Album Review – Staind’s Self-Titled Album

Staind released their seventh studio album (eighth if you count Aaron Lewis’ solo album), this one being a self-titled album.  I’ll call it STA for this post.  Given that this is their seventh album and the figure depicted in the album art happens to have seven limbs doesn’t strike me as a coincidence.   This album is Staind going back to their roots.  It’s by far the hardest album they’ve put out in a decade and certainly the hardest since “Dysfunction”, if not “Tormented”, their second and first albums, respectively.  But, here’s the thing.  While it’s raw and hard like their early albums, it’s also very intricate, detailed, and refined or even polished to a certain degree. 

The biggest theme of the album seems to be the end, whether that end takes the form of reflecting, finishing a chapter in one’s life, moving on to something new, or even death.  It also seems to focus several songs on parting words, of sorts, towards multiple individuals and groups. 

There was also one interesting tidbit in the artist thanks section.  Aaron Lewis thanked everyone for supporting him through his ‘creative schizophrenia’.  Most long-time fans will know exactly what he’s talking about here.  I remember saying to my girlfriend shortly after Aaron Lewis put out his country/acoustic solo album that if they hold to their historic pattern, the next album we’ll see is going to be harder than we’ve gotten used to.  And, on that note, onto the songs.

“Eyes Wide Open” starts the album and it’s only a couple seconds before the rage hits.  This sets the tempo and the mood for the whole album – angry, dark, and reflective.  It’s basically saying that we’re paying attention now.  It also has a focus on a particular person, but doesn’t really push that angle as much.

“Not Again” comes second.  It picks up where “Eyes Wide Open” left off and is a natural follow-up because if the last track was saying that now we’re paying attention, this one is saying that history won’t repeat itself because now we’re paying attention.  Like the previous track, it has a connection to someone, but that’s not pushed as much. 

“Failing” slows the tempo down quite a bit from the first two songs, though it still is a hard song.  It’s a dark, despair-filled song talking about trying to make that connection with another person and not succeeding, hence the title.  It also starts to zero in on a particular person in relation to the first two tracks. 

“Wannabe” is a co-op with Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit and Snoop Dogg.  I find it very difficult to compare this song to the rest of the album because of how different it is from the others.  This is by far the weakest song on the album, but it is a good intermission or break of sorts to change the sound and tempo of the album for a song.  It’s a fun, even catchy, song and a blast from the past.  It also fits into the theme of the album better than one may initially think because, if we’re talking about an album with a theme of tying up loose ends, it’s not unreasonable to want to get the last word, the parting shot, in with the wannabes. 

As an aside, Limp Bizkit basically brought Staind to the big stage many years ago and Staind took over.  I’d go so far as to say Limp Bizkit’s greatest contribution to music was Staind rather than anything Limp Bizkit did because their rock-rap hybrid genre pretty much went extinct by the early to mid 2000’s while Staind’s contributions to change rock are far more lasting.

“Throw It All Away” starts the ramp back up after the interlude of the last track, but not quite all the way.  It also gets us back on the theme of change and endings with some personal focus. 

“Take a Breath” continues the ramp, being a bit harder and faster than the last track.  I suspect this one is tied closely to many of the earlier songs on this album because the adversity conveyed in those songs can have this kind of maddening effect on a person. 

“The Bottom” is a hard song with some sinister guitar riffs and vocals, but it’s also kind of slow until it speeds up about half-way through before decelerating into the end.  The combination works very well for the song and the general vibe and message of the song.  As the title implies, it’s a race to the bottom and follows on the personal connection established in the main core of the album.

“Now” is one of my particular favourites and it’s unique in sound not only on this album, but throughout Staind’s career.  The speed picks back up here.  It’s a very well-done, high-energy song about coming to the fork in the road, making the choice, going down that path, and continuing down it.  There’s a great guitar riff in the middle here, too.  

“Paper Wings” slows the tempo back down from the last track and resumes the hard and angry vibe from the rest of the album.  This one particularly reminds me of some of Staind’s early work because it talks about doing whatever you have to do to escape the pain.

“Something to Remind You” lightens the sound and tempo to close the album.  It’s acoustic Staind at their finest.  This is a very reflective song, looking back on the long road to get where they are today.  With lyrics like, “So this is it.  I say goodbye to this chapter of my ever-changing life,” and, “Just one more song, A little something to remind you when I’m gone,” it sure sounds like a swan song, which is a sad thought for me.

Overall, I loved the album.  It’s a very easy album to listen to straight through and doesn’t suffer from the blurring issue I notice on many other albums.  Then again, the issue of tracks blurring together has just never been a problem for Staind.  There were a lot of solid guitar riffs throughout the album and some good Staind growling.  You can also hear the evolution of the band in the quality of the vocals, strings, and drums.

I’m worried, however.  Given the feel of the album, the return to Staind’s roots in sound (and even the use of Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit and Snoop Dogg), and two particular songs, “Now” and “Something to Remind You,” I’m worried this will be Staind’s last studio album.  I don’t have any confirmation of this yet, but I have a feeling it will be. 

