Music Video Monday

Because the Black Frank White was the illest. RIP.

David Stern Decides to Lock Up his Legacy

There is a lot of talk today, after this past weekend's deal ending the NBA lockout, about the motivations of both the players and the owners in hashing the deal out now. Charles Pierce over at Grantland has a piece today that mirrors many of my thoughts. I absolutely agree with him that the lockout was never just about, or even primarily about, splitting up basketball related income. In the same vein, I don't think that this weekend's deal getting done was primarily about either the players or the owners. It was about that smug bastard above. As I told my buddy upon hearing the news, I'd bet dollar to donuts that Stern read/saw all of the negative coverage, heard about how big of a threat this was to his legacy, especially after the Seattle fiasco, and, after some contemplation in his office that has many leather-bound books and smells of rich mahogany, decided that the lockout needed to end now. He's the only one who could corral both sides and convince them that this was the best for everyone involved. He could tell the players the owners were robber baron dbags and the owners how much they actually won in the deal and how much they stood to lose by losing a season. And then he could convince the owners to do what they should've done in the first place anyway... make some minor concessions so the players could save face and wrap this deal up. The worst part, for me anyway, is that people will probably forget, again, that he is the Darth Vader to the owner's collective Palpatine. People think that he's power but he's, basically, a tool the owners use to get what they want. I love the NBA and I'm psyched that its back, but it makes me a little sick that Stern will get to continue on with his whole shtick without a moments pause. Ugh. Well I won't forget... eff you Stern.

(Image: one of the more condescending Stern images I came across. Though it would probably be easy enough to start a Stern condescending glare gallery.)

How to Fail At Legislating by Really, Really Trying

This post may very well get pretty long and quite possibly convoluted, so I request your patience/forgiveness in advance. A probably (definitely) better written piece that takes on similar themes can be found here (it's Rolling Stone, but not Matt Taibbi. So back off). Feel free to jump to the last paragraph of this post for the punch line.

In a surprise to no one, the (Not so) Super Committee on Debt Reduction failed miserably at their mandate and did not even get a proposal together that they could vote on. There are a variety of reasons for this failure but (as some may have guessed) I place the blame squarely at the feet of GOP orthodoxy (religious term usage intended) on taxes. Simply put, Republicans on the Debt Reduction Committee refused to budge on additional revenue to work in tandem with the spending cuts the Dems were offering. Specifically, the GOP was requesting that the Bush tax cuts lasted beyond 2012. Obama has pushed for the continuance of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class before, but the Republicans required that ALL of the tax cuts, including for the wealthiest in this county, are extended as well. Despite the fact that the country can no longer afford them. And despite repeatedly and vociferously preaching debt reduction. The basic argument, as far as there is one, is that taxes upon the wealthy impede growth and the economic growth is really the only way we can pay down our national debt. Classic Trickle-down economics (aka Reaganomics).

There are NUMEROUS problems with this theory, but I'll try to contain myself as much as possible. First and foremost, if this is the case then WHERE THE EFF IS THE MOTHER EFF'N GROWTH YOU GODDAMN MORONS? (Looks like my Caps Lock got stuck. Whoops.). This is not some hot new theory that Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie hatched at a slumber party being all GOP young guns and such. As the name suggests, the Bush tax cuts have been around since the presidency of, wait for it... you ready?... I don't know if you are, but here it is... George Walker Bush. Yet the growth hasn't come.  Now, I guess, the plan is to maintain the status quo and hope beyond hope that the spirit of the Gipper makes it all better? These tax cuts have taken billions from our revenue stream and, along with two unfunded wars, helped mightily in bringing the US into the situation we are now in. Despite GOP mythologizing, even President Reagan raised taxes when it was necessary to keep the US economy on an even keel. You do not stand on orthodoxy when the country is reeling; you find solutions that work (such as spending cuts + increased revenues = balance; yes, that would be Personal Finance 101- Your Checkbook).

