[ Posted Friday, November 4th, 2011 – 16:50 UTC ]
Like many Americans, I watched the events unfold in Oakland this week with some trepidation. Occupy Oakland tried two new tactics in protesting, and both were very successful at achieving a key goal -- that of getting your message across. Both the general strike and the temporary port shutdown were successful, in this regard. Later in the night, however, a group of jerks came close to ruining all this, by their criminal behavior.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Tuesday, November 1st, 2011 – 15:58 UTC ]
This is not only a victory for consumers (and the Occupy Wall Street folks, incidentally), but a triumph of mathematics and economics. Because it is ridiculous that big banks should even contemplate these fees in the first place.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, October 28th, 2011 – 16:13 UTC ]
We'd like to begin today with an issue that we regularly get incensed about here, mostly because it flies under the radar of just about everyone -- including the entire media universe. Because for once, Democrats are making the attempt to use the issue to make some political hay (even though, in this regard, they're admittedly almost as bad as the Republicans).
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Thursday, October 27th, 2011 – 15:18 UTC ]
The "Occupy Wall Street" movement seems to be at a crossroads. The path it chooses to take next may be the deciding moment for whether it declines into irrelevance or grows beyond its current boundaries into something larger.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, October 21st, 2011 – 15:46 UTC ]
It has been a big week on the foreign policy front, with the death of Libya's dictator and President Obama's announcement today that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of this year (leaving roughly 150 to guard the embassy). But before we get to all of that, I've got some domestic advice for the president's re-election team.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Tuesday, October 18th, 2011 – 17:07 UTC ]
The issue of what, exactly, "three co-equal branches" means in American government -- and, more importantly, what happens when two of them disagree -- goes back a long way. Further than Franklin Roosevelt, further even than Abraham Lincoln. The first president to truly tangle with the Supreme Court was actually Andrew Jackson, who fought the court on two separate issues: Jackson's policy of "Indian removal," and the Second Bank of the United States. The first one is where Jackson responded (according to legend -- he may not have actually said this) to a court ruling against him: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" By doing so, Jackson was stating his open defiance of a Supreme Court decision, and pointing out that the Executive Branch actually controlled the levers of federal power, and not the Judicial Branch.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Monday, October 17th, 2011 – 15:50 UTC ]
The end of the American military's involvement in Iraq is almost upon us. Someone in the White House recently leaked what should have been apparent to everyone all along -- that the Pentagon is preparing to withdraw all our remaining troops from Iraq, by the end of this year. Less than 200 will remain, to guard the embassy, but all our other brave men and women in uniform will be home to celebrate the dawning of a new year.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, October 14th, 2011 – 16:30 UTC ]
But, having said all of that, I'm going to make a suggestion anyway, on one particular facet of the movement: its name. Because I truly think that if the protest wants to grow and expand into a forceful movement for change, it should consider a bit of rebranding.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Thursday, October 13th, 2011 – 16:57 UTC ]
Because Mormonism is in the news again, due to a Rick Perry supporter calling it a "cult," I thought it was high time to re-run the following column.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 – 16:34 UTC ]
The idea behind that title is: "When the People lead, the leaders will follow." I read this on a bumpersticker a few decades ago, although I must admit I haven't bothered to research the phrase's origins. Wherever it came from, the idea is a simple (and amusing) one: when the so-called "leaders" aren't leading, then the People will step in and do it for them. Eventually, the "leaders" will wake up to what is going on and get on board themselves, pretending to have led the movement all along.
Read Complete Article »