Obviously, I hope I’m wrong, but if I’m right, this was a great way for them to go out and I hope they tour periodically.  They’ve been at it for a long time.  “Tormented” came out in 1996, if I recall correctly, which means 15 years now and I can’t believe it’s been that long.  If this is the end of the line for the single most dominant rock band of the 2000’s, then I at least get to say thanks for everything.

Shifting Tides in the 2012 Election

We’ve had some key shifts in the tides on both sides of the 2012 election since the last time I touched upon it.  Let’s look at some of those, but consider that we still have over a year until the election.

First, on the GOP side, three potential candidates, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, and Rudy Giuliani, finally declared once and for all that they are not in the 2012 race.  This is a big deal because it finally firms up the GOP field.  I can’t see any new entrants to the race.  Michael Bloomberg is doing a lot to raise eyebrows and make people wonder, but with him, the question is whether he’d enter the GOP primary or the Democrat primary or set up a third party run.  I was glad to see Palin decide not to run, as I’ve long held the opinion that her weaknesses, such as walking away from being the governor of Alaska after a half-term, far outweigh her strengths, like charisma.  Also, on a personal note, I don’t think I’d be able to handle her back in the big spotlight.  As for Christie, I was sad to see he isn’t running, but I can completely understand why.  He wanted time to shore up his political resume to help him avoid some of the pitfalls Barack Obama has fallen into due to his lack of leadership and experience.  I appreciate his demeanor and, barring some kind of career-ending scandal, I see him as a rising star in the GOP.  Christie has also endorsed Mitt Romney.  On Giuliani, I didn’t even know he was seriously considering running before his announcement that he wouldn’t. 

The second shift on the GOP side has been the simultaneous rise of Herman Cain and fall of Rick Perry.  The decline of Rick Perry doesn’t surprise me because, frankly, he’s been terrible in the debates.  What does surprise me is the fact that many of the Perry supporters have jumped on the Herman Cain train.  I would’ve expected Michele Bachmann to be the primary beneficiary of a weakening of Perry and I even suggested that Cain should bow out and consider his shot at being the vice president.  Clearly, I got that one wrong because Cain is now leading in the polls.

I’ve also noticed the Democrats changing their campaign message a bit.  The GOP wants to make people ponder the question of, “Are you better off now than four years ago?”  For most Americans, it’s probably a no or a slight yes.  The Democrats don’t want to talk in those terms.  Indeed, they’re already shifting strategy to avoid answering that question and instead trying to make the case that Obama inherited such a mess that the fact that he was able to keep it steady was a miracle and expecting improvement quickly was unreasonable.  It’s a more subtle version of the blame game (insert the target of your choosing, such as Bush Jr., the GOP, Wall Street, etc.).  Regardless of how logically sound or flawed I think that argument is, it’s the dynamic I see emerging.  Contrast that with Obama’s message of 2008 for hope and change.  They’ve dialed back that rhetoric, and subsequently are attempting to dampen people’s expectations.

How about Democrat land?  What’s changed there?  In a nutshell, Occupy Wall Street (OWS).  OWS will impact the GOP, too, but let’s look at the Democrats first.  I touched on OWS a bit in my previous post outlining differences between OWS and other movements.  Even before then, I mentioned the 1968 election when asking whether Obama will seek reelection.  I still think he will, but the 1968 comparison is becoming more appropriate because now Obama has an insurrection or rebellion or civil war on his hands within the party.  OWS has the potential to create a similar schism within the party, but OWS needs a leader to do that (imagine the irony if Michael Bloomberg, part of their ‘1%’ emerges as that leader).  I somehow doubt merely being heard will be enough for OWS.  The Democratic party must find a way to prevent that schism if they want to retain the White House in 2012 because history shows the divided party loses.  The GOP and Tea Party (TP) were able to come together, but the combination of the differences between OWS and the TP I outlined before and the fact that the Democrats already hold the White House will make such unity a bit more difficult.  It’s not impossible, but it’ll be harder.  Even if they succeed, the damage may already be happening.  Let’s look at the two scenarios, unification and schism of the Democrats real quickly.

If the unification occurs, I believe OWS will have a similar effect on the Democrats that the TP had on the GOP.  The TP dragged the GOP further to the right and I suspect OWS will drag Obama and the Democrats further to the left, which would not be good for Obama’s reelection strategy.  Remember, all along, I’ve been saying that Obama’s reelection strategy is founded on the principle that he must make himself appear to be a moderate centrist and make the GOP appear to be extreme radicals so he can pick up the Undecided, Marginally Attached, and Independent voters (UMAIs).  The GOP is, of course, trying to do the same.  It’s always the UMAIs that decide elections because both the left and the right have a base that will always vote for them, or at least never vote for the other party, no matter what.  To court the UMAIs, the truth doesn’t matter.  Perception is reality.  It doesn’t matter if a candidate is truly an extreme radical if s/he looks like a moderate centrist.