Additionally, and lastly (thankfully for you), the current talk of tax cuts to the wealthiest and corporations spurring hiring and ACTUAL growth through capital investment, R&D, new products, et al., is just a steamy load of horse manure. As today's NY Times points out, many companies, currently sitting on enormous amounts of cash, are not reinvesting that money in ways that would ACTUALLY help the economy grow. Rather, these companies are artificially approximating growth by instituting share buy backs,which push up the earnings per share. This is accounting legerdemain being used to simulate growth. The truly sad part is that investment in research and development would, eventually, help a company ACTUALLY grow. It just requires taking the long view. And in lies the rub. The short term artificial growth helps executives hit required earnings per share/growth numbers and, thus, get performance based performances attached to those numbers. Likewise, usually top executives making these decisions hold a large amount of stock in the company and can directly benefit from these buy backs. This is, clearly, a potential conflict of interest but courts give a wide amount of latitude in business judgment. Unless there is a clear breach of fiduciary duties, the games continue. All tax cuts would do is grow the pile of money that corporations are sitting on and help those running those companies get richer while paying lower tax rates. Sounds totes fair, right?

So, in other words, shit is eff'n crazy pants to the max. I can only hope that the POTUS sticks by his promises to veto any attempt to roll back the automatic spending cut trigger and a full extension of the Bush tax cuts. It may take some brass ones but, considering our current political environment (those federalists/anti-federalists were lil schoolboys comparatively), this may be the best outcome we could have hoped for.

Dope v. Hope

First off, apologies to my six or so faithful readers for my absence. Last week was a busy one and the blogging dropped off. I was appropriately shamed, however, so I hope to make up for it in the coming week(s).

60 Minutes ran two segments highlighting two individuals, Grover Norquist and Christine Lagarde, that could not be more different in my mind. They both are clearly very intelligent people but people who utilize their intelligence in very different manners. Grover Norquist, of Harvard and HBS, has formed a a libertarian advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform, whose "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" has held Republican congressman hostage for decades. Even in his short 60 Minutes segment, Norquist comes across as the dorky kid in high school that got a taste of a bit of power and now clearly revels in the fact that he has the rich, popular kids come to kiss his ring. He wisely deflects questions about being a tool for corporate interests and not divulging his supporters by stating that he is looking out for the American voter, despite the majority of Americans supporting tax increases. Long story short, I think he's a scourge on the American electorate and he gives me the willies. Christine Lagarde, on the complete opposite hand, is my homegirl. She was the first female chairman of Baker & McKenzie, a massive international law firm, then became the first female minister in charge of economic affairs in France, and just recently became the managing director of the IMF. Clearly she's one bad ass mofo (fafo?). Unlike Norquist, she comes across as a humble, hard working pragmatists that was too proud to join an elite French law firm because they stated she would never make partner as a woman (she just walked out of the interview... bad. ass.). She called out the French worker for being too lazy, Wall Street for ignoring the coming financial crisis in 2008 and now calling out the entire global financial industry for not accepting regulations quickly enough.

I'd recommend watching both segments and making your own decisions but I think many of the problems in the US exist because people like Norquist have too much power and  not enough people like Lagarde do.

Music Video Mondays

Because Bradley Nowell died too young, because it is a good song and because Tiny Lister is a scary dude.

The Hot Mic Heard Round the World

In what has been variously labeled a horrible gaffe or a fleeting glimpse of the truth, depending on who you are talking to, President Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France were overheard speaking about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a less than flattering fashion at the G20 summit. Their off-the-record discussion was on a microphone that was, unbeknownst to them, live at the time. A small group of reporters in a different area heard what was said and, despite an initial reluctance to report on a private conversation, the facts eventually leaked out. According to Reuters, the conversation went as follows:

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

To me, this doesn't seem like the biggest deal in the world. I mean, Netanyahu seemed to go out of his way to go on an Eff You Obama tour of the U.S. on his last visit. Not the biggest surprise that Obama might not be his biggest fan. Around Congress, however, the histrionics are going to be turned up to 11. This will be especially true at the GOP debate tomorrow evening where, I can only imagine, the POTUS will be accused of treason for daring to speak (mildly, kinda, sorta, in a milquetoast way) ill off the Israeli Prime Minister. In some circles, to say anything remotely negative about Israeli means that you are a filthy anti-Semitic, Nazi sympathizing, puppy kicker. Or, at the very least, not a Christian.

