Baby and Daddy, fighting the power.

My wife and I took our 10-month old daughter Zellie on the Occupy LA march over the weekend. It was a very peaceful, if somewhat subdued moment of people coming together to express their common frustration with the state of our country. I was pleasantly surprised at the diversity; I know the coverage of Zuccotti Park tends to focus on the punks and hipsters, but every age and walk of life was represented at Occupy LA. I would even say it skewed old. Turnout felt somewhat sparse when I was in the thick of it, but the local news estimated the crowd was between 10 and 15,000 strong, which sounds like a pretty impressive figure to me. Zellie did not seem that impressed, but the only thing that really excites her at this age is bananas.

It was the first march I've ever been a part of. I've always been more of a complainer than a protestor. My civil disobedience mostly takes the form of snarky Facebook status updates and rambling emails to my friend. That's not a typo, I really only have one friend. My only real involvement in politics to date consisted of attending the Ralph Nader rally at Madison Square Garden in 2000 (Tim Robbins showed up as Bob Roberts! Don't worry; no one got it then, either) and making a few hours worth of phone calls for Obama in 2008.

Oh, I also went to see George Bush Sr. speak in high school, but that was for a girl. The President was on a Whistle Stop train tour that whistled to a stop 20 miles from my hometown, and the highly crush-worthy Julie C. invited me to join her family at the station. Under those kinds of circumstances, how could I refuse? You show me a guy who won't drive 20 miles to watch the President wave from a sweet-looking vintage train with the girl he wants to bone and I'll show you a guy who doesn't believe in America.

For someone who spends an obscene amount of time reading about current events, my lack of direct involvement has always been a source of shame. I've made some phone calls to my representatives over the years on issues that I really care about, but I'm always secretly hoping it will just go to voicemail. My involvement tends to be the quiet kind, the kind that occurs only in my head. The only thing my protesting disrupts is my own sense of inner peace.

Until now, it's always been pretty easy to excuse myself. In my lifetime, protests have had a slim record of accomplishment. I was in New York during the 2004 Republican National Convention, when everyone in the world who hated George W. Bush came to town to scream about it. As it turned out, an awful lot of people hated George W. Bush. Approximately 90% of New York City and approximately 100% of everyone in every other country in the world. Hundreds of thousands of people blanketed the streets for days, and no one outside of New York cared or noticed. If hundreds of thousands of people can swarm the streets of the country's media center for several days and no one gives a shit, doesn't that kind of discount the act of public protest itself?

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is yes. Public protests are just standard operating procedure at this point. Politicians propose something infuriating, people take to the streets in a desperate attempt to make themselves heard, infuriating thing happens anyway. On to the next infuriating thing. There's nothing special in a protest; it's just business as usual. Eventually, everyone goes home.

Until they don't. And that's the great thing about Occupy Wall Street: they're not leaving. It's easy to discount protestors when they show up on your lawn, hoot and holler for a couple of hours and take off; it's much harder to ignore them when they start their own city.

There's nothing new in the concept of a sit-down protest. A lot of the commentaries I've seen try to make the case that this wouldn't be possible without Twitter and cell phones, but I don’t really see how technology makes much of a difference. There's nothing particularly high-tech about plopping a tent in a park and refusing to leave. No one is afraid of OWS because the protestors know how to check-in to Zuccotti Park on Foursquare. They're afraid because no one knows when it will end.

And make no mistake about it: people are afraid. It may not seem that way when you watch Fox News and the anchors are belittling the people in the crowd for wearing weird clothes or not being able to have in-depth policy discussions off the tops of their heads. But the question all the skeptics are asking -- "What do they want?" -- betrays an underlying admission of fear; i.e. I do not understand this. So, as bullies are wont to do, they pick on the thing they can understand -- look at that guy's stupid haircut! – to distract attention from their real, palpable fear that they are no longer in control. The world is changing around them and they have no idea how to stop it. Gandhi said it best: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. "

A lot of people are putting pressure on the protestors to come up with a list of demands, as if having a ransom note would somehow increase their credibility. In my opinion, one of the main things the movement has going for it is the lack of concrete demands. There's this constant pull to bring the conversation into terms the prevailing paradigm understands – the terms of argument. If the protestors say, "this is what we want," that gives the opposition the opportunity to tell them why they can't get it, to remain within the cynical bubble where they feel comfortable. "Oh, that's what you want from your government? Well, you can't have that because of X, Y, and Z. Stop being naive." It's that kind of conversation that's been keeping us down for so long. We're tired of arguing. We've been arguing for years, and it doesn't make a lick of difference, because the argument is happening on your cynical terms. We've told you what we want a million ways to Sunday and you're not listening. Maybe it's time you started speaking our language instead of us trying to speak yours.