It’s possible that Obama has realized that he’s going to have trouble with the UMAIs than initially expected and he thinks his only chance to win is to reenergize the liberal base.  His poll numbers among independents have been pretty awful lately, so OWS could be part of his campaign strategy as I’ve theorized before.  Either way, I don’t think Obama wants to be dragged further to the left because the foundation of the GOP’s offensive is portraying Obama as a radical leftist and this would play into the GOP’s hands.  This will allow the GOP, if they’re shrewd, to turn the Democrats’ allegiance with OWS from a campaign asset to a campaign liability.  The GOP has the playbook because it’s very much like what Richard Nixon did in 1972.  The schism from 1968 was gone in 1972, as the Democrats rallied behind George McGovern. 

If the Democratic party schism occurs, I don’t think it matters very much who the GOP puts up, whether it’s a a more moderate candidate (such as Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, or Gary Johnson) or a more conservative person (such as Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, or Ron Paul).  Ideally, they put up a ticket that takes one person from both categories to create a balanced ticket that energizes the right wing base and appeals to the UMAIs.  I question the wisdom of selecting two from the same subset.  Either way, under this scenario, the GOP playbook becomes Richard Nixon’s 1968 election campaign and history is on the GOP’s side because the divided party consistently loses (1996, 1992, 1968, and 1912 being the most recent examples).

The 2012 election has gotten interesting with just over a year to go.  The GOP field is firming up, the rhetoric is being retooled by both sides, and OWS has injected a major complication into the situation.

Occupy Wall Street versus Other Movements

I laid out a bunch of similarities between Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the Tea Party (TP) in a previous post about OWS when I said, “Also, both movements were leaderless grassroots movements in their beginnings that were formed over the interwebs and stemmed from anger over America’s current condition and trajectory, and both appear to have the same goal of getting America back firing on all cylinders, though they clearly disagree on how to do that.” 

In that same post, I also asked, “Riddle me this.  How is OWS any different than the TP?”  None of those similarities have broken down, but I think I have some answers to my riddle, which I’ll detail here.  I don’t want to limit this to just OWS and the TP, so you’ll see some other comparisons crop up.

The first I see is lawlessness.  I don’t remember any TP incidents in which 700 people got arrested like this Brooklyn Bridge ordeal.  I don’t remember hearing about over 100 arrests like what happened in Boston.  I don’t even remember hearing about double-digit numbers of arrests at TP events, and I’ve heard a lot of those in the past few weeks regarding OWS.  This holds up even when we back out the Brooklyn Bridge incident and even when we consider the fact that the TP is a few years old while OWS is a few weeks old.  Admittedly, this is hard to track because defining an OWS/TP arrest isn’t exactly black and white, but I find this difference revealing.  Try doing quick searches of OWS and TP arrests and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

This lawlessness undercuts my original theory comparing OWS and the TP.  A more viable comparison in this sense thus may be the protests in London this year, as suggested to me by a lady on Twitter.  London’s were protesting youth unemployment and moved beyond protests into riots.  Youth unemployment, though still a major issue, isn’t as big of a problem in America, and OWS hasn’t yet crossed the line from protests to riots, so in those senses, it’s smaller on both scales than the incidents in London.  I hope OWS doesn’t cross that line, and I don’t think they will.

Next, the TP always had clear goals, even if their goals evolved with time.  Obamacare has always been in the TP’s crosshairs as one of their targets, for example.  The goal was originally to stop its passage, but now that it’s passed, the goal is to weaken and/or repeal it.  That’s focus.  It’s not their only focus because the TP also wants to oust Obama, among other things.  I’ve consistently asked what OWS’ goals are with regards to specific policies.  OWS has no shortage of things they’re protesting about, such as income inequality, corporate money in politics, and bailouts (common ground with the TP there), but they say they don’t really have any actual specific policy goals or haven’t really thought about it yet.  I also hear that it’s not their job to come up with those.  I’m not going to yet again go into how anger alone isn’t enough and you need to actually have a plan to improve things before you propose replacing the current system (yes, in the future, I will continue unapologetically pounding on this until I get answers because I can’t support or oppose a movement if I don’t understand not just what it wants to do, but how it wants to do it).  For now, all I’ll do is highlight that as a difference between the two and leave it at that.  This lack of clear goals again lends to the London rioters being the better comparison than the TP. 

Third, I’ve previously talked about OWS policy goals, but I haven’t yet touched on the movement’s overall goals.  This one flies counter to both the TP and London riots and introduces new comparisons.  With the TP, it was apparent to me pretty much even from the beginning that the TP, grassroots as it was at the start, was an insurrection or rebellion or even civil war within the GOP.  I never viewed the TP as seriously wanting to become its own political party.  The TP, in essence, aimed to reclaim (or hijack, depending on your perspective) the GOP.  The TP did not seriously want to form their own party when they could get their message out through an existing party.

