A park in New York that has been used as a central area for anti-corporate protests has become a health problem.  Normal cleaning and trash pick-up has been disrupted by the protesters, so the trash and other debris they leave behind have made it into an eyesore and health hazard. Apparently, using police cars as toilets is now a form of expression and protest.

This isn’t the first time that the refuse left behind by a group of leftist protesters has been a problem. Look at the mess that the John Stewart rally left behind in Washington DC, then contrast it with what was left behind after the large Tea Party rallies in 2009.

Leftist protests are mostly manned by either young college age twits who have never had to pay for their own food or by aging hippies who should know better by now.  Tea Party rallies are attended by a wide range of backgrounds and ages, but all of them seem to know about personal responsibility and respect. This can all be seen in how the two groups leave their respective areas when they’re done.

Someone needs to tell the “Occupy Something” crowd that when the veil of media cover is lifted, the uglier their leavings are, the less those of us who hold down a job and don’t put our hands out will listen to whatever it is they’re ranting about.

I’ve been writing for a few weeks about my notional run for the office of vice-president.  In my stump speeches and such, I don’t identify who would be running for president, just referring to him or her as “Candidate X”.

There are a couple of reasons for this.  First, there isn’t a true frontrunner for the Republican candidate yet, and I’m still at least nominally a Republican.  Second, I’m not too happy about any of the people with their hats in the ring.

Today, Sarah Palin announced that she won’t be running next year, and the other day New Jersey governor Christie said the same thing.  The field so far doesn’t have anyone that grabs me as “That One”, at least not yet.  I like something about every one of the candidates, but I don’t like enough about any one of them to say that they’re the one I’d want to serve with if I were actually running, and none of them have earned my vote yet.

Here’s the list of candidates that I think have a chance at getting the nomination.  The rest of the declared candidates are footnotes unless something changes in the next few months.

• Michele Bachmann – She’s a fiscal conservative and spouts the Tea Party line, but I’m not so sure about her assurances that her social values won’t color her judgement to the point of being a problem if she is to be given the responsibility for governing the country.  Also, she seems willing to grab at whatever topic seems to be the button pusher of the moment (Gardasil) and run it into the ground, for good or bad.
• Herman Cain – I like that he’s actually held down a job and run a business.  I like a lot of his ideas, but he’s also said some things that make me pause.
• Ron Paul – I agree with about 75% of what Congressman Paul says.  That alone would normally be enough for me to support him.  But that other 25% is off of my radar far enough that I still hesitate to endorse him.
• Mitt Romney – Not a chance of me endorsing him.  He created the model for ObamaCare as governor of Massachusetts.  He’s never met a gun control law that he didn’t like.  I have the same reaction to him as I did of Clinton in 1992:  He’s willing to be whoever the crowd he’s speaking to wants him to be.
• Rick Perry – Still not sure whether or not I like Perry.  He’s making the right noises, but he also seems to have some of the political chameleon in him.  I don’t like his Gardasil decision, and I’m not too thrilled by his border security and illegal immigration views.

In a nutshell, I’m not impressed.  If I had to pick two, I’d probably pick Cain and Paul out of this pack.  But like I said, there isn’t one of them that I’m ready to throw my vote behind just yet.

The Obama administration has asked the United States Supreme Court to review a case where part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was struck down as unconstitutional.   There is also a chance, assuming a Republican victory in 2012, of Obamacare being repealed through the legislative process.  The Republicans running for president certainly seem to be making that a plank in their platform.

Personally, I hope the court takes the case and makes a ruling one way or the other.  The issue of whether or not the government has the power to force citizens to purchase anything from another private entity needs to be decided.  If the act is repealed in Congress, it’s only a tactical victory for those of us who believe that the powers of government need to be limited.  Congress can pass other laws that try to do the same thing with no real way to argue that it violates the Constitution.  A Supreme Court decision that holds that practice unconstitutional could be used to block Congress from doing similar things in the future, and would be effectively permanent, unless the Supreme takes the exceedingly rare step of reversing itself.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.  It’s good to be here in X, and I appreciate the warm hospitality you all have extended to us.

I’m here today to talk about Candidate X and the social agenda we have as part of our campaign:

It’s none of our business.

That’s all.

It’s none of our business.

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

Candidate X and I both recognize that we’re just as human and therefore flawed as everyone else.  We have no business telling other adults how they should live their lives.  So long as you’re not hurting someone, the following are things we have no business expressing an opinion on:

• Who you sleep with, so long as they agree to it and they’re also an adult
• Who you marry
• Whether or not you choose to have children
• If you practice a religion at all, and if you do, which religion you practice
• How much money you legally earned
• What books, magazines, websites, or whatever you enjoy
• What political views you hold
• What car you choose to drive
• How you choose to educate your children
• What substances you put into your body in order to change your perception of the world around you

There are others, but I think you get the idea.  How you go through life is up to you, based on what you believe is right and is right for you.

Candidate X and I are fiscally conservative, as we have discussed at length.  But socially, we’re a ‘whatever’.  We’re certainly not what comes across as conservative or liberal in this country.  We have our own sets of values and if elected, we will govern based on those values, but we won’t try to force those values on the day to day lives of our fellow citizens.

What adults do with their lives doesn’t cross into the realm of public opinion or government attention so long as they don’t break the law or harm someone else.  What an adult does, so long as they don’t harm someone else, is none of our business.

That being said, with rights come responsibilities.  You have the right to sleep with whatever other adult you want to, and we don’t care as long as it’s a mutually agreed to endeavor.  Force someone into sex or involve a minor, and we will stomp a mudhole in your backside.  We believe that if an adult wishes to drink, smoke, or inject something to get high, that’s their right.  But if you neglect or abuse your kids because you’re stoned, or you climb behind the wheel and get into a wreck, you will be hung out to dry.

We pledge that if elected, we will start dismantling the parts of the government that want to tell you how to live your life.  But we are also going to dismantle the part of the government that is there to catch you when you fall.  If you exercise a right to live the way you want to live, however self-destructive that way of life may be, you shouldn’t expect the rest of society to pick up the pieces for you.

Ladies and gentlemen, for almost three generations, our nation has allowed itself to become more and more infantile in its relationship with government.  We have looked at the government as a parent, and that has to stop.  Social conservatives look for the parent-government to tell people what to do and what not to do.  Social liberals look for the parent-government to provide a safety net to save those who won’t save themselves.  That has to stop.  The purpose of government is to provide a commons for decision making and to protect the nation from threats from outside and from within. That’s it.

We look forward to working with the people of X to start to turn around the nanny-state and government intrusion into citizens’ lives.  We thank you for your time, and we hope that when you go to vote, you remember us.  Thank you.