Besides, you already know what OWS wants, because it's the same thing everyone wants. We want the return of the middle class. We want a clean planet. We want a government that favors the needs of its citizens over the desires of corporations. We want a strong public school system, we want dependable healthcare, we want jobs that give us a humane amount of vacation time and a decent living wage. We want a government that protects us … from poverty, from hunger, from illness. After all, isn't that the point of having a society in the first place? So that we don't have to spend our lives fending for ourselves? If you really want to be on your own, it's not that hard. Don't get married. Don't have kids. Don't talk to your neighbors. Just go off in the woods and live alone. There are plenty of places in America where you can still do this and no one will ever bother you. If, however, you still see some benefit in connecting with other people, then maybe it's time you spoke up.

In the OWS movement, I see a glimmer of hope, maybe the first real glimmer I've seen in my adult life. I think people have finally had enough. We're tired of being forced to adopt this isolationist worldview. We're tired of living in fear of everyone around us and we're tired of supporting a system that tells us our fear is necessary. Our goal in life should not be to make enough money that we can wall ourselves off from the rest of humanity. I don't know when that became the American dream, but it sure ain't mine.

It's high time we had a government that worked in the people's favor, instead of actively preventing us from experiencing personal fulfillment, happiness, and the ability to enjoy this gorgeous planet we've been lucky enough to appear on. It is our right and our duty to ask our government to protect the things that really matter: Community. Family. Health. Nature. Life. Call me a hippie if you want to; I'm tired of being part of your cynical, defeatist, anti-humanitarian worldview. You'll come around. And if living in an equal society that is free of fear doesn't appeal to you, might I suggest Yellowstone? It's quite large, with plenty of room to hide. Just remember to hang your food up when the bears come around.

A few years ago, I went to some fund-raising event that Kyle was performing at. It was at the nonprofit where FOA (friend of Awkward) Desiree Burch worked, and after the performances, the woman who headed the charity up gave a short speech. Afterwards, Kyle and I were riding in the elevator with Mr. Green, who had come to see the event. First of all, he's a short, short man. Second of all, we got to talking with him, and Kyle asked him if he enjoyed himself.

"Oh yeah," he said. "Especially the final speaker. What a doll."

"Yeah, she wasn't bad," Kyle said.

"She's my wife," Mark Green admitted.

"Your wife is a foxy, foxy lady," Kyle said.

To this day, I am unaware of whether Kyle had any idea who he was talking to, but it was a smooth move, nonetheless.

The House's guest chaplain, in the opening prayer for Thursday's session, also appeared to refer to Wilson's outburst. "Gracious God, we meet in a challenging moment of your history. We cannot control all that may endanger us, but we can choose our behavior and the example we set as leaders," said The Very Rev. George L.W. Werner, dean emeritus of Trinity Cathedral in Pittsburgh.

"Very Reverend"? That's an actual title? That's the coolest actual title I've ever heard.

Also, what is it with Joe Wilsons and scandals? First Valerie Plame, and now "Shout-gate"? I'm beginning to think that "Joe Wilson" is just a made-up person the media throws out there anytime they need to spice up the news a bit. Fact: Joe Wilson and Joe Wilson have never been seen in the same room together. It's true!

(Video after the break.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

I love what Stewart says at the end, about how he can't understand how her mind works. I totally know those people. Where their opinions are being generated from a completely different plane of reality. And I don't know how we, as Americans, can get past that disconnect.