OWS is different.  I don’t get the vibe that OWS is trying to reclaim/hijack the Democratic party.  After all, if we’re operating under the assumption that OWS formed on the left, then Obama is their guy and history shows that a schism within a party usually gives victory to the other party.  Look at the 1992 and 1996 elections involving Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, George Bush Sr., and Bob Dole for some recent examples.  Rather, I think OWS is more likely to try to form their own third party.  My theory stems from the history of the left wing in America.  Outside of a couple select times in American history, such as the early 1900’s with Eugene Debs’ Socialist party and the schism of the Democratic party during the 1968 presidential election, there really hasn’t been a powerful and overt far left-wing presence in American politics.  We can quibble about exactly how left-wing the modern Democratic party is, but it’s hard to argue that they’re further to the left than the Socialist party or 1968 Democrat party.  I’ve seen calls online for this and I’ve heard this in second-hand discussion with people participating in the protests and general assemblies.  It’s definitely something to watch.

In general, I’ve shied away from comparing OWS to the Arab Spring (AS), despite the fact that both formed heavily through social media.  There are monumental and insurmountable differences between the two.  For one, the AS protesters were attempting to establish a more democratic and less oppressive government with a more open economy, while the OWS protesters are railing against a democratic republic and capitalist economy that they feel has failed them.  Realistically speaking, the AS is starting from far more dire straits than OWS is.  Two, AS protesters were in far greater danger than OWS protesters are.  AS protesters knew that if they failed, they would probably be rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and eventually killed (very much like America’s Founding Fathers).  By contrast, an OWS protester would merely get arrested or sprayed, maybe whacked a couple times by a baton or brought down by a police dog or tazed or something like that.  Three, the AS had a clear goal.  In Egypt, it ended up demanding regime change, for instance.  As I’ve mentioned previously, OWS lacks a clear goal.

I also disagree with comparing OWS to other movements throughout US history, such as the civil rights movement and feminist movement of the mid to late 1900’s and the gay rights movement of today.  This is mainly because of the clear vision those movements had for goals.  They all knew they wanted equal rights for themselves, but they also knew specifically what rights they wanted and specifically what policies to target.  For example, the gay rights movement knows they want to be able to serve openly in the military and they know they want to be able to get legally married, thus they have already successfully had Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) repealed.  They can marry in several states and have civil unions or domestic partnerships in others.  They are even working to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which may come to a vote soon in Congress.  OWS doesn’t have this clarity and, though they may eventually, they do not presently.  

While I’m on the topic of OWS, I want to take this opportunity to voice my condemnation for some of the blatantly anti-American stuff going on in their crowds.  It’s not the whole crowd, or even a majority of the crowd, and it’s probably not even a big portion of the crowd.  It’s a minority of the crowd, but it is still troubling.  It’s an example of a couple of fools ruining it for the rest.  The worst I’ve seen is a picture of a protester defecating on a burning American flag.  I will not be posting links to that image here, but you can easily find it on Google if you don’t believe me.  I’m not demonizing all of the OWS protesters because I do believe the overwhelming majority of them care about America, love it, and want to strengthen it (clearly, they differ with me regarding how to go about strengthening America), but such conduct is wholly unacceptable.  Everyone has their 1^st Amendment rights, as I’m exercising here and they’re exercising there, but conduct like the picture mentioned above is deplorable.  Really, the situation is a case of, “Can you?  Should you?”  Regarding these anti-American displays, they can do them from a 1^st Amendment perspective, but they should not.  I’m going to go out on a limb and say public defecation is probably illegal, so in that sense, they cannot do what they did.  Can anybody tell me how that kind of conduct adds value to the cause?  I didn’t think so.

Will OWS turn into a political force?  Will it burn out or fade away?  The answers to these questions depend on whether OWS can break away from similarity to the London riots and coalesce like the other movements I mentioned. 

How Big is Occupy Wall Street?

It’s a simple question.  How big is Occupy Wall Street (OWS)?  If you talk to the members, you’d think it’s the biggest movement ever and that it’s growing exponentially.  Even non-supporters think it’s a big movement with explosive growth.  OWS claims they’re the 99% fighting against the 1%, so let’s look at how big the movement really is. 

Let me preface this by saying that I’m doing this based on second-hand sources and what I see in the media and online and what people I know are saying.  I’m not actually at one of these demonstrations.  I’m currently laid up with a broken foot for at least a couple more weeks and regardless of one’s opinion of the protests, attending in an injured state is quite unwise.  I went to Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear last year and I would still have attended that in my present state because the potential danger was far lower.  It’s all about risk assessment. 

This is also a back of the envelope type of exercise.  If I was blogging at the time it started, I would’ve tried to do this for the Tea Party (TP), but at this stage of their movement’s development, it’s probably not a worthwhile exercise.  Also, the big problem with trying to do a similar analysis today for the TP is they have so many big, but separate groups (Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, etc.) and there is likely a great amount of overlap between them.  There’s no way for me to even begin to guess how much overlap there is between them.

All that said, let’s get going.