Personally, I don't understand the knee jerk support of Israel on ALL issues, ALL the time. Or why a modern, developed, (relatively) wealthy country would receive more U.S. foreign aid than any other country. Like any relationship, the U.S. and Israel should have a give and take (instead of Israel being the abusive boyfriend the U.S. won't leave). Maybe the leaking of this conversation will make Israel re-think its recalcitrance, but I doubt it. Especially when a large number in Congress go out of their way to support the Prime Minister of Israeli while taking shots at the President of the United States.

UPDATE: See link for a well put analysis by Sully.

Music Video Mondays

Because it's Weezy F. Baby, and the F. is for favorite.

A Beautiful Legal Mind... Getting Clowned

Recently (somewhat), Jack Balkin, an esteemed Constitutional Law Professor at Yale, Dean Don Durkett look alike, and blogger at the eponymous Balkinization, wrote a post that suggested that the Occupy Wall Street movement co-opt the strategy of the Tea Partiers and make their point in light of the Constitution. Specifically, he feels that their struggle should couched in terms that reflect Article IV's "Guarantee Clause," which, essentially, guarantees a republican form of government. In his estimation, the OWS movement is arguing that our system of government is broken and no longer truly republican as corporate interests and the "1%" have taken over (i.e., we have an oligarchy, I guess).

Anywhooo, this brought a response from Tim Zick, a former professor of mine (not at William and Mary and who I did not particularly like) in the Concurring Opinions blog (I SWEAR this is the last dorky legal theory plug I'm plugging today). Prof. Zick argues that if OWS really wants to become a Constitutional movement, it has to look no farther than the Preamble. In his own words,

“We the People“ . . . in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.” 

These fundamental principles seem to reflect what the protesters are most concerned about.  This is a nascent populist movement.  I’m sure if they were polled, the ”99 percent” would embrace the notion of a ”Republican form of government.”  But they would embrace that principle because it is supposed to produce ”a more perfect” union, justice, tranquility, general welfare, and the “blessings of liberty” across generations.

As much as it pains me to say this, Professor Zick seems to nail it dead to rights and totally clowns JB. What the hell is happening? My world is getting turned upside down. (Pardon the coming legal theory nerd out) Professor Balkin is getting clowned by Professor Zick? This follows his former co-blogger Marty Lederman leaving for the Office of Legal Counsel, after years of beating the Bush administration up for expansion of executive powers, and promptly okays the targeted assassination of a US citizen in a secret memo. The same OLC that is basically continuing the expansion of executive power started by Bush is now headed by former Yale Law Dean Harold "Hanju" Koh. Harold, bro, what happened to my dude who practically got into a physical altercation in regards to the expansion of executive power at a national security and the law forum? I seens it with my own eyes. We miss you...

Listen, I shed no tears over Anwar Al-Awlaki but I also cannot stand blatant hypocrisy. Jumping from criticizing, vituperatively, the Bush administration for writing secret memo for actions possibly outside the Constitution, and then turning around to do the exact same for the Obama administration? Duuudddeeessss...

(RANT OVER). On a happier note, hey there Jack Goldsmith. 'Sup buddy? How's Harvard treating you? That's coooolll. So, wanna be best friends now? Excellent! Say hello to ya motha for me.

From the Annals of Common Sense- The Sense Strikes Back...

An article in the New York Times detailed how, despite raucous clamoring from various corners for reduced corporate taxes, 280 of the biggest publicly traded firms paid about half of the official corporate tax rate. In full disclosure, the study is based on a report from the liberal leaning Citizens for Tax Justice but it is still clear that many corporations use any loophole they can find to limit their tax exposure. A money quote from the article:

American corporations are paying a smaller share of taxes than in previous decades. They paid a total of $191 billion in federal income taxes in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service said, representing about 1.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. That is down from about 6 percent during the 1950s (although some of the decline is because a smaller percentage of businesses now file as corporations).

