Some thoughts on Occupy L.A.

On Tuesday night, the Los Angeles Police Department moved in and broke up the encampment of Occupy L.A. protesters that had been peacefully protesting at City Hall for the past two months. On Wednesday night, protesters were back, saying that even though they weren't allowed to camp out anymore, the movement was far from dead. The question of the day is, has the "Occupy" movement that has swept the country really accomplished anything?
Let me be the first to say, I am a HUGE proponent of the First Amendment. I believe that people should always have the right to gather en masse and protest those things they view as injustice. And in this case, in particular, protesters have every right to be angry.
The "Occupy" movement started on Wall Street, with protesters angry about what they perceived as mismanagement of this nation's financial systems. They're right. It's no secret that corporate CEOs have been gorging themselves for years, at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Heck, even when they get caught with their hand "in the cookie jar," they're still awarded with multimillion-dollar "golden parachutes" when they're fired. Only in the most egregious cases (such as Enron) do these greedy fat cats ever see prison time.
The "Occupy" movement has done a great job drawing attention to the inequities inherent in our financial system. The movement has done a great job of channeling justified citizen anger and changing the national dialogue to finally focus on the inequities that have plagued our country for decades. The question now is, what's next?
Obviously, protesters can't stage sit-ins forever. People have to work. And forcing the already slow-moving wheels of government to grind to a halt benefits no one in the long term. So what's next?
The first thing I would say is that protesters don't need to let this movement simply die out. Now is not the time to "just move on." Organizers have captured lightning in a bottle here. They have tapped into very real anger over very legitimate issues. Continued "occupations" aren't realistic. So keep the momentum going through the use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook. The protests have been effective, so keep those going, too, just on a smaller scale. Make them less frequent, and people are more likely to pay attention when one occurs.
I also would encourage organizers to do their research. Identify some of the major offenders, then organize a series of nationwide boycotts. Sometimes words aren't enough. Sometimes, creating a media spectacle and simply drawing attention to the problem isn't enough. If organizers want to send a clear message to Wall Street and to corporate America, hit them squarely in the wallet. If enough people get on board, so that these companies' bottom line begins to be affected, watch how fast they'll sit up and take notice.
Finally, I would urge organizers of the "Occupy" movement to set up a series of "town hall" meetings across the country. Bring politicians together with regular folks. Let people vent their frustrations. And get politicians on record talking about how they would deal with people's concerns. Then, take the knowledge gained to the ballot box. Elect serious candidates who recognize the problem, and are focused on finding a solution. That's not a "quick fix." It could, in fact, take years. But I firmly believe that the power of each person's vote remains the best solution to fixing the problem for this, and future generations.

A small break from the norm

This is primarily a political blog about national and state political issues. Given the firestorm surrounding Penn State University and its legendary football coach, Joe Paterno, in recent days, however, I felt compelled to comment.
For those who have been living under a rock, or who don't watch TV, a quick recap: Joe Paterno has spent 62 years coaching at Penn State. He recently set the record for most wins by a major Division I coach with 409, breaking the record formerly held by the late, great Eddie Robinson. In 2002, he was alerted that his former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky was being investigated after he was caught showering with a young boy, and, alledgedly, molesting him. While Paterno reported the incident to his superiors, he failed to contact the police. Now, Sandusky stands accused of more than 40 felony counts with eight boys over the years. Paterno was unceremoniously fired over the phone last week. The question is, should he have been?
This is not as easy a question as it appears on first glance. Paterno, by all accounts ran an exceedingly clean program. He donated a good deal of his own money to the school. Penn State's library is even named after him. He is beloved by many on campus and in his community.
On one hand, one could argue that Paterno should be allowed to go out on his own terms. He had already agreed to retire at season's end before he was fired. After everything he's done for his school, shouldn't he be allowed to go out on his own terms, with a shred of dignity?
Normally, I would say, "of course." At 84, having won more games than anyone else in history, he should be allowed to dictate his own exit. But the thing that bothers me most about this situation, that ultimately changes my mind, is that Paterno did nothing more than the bare minimum when he found out about the abuse a decade ago. Paterno should have done more than just report the incident to his superiors. He should have called the police. He should have used his considerable influence to put a stop to the abuse. Instead, he reported the incident to his superiors then went on with business as usual. That is deeply disturbing.
What's equally as disturbing is the media's treatment of the story. Most outlets I've seen have treated this primarily as a sports story, with focus primarily on Paterno and the football program. That's simply wrong. The real story isn't about Paterno, or about Penn State's football program. The real story is about Sandusky's alleged victims. What has happened to them? What does the future hold for them in the wake of this traumatic abuse?
I guess the lurid headlines about Paterno and the sex scandal are what sell papers and generate ratings for the network news programs. But I think it's a sad testimony on the state of our society that the victims in this story have been so easily forgotten.

"Cain-gate" nothing but an unnecessary distraction

In recent days, GOP presidential front-runner Herman Cain has come under increasing fire, not only for his fatally flawed "9-9-9" tax reform plan, but also because two former female employees are now claiming that Cain sexually harrassed them years ago while head of the National Restaurant Association. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following presidential politics for any length of time. Cain has enjoyed a meteoric rise from near obscurity to the front of a crowded field of presidential contenders, many with much more experience on the national stage. And Cain is hardly the first candidate who has had to deal with allegations of past misdeeds. The question is, should those allegations be enough to derail his campaign? I don't think so.
I understand that when someone is running for president, they should rightfully come under increased scrutiny, both by their opponents and the public. This is especially true in Cain's case, since he was largely unknown prior to this election cycle. People don't know him yet. And they have a right -- no an obligation -- to learn as much as possible about the man who might one day be the most powerful person on earth. But I have felt for a long time that there are certain areas of a candidate's private life that should remain off limits to the prying eyes of the media and the public. This is one of those areas.
Proponents of the "bare all" approach to modern campaigning claim that exposing alleged past misdeeds like this is a question of character. They argue that past mistakes offer a peek at the candidate's morality and how they will govern if elected. I don't buy it.
I don't care who a candidate is having an affair with. That is a matter that should be left private, between a husband and a wife, not opened up for public scrutiny and comment. Nor do I care if a candidate experimented with drugs in his early 20s. Everyone has made mistakes in their past, and unless the candidate is currently addicted to drugs, it is irrelevant. The question voters should ask themselves is, what is that candidate doing TODAY?
The problem I have with the current "cut-throat" style of campaigning is that it discourages good, well-qualified people from ever seeking public office. Why would anyone ever run if he or she knows that every mistake they've ever made is going to be exposed to the harsh glare of public scrutiny? In addition, red herrings such as "Cain-gate" only distract the public from the discussion of real issues.
Consider: Prior to Politico breaking this story, the GOP field and the public were engaged in a meaningful discussion about tax reform in America and the inequity of the current system. Now? No one's talking about "9-9-9." They're too busy trying to determine whether Cain is guilty and whether he'll stay in the race.
So, how should Cain handle this? If I were him, I would immediately call a press conference to deal with this issue head-on, before the story gets any bigger. If he's guilty, I simply would own up to his mistakes and offer a heartfelt apology. If not, I would still offer an apology for anything I might have said and done that could have been misconstrued. Then, I would answer reporters' questions as succinctly and honestly as possible. The worst thing Cain could do at this point is to simply ignore the story, hoping it will go away. That's not going to happen. And his silence will only feed public and media speculation that he's hiding something.
It's unfortunate that "Cain-gate" has garnered as many headlines as it has in recent days. Cain must deal with it now. Once he does, we can finally get back to dealing with issues that really matter.