One of the moderators of OccupyWallSt.org posted that, this past Thursday, 6 October, their website got 410,000 hits.  They were unique hits.  I’d also be curious to see a breakdown of hits within the USA versus the rest of the world, but I doubt they have that information because it’s a pain in the butt to track.  We know they were 410k unique hits, but let’s assume that all 410k hits were from within the USA and all of them will be eligible to vote in 2012. 

USelectionatlas.org shows there were approximately 130 million votes cast in the 2008 presidential election.  I’m going back of the envelope here, so I’ll use this number to keep it simple and avoid having to get into modeling stuff like population growth and voter percentages.  It’s good enough for my purposes.

410,000 / 130,000,000 = 0.00315 or 0.315%.  If you tally by website hits from their central website, OWS accounts for just under 1/3 of one percent of the voting population.  That’s just the people who voted in 2008.  The US census for 2010 on 2010.census.gov says the population in 2010 was about 309 million (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb10-cn93.html). 

410,000 / 309,000,000 = 0.00132 or 0.132%.  Yes, based on this measure and my assumptions, OWS makes up less than 1/7 of a percent of the population of the USA. 

The natural counter is, “Well, Tim, that’s all well and good, but most of the action is taking place in the real world, not the virtual world.”  That’s a very valid point, and I’ve looked at that, as well.

Meetup.com has a section for Occupy Together (meetup.com/occupytogether) and they schedule gatherings and such through it.  As of this writing, it has 928 communities.  Denver is largest at 115 occupiers and that’s the only one above 100.  Even if we assume they have 100 members each, again an assumption heavily skewed in OWS’s favor, that’s only 92,800 people.

Clearly, the demonstrations in Denver aren’t the biggest.  New York City is way bigger than 115 people, probably by at least a factor of 100, but likely more (obviously if 700 people were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge).  Even when we consider the likely development that many protesters have left NYC and started gatherings closer to home, we still need to add some pad to the numbers.  Padding the 92,800 by a factor of five to account for a few big city demonstrations skewing the average higher takes us up to 464,000 people, which is a bit higher than what we had above.  This approach makes sense because it factors out people from other countries.

In yet a third approach, let’s look to Twitter.  @OccupyWallSt has about 57,000 followers and @OccupyWallStNYC on Twitter has about 43,000 followers.  These are the two largest ones I’ve seen, and they likely have tremendous overlap and a significant number of people from outside the USA.  Interestingly enough, this outweighs the TP’s presence on Twitter, as the groups I named above only have around 10,000 followers each.

By comparison, @BarackObama has about 10.5 million followers, which is still pretty small against the 130 million total votes in 2008.  This probably makes a statement both about Barack Obama’s popularity and Twitter’s market penetration.

Fourth, we’ll even look at Facebook.  OccupyWallSt.’s Facebook page has about 47,000 likes.  That has the same problems as Twitter data, but it’s also consistent.  I think the Facebook data is even more significant because Facebook clearly has a much larger user base.  For perspective, TP Patriots has about 850,000 likes on their page, but that’s a tough comparison to make because the TP is a few years old while OWS is a few weeks old.  I'm not trying to compare the two movements here so much as assess the size of OWS.

Again, no matter how you slice it, OWS is a very small, but very vocal minority. 

Here’s the bottom line.  We’re talking about impressive numbers on their own because hundreds of thousands of people are a lot of people.  However, when we look at the percentages, these numbers are miniscule.  This isn’t to say that growth won’t make the movement bigger.  All I’m saying now is they shouldn’t overestimate their current size and neither should you.  They claim to be the 99%, but my calculations show they aren’t even the 1%.

Occupy Wall Street

I don’t know what to make of this Occupy Wall Street (OWS) thing.  I’ve been talking to supporters and opponents alike and still have a very muddled opinion.

I’m tempted to view OWS as a liberal answer to the Tea Party (TP).  The similarities are striking.  The involvement of the likes of Van Jones, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and the unions combined with the relative absence of libertarians and the TP from here (aside from a small band of Ron Paul supporters, who seem to pop up everywhere) makes for solid evidence towards that conclusion.  Also, both movements were leaderless grassroots movements in their beginnings that were formed over the interwebs and stemmed from anger over America’s current condition and trajectory, and both appear to have the same goal of getting America back firing on all cylinders, though they clearly disagree on how to do that.  The flaming I’ve received from both the TP and OWS at suggesting similarity between the two shows me I’m on the right track (one side claims the other is Astroturf instead of grassroots and that one side claims to be the true grassroots side, and suggesting that both started as grassroots and turned – or will turn, in OWS’s case - into Astroturf is simply blasphemy to both sides).

I also see this as part of Obama’s reelection campaign.  Remember, every action taken by both the left and right between now and then should be viewed through the lens of how it helps the left/right get their candidate elected president.  One of the right’s biggest attacks on Obama has been that he’s a radical leftist (the validity of the attack is irrelevant).  To counter these attacks, and subsequently appeal better to the coveted undecided, marginally attached, and independent voters (I’ll start calling them the UMAIs), Obama has to make himself look not like a radical leftist, but a more moderate centrist.  Perception is reality, but reality is not necessarily perception in this case.  Also, look for this to reenergize his previously lethargic liberal base. 