It seems, considering the facts from this article and the GOP reluctance to raise taxes, the easy solution would be to lower the corporate tax rate, say by 10% to a total of 25%, and close the loopholes. Thus, you would not have some corporations paying 10% (or 0%) and some corporations paying 35% (the actual rate) for an average 18.5% corporate tax rate. Instead, everyone pays a lower rate of 25%, which actually brings up revenue by 6.5%. And, as an added bonus, all corporations are treated fairly with none getting screwed for creative accounting. Seems fair, no? And would satisfy both political parties, no? Getting to the meat and potatoes of the matter...

But the Citizens for Tax Justice study found that two-thirds of  the American companies with significant profits overseas actually paid more in taxes to foreign governments than they did in the United States. Rather than lowering the corporate rate more, the study said, the federal government should end the subsidies and shelters that favor companies that game the system. 

“Closing the loopholes will have real benefits, including a fairer tax system, reduced federal budget deficits and more resources to improve our roads, bridges and school — things that are really important for economic development here in the United States," the report said.

Worrrdddd. Again, I do not understand why this is even an argument. You cut taxes (and give Grover Norquist a boner) while raising revenues. What's not to love? Yo, POTUS... I'm ready to head the Council of Economic Advisers. Or you can slap me into that supposed Super Committee. Whenever you're ready. Just for the record, I play ball (in terrible shape, but decent court vision... classic PG) and recently gave up cigarettes (and we can cheat together. I'll never tell. I'm like a lock box). We can do this sir. YES WE CAN!

(Image from rally requesting NoMas Paine for C.E.A. Or a random Google Images pic. None of us have any way of knowing...)

From the Annals of Common Sense...

Bi-partisan fiscal policy experts (two Democrats and two Republicans) testified in Congress in from of the so-called Super Committee on Tuesday and dropped the common sense hammer.

Bi-partisan agreement on a plan that raises $1 in additional revenue for every $3 in spending it cuts (for a total deficit reduction of 4 trillion dollars)... kinda just makes sense, no?

Hopefully the panel itself will come to its senses. This country was built on compromise and this is as good a  time as any to revisit that tradition.

Speaking of Nonsensical... 'Sup NBA Lockout

As a big NBA fan, I have been toying with the idea of a lockout post for a little while. Today, however, I came across a post in Grantland, Bill Simmons' new offshoot of ESPN, that tackled the issue better than I could.

Money shot of sensibility comes from the following quote:

Labor deals, LeBron, the Zombie-Sonics, these things show us that in the subsidized world of sports, we have supported owners rather than supporting sports. Although the subsidization seems completely unnecessary, if we are going to subsidize, we need to subsidize the sport, not the owners. And like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach strings, meaning we get to set rules so that there are no work stoppages, and so that the sport is fair to the fans, since we ultimately spend the money that makes the owners and players rich (the contempt they show for fans is another subject).  (Emphasis added).

I feel like this point is not emphasized, either in the previous NFL collective bargaining agreement fiasco or now with the NBA, nearly enough. There is tons of coverage of whether the owners or the players are greedy/getting screwed/et al. and coverage about how the fans are getting the short end of the stick because the are not games, but not nearly enough on the fact that these sports are, in nearly all cases, subsidized by the tax payer. The fans should have part ownership of the direction of these leagues because, as the author of the letter notes, "[...] like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach the strings [...]." 

Well, 'cept on Wall Street. Because Wall Street needs to be internally regulated. Imagine what could happen if they had regulations...

Getcha Nerd on with PBS' New Nova Series

I caught pieces of a new series on PBS called the "Fabric of the Cosmos" last night and found it incredibly interesting. Though I am in no way literate in physics or math, I find it all very interesting and will wrap my head around the little that I can when it comes to string theory, quantum mechanics, quarks, higgs-boson, black holes and anti-matter. Dr. Greene is very engaging and the material is presented in a (somewhat) accessible light. I would recommend the series, which stretches over 4 weeks starting yesterday, for anyone interested in this material.

Oh, no one else? It's just me? Ok, groovy... I'm just going to sit in this corner with my Greene and Kaku books now. Thanks.