The thought that the American government would ever want to secretly kill all the old people seems ludicrous to me. The fact that anyone is treating this as a serious discussion topic seems ludicrous to me. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be so mistrustful of our elected officials that I believed they were secretly trying to kill old people. Now, I'm not completely naive. I don't think our representatives always have our best interests at heart, what with all the money they have to raise from private interests just to keep doing their jobs. But to think they are using health care reform as an excuse to satisfy their blood lust? That is some other level, all right.

Can we get some more science in here, please? Thanks.

More than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a "choice" between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage, according to a public opinion poll released on Thursday.

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

But the numbers tell another story, as well.

Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."

That's great. So the information we have about people's support of a public option can change by 30 points depending on how many words are in the question. Science!

To be fair, that second choice sounds awfully complicated. I probably wouldn't have voted for it, either, and I think the entire health insurance industry should be abolished.

Who knew Marjane Satrapi was this hot?

Two Iranian filmmakers on Tuesday presented a document to Green Party MPs in the European parliament claiming to show that defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi had received over 19 million votes in the weekend election.

Marjane Satrapi, Iranian author and director and Mohsen Makhmalbaf, an Iranian filmmaker and Mousavi spokesman, presented a document that they claimed had come from the Iranian electoral commission.

The document said liberal cleric and former parliament speaker Mehdi Karroubi came second in the election with a total of 13.3 million votes, while president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came third with only 5.49 million votes.

"Ahmadinejad received only 12 percent of the vote, not 65 percent," said Marjane Satrapi, who was the director of Oscar-nominated film Persepolis.

If this is true, you gotta at least give Ahmadinejad credit for having absolutely no concern with finesse. He didn't just steal this election, he pillaged it. Which, if you're gonna steal an election, freaking steal that shit, right? None of this "we'll leave it up to the Supreme Court" bullshit. You gotta grab that shit and put it in your pocket, and when other people are like, "I just saw you stick that election in your pocket," you're like "but I don't even have any hands." And then when they're all, "what?" you're like, "laterz!"

Obama policy is outreach to gays

I haven't actually read the article yet, because doing so would take time away from my bond trading hobby busy derivative trading schedule gun cleaning regimen. But I am strangely fascinated by this headline. It is referring to the administration's new policy of giving equal rights to homosexual couples who work for the State Department. Which, I have a friend who works for the State Department, and she said she has coworkers who are a lesbian couple. When they are stationed in a new country, they always get stationed together. But the State Department must put them up in two different apartments. Which, you don't think about the logistics of little things like that, but apparently that's how it goes.

When I first read this headline, I wasn't aware it was referring to a specific decision. I thought it was just saying that Obama had a personal policy of reaching out to gays. Like Oprah. There is something very funny about this headline that I can't quite put my finger on. Help me out, people! Why is this headline funny?

Health insurance is the dumbest system anyone could ever create for dealing with sick people. Insurance in general makes no sense. I can understand paying for things that you are going to use. If I buy a CD (plastic containment system for music, popular circa 1985-2005), then I get to keep that CD and the music that is on it. One does not have a similar thrill of ownership with health insurance. My insurance company won't even give me a book listing my benefits. I am paying approximately $2400/year for a plastic card. They could at least make the cards out of something slightly more substantial, like pewter.

At its heart, health insurance is a punishment and reward system for bodily functions. According to Wikipedia, the health insurance system as it stands today did not develop until the 1950s. Before that, when you went to the doctor, you paid him for the doctoring he gave you. Now you pay the insurance company in advance for the doctoring you might get in the future, and then you pay the doctor a little bit more when he actually gives you that doctoring. What Wikipedia does not say, and what I have always been curious about: why does health care have anything to do with employment? I can understand that it is in a company's best interest to make sure their employees are physically well. But there are an awful lot of areas where my employer does not seem to care about my health. Like food. Employers do not buy my groceries. Or sleep. I am required to buy my own mattresses and make sure I get to sleep at a reasonable hour.