If that’s the case, then the liberal media should be all over it really trying to make OWS look good and the conservative media should be trying to undermine OWS (exactly the same dynamic we saw during the Wisconsin events earlier this year and exactly the opposite dynamic we’ve seen regarding TP coverage).  We’re starting to see that as OWS grows.  On the whole, I think the media’s doing a fair job of covering the events, but appears confused to a degree and could be doing better.  I’ve heard complaints that the mainstream media isn’t really covering OWS, but I see that as a flawed criticism.  Did the media immediately seize upon the TP or the protests in say Egypt right from the very beginning?  No, they didn’t really get onboard until the movements achieved a certain critical mass and had a newsworthy catalyst. 

Here, the catalyst, I think, was 700 people getting arrested for walking in the driveway of the Brooklyn Bridge.  I read how one of the protesters thought the driveway was open to foot traffic in addition to the usual pedestrian walkway and I’ve heard from another one whining about entrapment, but let’s use some common sense and logic for a minute.  When is the Brooklyn Bridge driveway ever open to pedestrian traffic?  Methinks hardly ever.  It’s possible OWS could have applied for permits, but that’s not likely, and it’s even less probable that the city would approve such permits were they even filed.  It’s also possible that OWS’s ‘leadership’ knew there would be mass arrests and set their people up to get arrested so that OWS could get more attention in the press, in essence viewing the people as pawns.  Admittedly, this thinking about OWS’s ‘leadership’ speculative on my part based on circumstantial evidence and my knowledge of how political operatives work, but it is plausible and I’m throwing it out there as food for thought.

Also, let’s be realistic here.  What other choice is Mayor Michael Bloomberg left with when the Brooklyn Bridge is shut down?  He can’t just sit by and allow it.  I think Bloomberg’s done a great job of balancing being accommodative with the protesters while ensuring that the city isn’t paralyzed and/or dragged into anarchy.  The reality is Bloomberg could have shut OWS down from day one or after the Brooklyn Bridge debacle, but he didn’t.  As for entrapment by law enforcement, what credible evidence is there to suggest that?  None that I’ve seen and the aforementioned guy whining about it declined to provide any, leading me to believe that he either has no argument or has a laughably flimsy one.

But, the situation could escalate.  The most troubling aspect to me thus far is the potential for a coordinated hack on the New York Stock Exchange by Anonymous through an operation called Invade Wall Street (IWS).  This would be absolute chaos if true and successful.  There are people online claiming to speak for Anonymous both confirming and denying it.  Some say IWS going to happen, other claim it’s a hoax to discredit OWS or a trap by law enforcement.  Maybe it’s a hoax, maybe it’s not.  I don’t know.  What I do know is it wouldn’t be entirely unwise to be prepared for the possibility that it’s authentic and make the necessary preparations and contingency plans.  Interestingly enough, Fox is the only news outlet carrying this story.  The details I’ve heard show the attack happening on Monday 10 October at 3:30, so you have time this weekend to assess the risk and formulate a portfolio plan, then take action on Monday if you’re so inclined.  I’m just putting the information out there.  What you do with it is up to you.

I don’t have any real understanding of OWS’s goals.  I don’t even know if they do, to be honest.  I know what they’re angry about and I’m sympathetic because America is a mess right now, but anger in itself is generally not very productive unless it can somehow be channeled to elicit positive action.  I’ve long held the belief that if one is going to criticize a current system, one must have a viable alternative.  It’s not enough to just say, “This system sucks.  It needs to be abolished.”  If you do that, you very likely will end up with a new system that, at its best, is worse than the old system was at its worst.  It’s the ‘cure being worse than the disease’ line of thinking.  There needs to be something viable on the drawing board to replace the existing system that will improve upon the condition.  You’ll note that I very seldom criticize without having some workable alternative way (and when I do, not only do I try to openly admit to not having said alternative, but I also make it clear that a plan is needed before we start dismantling the existing system).  What specific actions is OWS proposing? 

Anger alone isn’t enough.  America doesn’t need anger and vague rhetoric.  America needs viable ideas for improving the current situation.  OWS lacks this coherency right now.  I’ve already been called a liar, stupid, rude, argumentative, willfully blind, and all kinds of other names already for saying what I’m saying, but I’ll keep saying it until such time that I’m proven wrong.  I did see a great exchange between Neil Cavuto and Dennis Kucinich on Fox about this very matter, however. 

The bottom line is I’m left with two questions.  Riddle me this.  How is OWS any different than the TP?  Also, what is OWS’s plan?

Book Review Mitt Romney’s “Believing in America”

Normally, I wouldn’t do a book review for something like Mitt Romney’s “Believing in America,” but I think it’s very important reading because Romney is a clear front-runner in the GOP primaries.  Also, it’s about 160 pages, so it qualifies as a book.  And you can get it on Kindle for free (I think).  I just got the PDF because I don’t have a Kindle since I’m one of those paper-and-ink types for longer reading.  I spent a few weeks on this post and it’s a long one, so get comfortable. 