David Frum Flips the Script on the Euro Crisis

As noted first by Sully, David Frum has an interesting take on the benefits Germany derived from the Euro and how it had a deleterious effect on the rest of the Euro-zone. Essentially, the currency manipulation inherent in the Euro made it so that Germany became the Euro-zone's lender and many countries (Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain... sound familiar?) racked up an enormous amount of debt because interest rates were so low. On the other hand, because Germany had changed to the Euro and no longer had the Deutsche Mark, there was no currency appreciation in Germany that would have negatively affected their trade surplus, retention of corporations and unemployment. Basically. Germany was able to continue to grow on fundamentals while the rest of Europe built castles in the air supported by massive amounts of loans from Germany.

Not to take away from the foolish behavior of the other countries (the Irish built like a they were dru... nevermind, Greece's public sector and taxation was/is a bloody mess, etc.), but I think it's an interesting take on how Germany should cop to their complicity and stop playing the victim.

(Image from the Economist)

Surprise, Surprise... The Joint Deficit Reduction Committee Ain't That Super

The (self-proclaimed) non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (it's level of partisanship has been debated), released a study the other day on the proposals presented by the democratic and republican members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that was put together in the crisis averting, debt ceiling raising deal this past August. Not all that surprisingly, the republicans on the committee still stick to the formula that it is all about spending cuts, with no additional revenue. Y'know, the Jack and the Beanstalk economic plan... plant the magic beans, wait for growth and then get your golden eggs (and much like Jack and the Beanstalk, it's a goddamn fairy tale). They also go rogue on the baseline for their estimates bu assuming that the Bush tax cuts continue (y'know those tax cuts that have been around for almost a decade but have yet to lead to one iota of economic growth) while every other estimate supposes that they expire. This is in clear contrast to Senator Max Baucus' plan, which proposes some revenue increases but that also requires significant spending cuts; including deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Of course, that plan was quickly rejected by the republican members of the "Super Committee."

If the POTUS cannot take advantage of republican intransigence and differentiate between the fairy tales offered by the GOP with the compromise offered by the democrats, I don't know what to say. I guess that would prove, once and for all, that BOTH parties are completely incompetent.

EDITORS NOTE: I use y'know faarrrr too much. Don't worry, I'm working on it. Just so y'know.

The Applicability of the RICO Act to SAMCRO (A Study in Extreme Nerd-dom)

Ya, that's right. I'm doing an analysis on the legal applicability of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to the Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, Redwood Original (SAMCRO) as shown in the fictional show (I am not completely convinced it is not a documentary) Sons of Anarchy. Wanna make something of it?

Sons of Anarchy, in my humble opinion, is a WAY underrated show. Led by the acting chop filled troika of Ron Perlman (Hellboy), Katey Sagal (Everything, EVER, and Married With Children), and the painfully under-appreciated Charlie Hunnam, who killed it in Green Street Hooligans (drama) and in the Judd Apatow created show Undeclared. Not to mention that it features a motorcycle club, the IRA, Shakespearean overtones in the first season calling MacBeth to mind, the IRA, a season in Ireland, copious amount of fight scenes, and the IRA (sorry to pull a Peter King... I think the spirit of my great-grandfather slipped in there somehow).

Annyyywhhooo, this season features an overzealous Assistant U.S. Attorney who is trying to take down the Sons, as well as some other gangs, a Mexican drug cartel and the Real IRA, by putting together a large and interconnected RICO case (I'm not even gonna get into the pressure put on Juice. Suffice it to say, almost none of the evidence he gives is admissible in court). Using RICO became popular in prosecuting the mob, and thus in pop culture, because racketeering is defined so broadly If you are in an enterprise that is engaged in a pattern of illegal activity, from robbery/murder to neighborhood "protection/loan sharking/neighborhood lotto, you are in violation of the RICO Act. "Pattern" is also broadly defined as two or more acts in violation of the act, at least one after the enactment of RICO and one within 10 years of prosecution. Clearly, SAMCRO would satisfy these two requirements. The Asst US Attorney also nails what they would need for RICO on the show which is, needless to say, pretty impressive for a television show. Further, the broader reasons for pursuing RICO charges on SAMCRO are also valid as both the Galindo drug cartel and the Real IRA would clearly be co-conspirators that could likewise be charged under RICO if evidence of the co-conspiracy was presented. This would be pretty easy in regards to the drug cartel but much more difficult with the Real IRA, which is why the Asst US Attorney is stepping up pressure on Juice for info pertaining to the IRA/SAMCRO meet up.