The only thing I can think is that health insurance was originally used to lure employees, much like Free Weed Fridays are used today. (Note: I am self-employed, so I cannot say for certain whether Free Weed Fridays is a universal phenomenon or just something that exists at my company. However, I am happy to report that I have successfully retained 100% of my employees since instituting this policy!) So back in the 50s, when jobs were so readily available that we had to actively breed more human beings to keep our giant industrial machine running, Ford would call up recent high school dropouts and say, "Hey! If you come work for us, we will give you lots of money for mindless drudgery and pay for all your doctors' bills!" And then General Motors would call and say, "Hey! If you come work for us, we will give you lots of money and pay your doctors' bills and buy your glasses!" And so on.

This system might have worked well back when the employee was king. In a magical world in which high school dropouts get to choose between high-paying jobs based on perks, this system works wonderfully. Because in this system, people who cannot find a job are just lazy and deserve to die of gunshot-related diseases. (As a matter of fact, one of the perks that Lee Iacocca credited for having saved Chrysler in the '80s was his policy of giving employees handguns to shoot people who declined jobs at Chrysler.) During this time, the costs of medical procedures and drugs became artificially inflated, because everyone had so much friggin' insurance that the only way the health care industry could make money was to drastically overcharge for their products and services. A doctor might make $10 to draw blood if he charges $75, but he will make $20 if he charges $150. But in a perfect system, the entire $20 would go right to the doctor, who will still be making a nice profit over the $.02 he paid for the syringe.

At some point in the not-too-distant past, employment-seekers began to outnumber employers by a significant amount. At the same time, health insurance moved from being a nice bonus to being a life-or-death necessity. And that is why we find ourselves in a serious bind today, because something one needs to live is unavailable to a large segment of the population. What I can't wrap my head around, is that it seems like this problem would affect everyone in the country equally. I have insurance. It's pretty good insurance. And it is still completely useless. I don't know anyone who would say they were completely satisfied with their health care. So who wants this system to continue? How does an industry become so powerful that their vote counts for more than the vast majority of individuals in the country? The health insurance industry has enough money that they can literally afford to buy common sense.

And that brings me to the point of this post: the forces of reason need to learn how to be outraged. Because for some reason in our political system, whoever is the most outraged, wins. And right now, the people who are most outraged are the people who want things to remain exactly as they are. I cannot understand how someone can be outraged when things are exactly as they want them to be. I can understand being defensive in response to the outrage of others. But the people fighting health care reform are proactively outraged at things that have yet to happen. (Caveat: Yes, I get outraged at the thought of flying cars, but that's different. It's unnatural.)

And meanwhile, the forces who believe health care is a basic right are forced to find logical, sensible arguments to defend our position that morality should not be monetized. That seems incredibly backwards to me. In a reasonable world, the people who are suffering under the current system would be outraged, and the opposition would have to find logical, sensible arguments as to why things should not change. Because I'm pretty sure all the logical, sensible arguments one could muster to defend the current system are based on things that are not facts. Like, "people enjoy going to the doctor and will do so more often if it is free" or "people do not currently have to wait to see a doctor."

Maybe the main problem is that the forces of good don't really care to live in a world filled with anger. And so by definition, the angry people get to have all the outrage. Or maybe the problem is that outrage trumps reason in the first place. Regardless, I am awfully tired of seeing people who are afraid of change winning the war. It sure would be nice to live in a world where common, human decency was not considered a position that needed to be defended.

But so I get it, Iran was a totally fun, free country before the hardliners came to power in the 80s. And now it's awful and scary or whatever. But they have elections? And they're not just a sham? Everyone seems surprised at the possibility that Ahmadinejad could have stolen the election. But like, if Kim Jong Il won the popular vote in North Korea, I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash. So what is Iran? A democracy, or a dictatorship? Right, okay, the Ayatollah or whoever is really in charge, and the president's just a figurehead. So then why did we ever give a shit about Ahmadinejad in the first place? I'm so confused!

In other news, here's a picture of a cat in a taco outfit.

Tacocat

Only last week, Brown spoke of how his "Presbyterian conscience" had been hurt by the extravagant expense claims made by many of his parliamentary colleagues. And in his awkward press conference on Friday afternoon, he again invoked his father's teachings.

For the record, Mr. Brown is in no way affiliated with Awkward Press, LLC, or any of our subsidiaries, including Delusional Paranoids & Co., Outrageously Incompetent Trust, or Worse than Thatcher, LTD.