The piece is laid out very sensibly.  It starts with the forward by an economics professor and an introductory letter from Romney himself.  This is the typical starting fluff stuff, so I’m not going to say much more about it.  After that, he provides a list of five bills and five executive orders for his first day in office.  These are all on two pages and very quick to read, so I’ll be brief on them and my comments.

The five bills include reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, the implementation of free trade agreements (Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, which have been sitting on Obama’s desk for a couple years), an energy bill to get exploration going, consolidation of federal retraining programs and funding for state-level programs, and an immediate 5% ($20B per year) cut in non-security discretionary spending (no Medicare or Social Security, which means this is really just nibbling around the edges and not attacking the real problems).

The five orders include an order to try to kill Obamacare (this may be moot by the 2012 election depending on if/when the Supreme Court takes it up, but if repeal is his goal, he should also introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare because an executive order can’t permanently kill Obamacare – only repeal or the Supreme Court declaring the whole law unconstitutional can), a rollback of Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy or jobs and a cap on new ones, more streamlining of domestic energy production, unfair trade practice sanctions on China (it may not be the smartest idea to needlessly provoke China), and a reversal of Obama-era orders that favor organized labor.   

Romney then details how this recession is by far the worst since the Great Depression, noting unemployment rates, the average duration of unemployment, and several other statistics showing just how bad things really are right now.  Next, he goes on to highlight some of Obama’s specific policy failures, such as the stimulus bill, with specific emphasis on the lack of promised green jobs and the failure of the infrastructure spending to jumpstart the economy (a topic I’ve discussed recently myself).  From there, he pressed on regarding what he called distractions, such as the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and Obamacare.  Romney also provides an excerpt from an exchange between Congress and the EPA showing that the EPA doesn’t consider economic impacts in their regulations and he also mentioned several other suffocating regulations.  He closed this section with a jab about the downgrade.  As an avid critic of Obama myself, there really wasn’t that much new here and it very effectively builds the case for why you should vote against Obama.

Now, the new stuff begins.  This is the section where Romney shows you why you should vote for him.  He talks about his broad array of experience in both the private and public sectors, from his educational background to his time with the Bain firms to his leadership of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics to his time as governor of Massachusetts.  It even talks about his family, married over 40 years with five kids and 16 grandchildren.  After this, he goes into detail about the seven areas he wants to focus on – taxes, regulations, trade, energy, labor, human capital, and fiscal policies. 

Here’s one side note before I continue.  Critics of Romney are quick to point out that Bill Clinton put a similar package together for the 1992 election and that the package then was weak and not worth reading, so Romney’s will be the same.  I’ll be the judge of that by reading Romney’s plan, thank you very much.  I never read the Clinton one (I was in elementary school then and we had simpler, more exciting reading to do).

On tax policy, Romney first provides a brief list of Obama’s failures in this matter and then advocates several ideas of his own, such as the extension of the Bush tax rates, the abolition of dividend, interest, and capital gain taxes on taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes under $200,000 per year (I particularly like this idea), the elimination of the death tax, a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, and a transition from a worldwide tax system to a territorial one (Romney explains that currently, companies pay corporate taxes in the country where they earn the income, then when they try to repatriate the money back into the US, the US taxes them at the difference between the US and the other country).  There’s also an editorial from Scott McNealy, the founder and former CEO of Sun Microsystems, defending Romney’s position that corporations should be viewed as people for tax purposes (a position which the left not only disagrees with, but widely mocks as a gaffe). 

The regulatory policy chapter takes a similar format as the tax policy.  Romney puts a quote from his own speeches, discusses some of Obama’s shortcomings, lists some of his ideas, and it closes with an editorial, this time from Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants (Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr.).  Romney mentions that government regulation cost the economy $1.75 trillion in 2008 alone according the US Small Business Administration.  He also calls for the repeal and replacement of both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, a review of Obama-era regulations, a regulatory cap (no new regulation, and if you want a new one, an old one has to go), a restoration of Congressional oversight including having Congress vote on big regulations that cost $100M or more (I won’t hold my breath – I’ve never heard of a White House do anything but take power from Congress), and a requirement to consider cost in regulating (cost-benefit analysis needs to happen in regulating and it doesn’t from what I can tell). 

Trade policy follows the existing formula, too.  There are two main areas of focus in this chapter.  First, Romney rightly attacks Obama for allowing several basically completed trade agreements (Colombia, Panama, and South Korea) to languish incomplete for his entire presidency and for generally not making trade policy a priority.  Romney, of course, pledges the opposite.  He would get the pending agreements passed, work to engage in new negotiations with other countries, and create what he calls a ‘Reagan economic zone’ to place the top trade policy problems faced by America into center focus.  The second area of focus in this chapter is specifically on US trade policy with China.  Romney correctly criticizes Obama for basically being spineless in dealing with China and for Obama’s apparent view that America is working from a position of weakness, so we have to let China do whatever they want.  I like Romney’s attitude to get tougher on China and most of his suggestions on doing so, but the one area I disagree with him on is the currency issue.  I think we actually want China to have a weaker currency because it will keep our prices down. 

