pamplet (really brave Tom!) that England wasn’t serving in our best interests. King George has dropped the ball on us and we have a right to say no and let us rule our selves. Patrick Henry said “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”

King George has done the following things to us that aren’t good

[Look up and complete list later].

We really like being English, but we tried. You wouldn’t listen to us.

With that said, we are now free.

I wouldn’t take this Independence movement very seriously. PR is very important.

Also, this movement needs to stay focused and focus on Wall Street and reforming our financial structure. Gay Rights? Wars Overseas? Animal Rights? They need to take a back seat or else they will isolate potential supporters. I’m sure that there are pro-war people who might be turned off, or anyone who doesn’t like PETA, if you bring this into the equation. Would the Civil Rights movement have gained traction if it was overtly anti-war and supported gay rights? NO! Those should be separate movements (even if gay rights are very intertwined with civil rights). Cement your goals. Narrow in and focus on Wall Street greed, the fiscal crises, and the deregulation that let it all happen. And have a real goal besides “lasting for 25 days”. It’s like someone setting the bar so low that it will be impossible to ever fail so they will never be disappointed. Pathetic.

While I’m also talking about “don’t isolate people”, this movement really needs to distance itself from the far-Left. When I see these posters:

I am turned off. Anyone with any sense of intelligence who sees these images is going to be insulted and turned off. Calling people who don’t think like you “sheeple”, complaining about walking on the sidewalk, and brining in the “New World Order” to the mix, makes you look crazy. 99% of Americans are crazy? I would rather be in the 1%, thank you very much. Do you think Martin Luther King Jr. would have done everything that he did if he called white people “ignorant pigs”? Smugness and pretentiousness will only isolate potential supporters. Acting as if you are the only beacon of enlightenment in a sea of darkness and refusing to educate people in a clear, concise, and non-conspiratorial way, will only serve to isolate potential supporters.

I feel like the Left wants immediate change and results. That can’t happen. I have mentioned time and time again that sudden radical change creates a knee-jerk reaction. Radical Reconstruction led to the KKK and segregation. 1960s Liberalism gave us 1980s Conservatism. Change is a slow process. The Civil Rights movement took decades. Grassroots organizations from the 1890s and on. A few baby steps forward, desegregating of the Federal Government and the Army. Then came some successful court cases. Then boycotts. Sit-ins. Marches. Civil Disobedience. By the 1970s a lot of goals had been achieved. I know things aren’t perfect and we still have a lot ahead of us, but it was a process of slow gradual change that convinced Americans that segregation and discrimination were ridiculous and un-American.

I keep hearing that not having any order or structure or leadership is so beautiful and this is the new way forward for Democracy! No, that is anarchy. And anarchy doesn’t last because it is natural for humans to join together and organize and set up rules and order. I am not a democrat, I am a republican. Notice the small “d” and “r”. I do not like direct democracy. I think it is dangerous because people have a hard time thinking about the common good. People are selfish and driven by emotion. I don’t like popular referendums. I like the Electoral College (kind of). I don’t like giving people more power over the laws. See: Prop 8. Gay Marriage has been legalized by state legislatures. It has been banned by popular vote. This is why we are a Republic. We have a system of representatives to make choices for us. Yes, that doesn’t always work, the system is flawed. But it works less when informed and caring citizens don’t vote.

I am saying these things as an outsider to the movement. I am saying this because I want to help this movement become the check on the Tea Party that we desperately need. I want to hear people finally calling out the hypocrisy of the Right and the real class warfare waged against poor and middle class Americans. This is just my honest to God opinion and observations of the movement. I find that liberals want to work outside the system because the system is so corrupt and broken and etc. The system was corrupt and broken in Egypt and street protests were the only way to do anything. IT IS NOT THAT BAD IN THIS COUNTRY. This is not Nazi Germany. You can still participate within the system and you should. The Left is too idealistic and irrational. It is dominated by emotion, closed minds, and crazy conspiracies; just as bad as the Right. I feel like I am trying to argue with a coffee table. Have I still not gotten the point across or will it never get across because too many ears are permanently shut?

Don’t call me ignorant but then fail to educate me. Please explain to me how this unorganized, unfocused movement will accomplish the goals that I’m not sure exist. If your goal is to show this country that the Tea Party is not the only voice of popular frustration with the system, Mission Accomplished. If your goal is to show that there are people who view Wall Street and corporate greed as the major source of the problem and not just “out-of-control government” and we need government to change fix the financial system, good job. You have gotten the hopes up of Democrats in Washington that the liberal voice has not been silenced and that there is a group of people they can rely on. But it’s going to mean nothing if it doesn’t actually translate into electoral power. But it’s not going to work if you blindly hate the political system and refuse to participate. Why do liberals want to break down and destroy what we have instead of working within the system to try and fix it from the inside?

If you still don’t get what I am saying, read this, because it'll do a much better job than I can. It’s sad when a comedic article makes so much damn sense.