Nothing on the news is ever cut and dry.

I am late to the party, I know, but late is my natural state. To what party am I referring? Why, the Occupy Whatever party, of course. It started as Occupy Wall Street, a noble but misguided goal, as they wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for a government that has given them free reign to be a problem, but I was with them at this point. Corporations hold too much sway over our elected officials via campaign contributions. No politician has made it to office in recent years without being beholden to some corporate interest. This needs to change. I think the solution could be quite simple: put all campaign contributions into one big pot to be evenly divided amongst the candidates. What would this fix? Well, first, we wouldn't have money being given to a particular candidate so no one would owe anyone anything. Secondly, it would provide money for some of the lesser known third party candidates and maybe help us get rid of this broken and corrupted two party system we find ourselves in. It would also allow non-rich people, the supposed 99%, to be able to run for office and be guaranteed ad space somewhat equal to their opponents. I don't envision or desire a free for all with ten candidates,  but it would be nice to see people running for office other than savvy career politicians, savvy business men, or savvy men married to heiresses - people that would represent the American people. I also think that maybe we should institute a test for people who want to run, make sure our potential leaders understand the Constitution, our history, and foreign relation to a certain degree before we give them access to the big red button. The president doesn't have to know everything, just someone with a basic understanding of our nation and common sense. Good cabinet members will cover any lapses in knowledge.

Now, with that out of the way, let me get to the topic hinted at by the title. I recently had the treat of watching some live coverage of the Occupy LA movement on the news out here. I'm not sure what these people were after, none of them really had any clear answer when talking to the reporters. The one common thread was that the police were wrong for trying to kick them out because the First Amendment guarantees us the right to peacefully assemble. The problem with their logic is that the First Amendment starts off with the phrase, "Congress shall make no law..." Congress shall make no law. This doesn't mean that local jurisdictions don't have the right to tell you that you are not allowed to be somewhere. It means that Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So, when you pitch a bunch of tents in the park, with no suitable restroom facilities, creating a public nuisance, in violation of city ordinances, at the very least you damn well better have an idea of exactly what grievances for which you are seeking redress. Don't claim that your right to assemble or your right to free speech is being unlawfully restricted. Your rights end where someone else's begin. The people who live or work near your rally have the right to a clean park to enjoy, the right to see their tax dollars being spent on upkeep for the park, not cleaning your mess. You need to follow the same rules everyone else does. Painting a snappy slogan on a sign doesn't give you automatic freedom to do whatever you want. If anyone else wants to have a gathering, they need a permit and to provide for the needs of the attendees. Your protest doesn't make you a higher class of citizen than the rest of us. So, yeah, understand the place the Constitution holds. It restricts the actions of the Federal government, not your local city. And even in that regard, free speech can be restricted where it causes a public nuisance or endangers others. Try yelling fire in a crowded theater and see if you don't charged for it later. Incite a riot somewhere and see if you get away clean. Labeling your actions as protest does not give you the ability to do things the rest can't.

I also got to see a more complete recording of the recent events at UC Davis. The media shows us short edited video clips of a group of peaceful protesters sitting on the ground getting sprayed with pepper spray. In the context of the original video, yeah, it's hard to come up with any reason to justify such behavior. Public outrage was aroused and warranted. However, watching the more complete footage, you see a very different story emerge. Protesters were warned the day prior that they were breaking the law and police would be sent in to force them to leave. Police arrived to a noisy raucous bunch who shouted them down all three times the officers warned them to leave or be arrested. After the police arrested a number of people, the remaining protesters, still outnumbering police by a wide margin, followed their ring leader into holding the police hostage in exchange for releasing those who had been arrested. Now, last I checked, when you hold someone from leaving, you are now becoming hostile. Police officers showed a great deal of restraint here again by giving the mob numerous warnings that force would be used if they did not allow the officers to leave. When backup arrived, pepper spray was deployed only on those who were directly in the path the police were trying to leave by. Now free, the police began leaving as the crowd chanted that were going to give the police a moment of peace in which they would allow the police to leave.

Call me crazy, but 50 years ago, had one of the groups protesting for civil rights surrounded a group of officers and refused to allow them to leave unless they released their prisoners, that group of protesters would've had dogs turned on them and they would've been shot. That these kids were able to essentially hold police hostage for however long, and get off with just a small portion being hit with pepper spray shows me not that the police are out of control, but that our police are performing at a much higher level of restraint than in days past. No one was injured by the police, some hopefully learned a valuable lesson about showing some respect for the people wearing the badge.

One of the comments surrounding the video I watched saw the poster claiming that he would raise his kids to be free-thinkers and make up their own opinions, not just follow what the media said, implying that his kids would be with the protesters as a free thinker. Why do I find this humorous? Because most of the protesters actions were led by one man who would yell something out to be repeated by the crowd at large. How much free thought was actually occurring amongst the protesters if their every action was dictated by a guy who could yell slightly louder than the rest? He wasn't even among the group that was led to be hit with the pepper spray. He led them over there, chanted for them to be strong, for the police not to attack these "children", but where was he? Safely out of harm's way so he could lead the chant allowing the police to leave apparently.

My kids will grow up to know that there are certain causes worth fighting for, but anytime some guy tells you to go put yourself in harm's way while he stands off to the side, it's probably not something you should be a part of.