And we move onto energy policy.  Romney criticizes Obama for both his clear opposition to American oil and coal for energy and his support for green energy.  He also attacks Obama for imposing job-killing environmental regulations during a time of 9% unemployment.  There are two fundamental premises to Romney’s approach to energy policy, which are the same two fundamental premises of my own approach to energy policy.  One, we can combine energy policy and national security policy by developing our own energy reserves.  Two, we need to more equally weight economic and environmental considerations in policy. 

He wants to overhaul the regulatory system for energy policy, and Romney spends a bit of time on nuclear power trying to streamline their process and expand their capabilities.  It’s great that he’s talking about nuclear regulation in this level of detail, but by focusing only on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), he’s missed the lion’s share of the problems with nuclear power regulation.  The NRC has issues, don’t get me wrong, but to only focus on them misses so many other problems.  Also, expecting the NRC to approve a reactor within only two years is unreasonable due to the complexity of the devices in question.

Romney also comes out clearly in support of the Keystone XL pipeline (which is a great idea because it would get us better access to Canada’s energy).  What’s also interesting is his desire to overhaul the energy research funding process.  He wants to see our energy research work more like our defense research.  The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the inspiration for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E).  I’ve worked with DARPA in the past and their model creates innovation and results, so I really like this idea.

We’re on to labor policy next.  Here, Romney details Obama’s pro-union positions and actions, including Obama’s support of card check and snap elections, the auto industry bailouts, the use of Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) during the first stimulus bill, and the attacks by Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Boeing’s efforts to build a facility in South Carolina.  Romney shows that he has a balanced view of unions.  He recognizes their historical importance, but also recognizes that they cannot be allowed to run amok as they have under the Obama presidency.  Romney fully supports Boeing’s position against the NLRB (a very sensible position on Romney’s part) and wants to see union elections be as honest as possible, which is the basis for his opposition of card check and snap elections.  He also would use the bully pulpit of the presidency to advocate states become Right-to-Work states, but makes no mention of intent to introduce a national Right-to-Work bill, which is a good thing because that decision needs to reside with the state governments, not the federal government.  Importantly, Romney would also outlaw the use of mandatory union dues for political purposes, under the premise that donations for political causes should be freely and voluntarily given. 

Next is human capital.  The use of the term ‘human capital’ is a telltale sign of a private sector background because it’s one of those business buzzwords.  The piece in general screams private sector.  Anyway, Romney mentions the structural unemployment problem and generally attacks Obama’s lack of productive action on the issue.  Romney’s wants to reduce the redundancies in the federal programs and give the states more power in the matter.  He also has a particularly interesting idea called ‘personal reemployment accounts’ in which unemployed people would be given a set amount of money to use for retraining purposes.  Whether they enroll in government programs or college or trade school or whatever is up to them because, as Romney believes, “[A]n individual knows better than the government what avenue will lead most rapidly to a job.”  Romney parlays this into examples of a couple apparently successful programs out of Georgia and Massachusetts before going into his plans to attract and retain foreign talent.  He places a big focus here particularly in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), which is paramount to our future.  We simply do not produce enough STEM graduates as it is, so we need to encourage people with STEM backgrounds to come to the US and we need to encourage foreign STEM graduates to stay in the US.  The importance of this issue is vastly underappreciated in our society, and reading this section makes me feel like Mitt Romney gets it.

We close out the policy series with fiscal policy.  Here, Romney highlights the massive expansion of government spending under the Obama administration.  He also attacks Obama’s call for a ‘balanced approach’ to fiscal reform because Romney believes we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.  Romney endorses the GOP’s Cut-Cap-Balance approach, advocating for a 20% of GDP cap on federal spending, an immediate 5% reduction in non-security discretionary spending, entitlement reform (being very clear to strike a balance between allowing the benefits of current and soon-to-be retirees to remain unchanged and making sure future retirees can still collect), and passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).  Honestly, there’s not much here that’s not already in the typical GOP package on fiscal policy.

With that, we come to a section called, “A Stark Choice,” and the title says it all as Romney discusses the fact that there are now two competing visions of America’s future.  This section is well-written and does a great job of portraying the 2012 election as pivotal for America’s future.  There’s also an appendix of 59 policy proposals that will get America back to work.  Romney mentioned pretty much all of these in the report already, but it’s nice to see the list all laid out on two pages. 

If you’re on the fence about Mitt Romney, you should read this.  He doesn’t get much into social issues here, so you’ll have to look elsewhere on that stuff.  This is an economic plan.  At the least, skim it and/or read the appendix.  Should Romney win the GOP nomination, this document will be in the spotlight during the general election.