Basically, Sons of Anarchy did a good job this season of illustrating why the motorcycle club, not to mention their gang/cartel/RIRA cohorts, has something to worry about. I am now through with my over-long geek out. Please don't judge me...

As Per Usual, I Can't Say It Better Than Sully

I'm sure he does not enjoy me calling him Sully, repeatedly (because clearly he reads this blog regularly), as if I was his best friend (I WIISSSHHH) but I have to give him props for his always on point analysis of the American political process. He has been particularly good, lately, at expressing why the POTUS hasn't been getting nearly enough credit, as outlined in this post.

We are very similar in that we have complimentary view points and he is a much, much better blogger than I. So you should probably stop reading this and head over to the Dish now. Seriously, what are you still doing reading this? Ridiculous...

Music Video Mondays

Because this video just plain makes me happy...

And He Pulls Another Brooks!

Ahh, David Brooks... you never cease to amuse me. He went ahead and pulled a Brooks in an opinion piece yesterday by, as he is wont to do, making some very salient and important points but washing it all away with his larger and wrongheaded take-away. CLASSIC Brooks!

Good Point: Inequality between those with and without college degrees in middle America is just as important, if not much more important, than the inequality between the top 1% and the bottom 99% that you see on the coasts. Further, those without college degrees are more likely to live unhealthily, get divorced, have children out of wedlock and not encourage their own children to go to college. This is clearly overlooked in the income inequality debates and is important to recognize and reinforce.

Wrongheaded Take-Away: Just when you think he might be killing it with important and pertinent points, he goes all Brooks on yo ass with this gem:

But the fact is that Red Inequality is much more important. The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.

If your ultimate goal is to reduce inequality, then you should be furious at the doctors, bankers and C.E.O.’s. If your goal is to expand opportunity, then you have a much bigger and different agenda.

Good point David! 'Cept when, y'know, you make it an either/or decision. The point that is making so many people angry is that the GOP holds it to be self-evident that there should be no tax increases and that any attempts to balance the budget must come from cutting spending alone. Including, especially, exactly the type of spending that would help with things like those looking for a college education or those who might need some sort of social safety net behind them as they try to raise their kid as a single parent in the middle of the country. How about, instead of this false equivalence, we agree that we need some degree of SMART spending cuts while also increasing taxes on the most fortunate amongst us? Would that not both tackle the red and blue inequality? Some times things make way too much sense to ever be enacted...

When Is Just Showing Up Enough?

In an opinion article comparing India's anti-corruption hunger striker, Anna Hazare, with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, there was the following quote:

“Occupy has been, to my mind, an engaging movement, and it’s driving home the message, to the banks, to the Wall Street circles,” Bedi said. “That’s exactly the way Anna did it. But we had a destination. I’m not aware these people — what is their destination? It’s occupy for what?”

I’m prepared to celebrate when the Occupiers — like the lone hunger artist of India — accomplish something more than organizing their own campsite cleanup, demonstrating their tolerance for tear gas, and distracting the conversation a little from the Tea Party. So far, the main achievement of Occupy Wall Street is showing up.

Though I agree that many (most?) of the OWS protesters are not completely sure of what they are trying to accomplish, at least partially because there are so many voices that want different things, why is a unified goal necessary? What if the main achievement of showing up is just what is necessary? Despite not accomplishing much in the eyes of the media, the conversation for the better part of a month has been OWS, what it means, what they are trying to accomplish and how it stems from dissatisfaction with the banks and political system, and the bailout without proper regulation following, etc. The fact that these issues have been forced into the political debate, and into the wider public eye where the general sentiment behind OWS is widely supported, is an accomplishment in and of itself. As anyone in the Northeast knows, the fact that so many people are still camping out in Zucotti Park, despite NYC not allowing generators or heaters, means that even if there are a multitude of beliefs about what their movement means... they believe in them wholeheartedly. Moreover, it also means that the discussion on OWS in the media and political circles is not going away anytime soon. And maybe that is exactly the accomplishment we need.