NYTimes: Anti-Capitalism Protests a ‘Populist Campaign…Clearly Tapped into a Deep Vein of Anger’
In Tuesday’s “Anti-Wall Street Protests Spreading to Cities Large and Small”, New York Times reporters Erik Eckholm and Timothy Williams bolster the “populist” left-wing activists protesting against greedy bankers (among other items of the standard left-wing wish list) in Lower Manhattan.
While the Times’s coverage of conservative Tea Party rallies pointed out the most extreme and “fringe” elements present, the paper has thus far eschewed labels like “far-left” or even “liberal,” and ignored the cadre of Communists and offensive posters decrying “Nazi bankers” in Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan.
And while the massive-yet-peaceful Tea Party rallies were seen as ruptures of inchoate and ignorant anger orchestrated by conservative think tanks that constantly threatened to explode into violence, the young, arrest-prone leftist campers near Wall Street are portrayed as the thin edge of an uprising of justified citizen anger.
A loose-knit populist campaign that started on Wall Street three weeks ago has spread to dozens of cities across the country, with protesters camped out in Los Angeles near City Hall, assembled before the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago and marching through downtown Boston to rally against corporate greed, unemployment and the role of financial institutions in the economic crisis.
With little organization and a reliance on Facebook, Twitter and Google groups to share methods, the Occupy Wall Street campaign, as the prototype in New York is called, has clearly tapped into a deep vein of anger, experts in social movements said, bringing longtime crusaders against globalization and professional anarchists together with younger people frustrated by poor job prospects.
Yet the actual attendance figures spotlighted by the Times were less than overwhelming.
In Chicago on Monday morning, about a dozen people outside the Federal Reserve Bank sat on the ground or lay in sleeping bags, surrounded by protest signs and hampers filled with donated food and blankets. The demonstrators, who have been in Chicago since Sept. 24, said they had collected so much food that they started giving the surplus to homeless people.
Strategists on the left said they were buoyed by the outpouring of energy and hoped it would contribute to a newly powerful progressive movement. Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, in Washington, noted that the Wall Street demonstrations followed protests in Wisconsin this year over efforts to suppress public employee unions and numerous rallies on economic and employment issues.
The new protesters have shown a remarkable commitment and have stayed nonviolent in the face of aggressive actions by the New York police, he said. “I think that as a result they really touched a chord among activists across the country.”
The Times didn’t bother mentioning the 700 people arrested for blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge at the Occupy Wall Street protest. By contrast, much larger Tea Party rallies have been virtually arrest-free, though that never stopped the paper from relaying the potential for violence, as it did in an offensive March 2010 article by Benedict Carey likening Tea Party protestors and the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground. An accompanying online headline: “When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?”
“Clearly Tapped into a Deep Vein of Anger’“; when is the Far Left NOT angry?!? Be it global warming or the spotted owl, the World Bank or Wall Street, fossil fuels or fluorocarbons, these people live in a continual state of agitation.
The best part?!? When you ask ’em for their alternative, their solution, they have none….other than of course, just like the Dear Leader, the expropriation of other people’s money. And you have to love the chutzpah of a young person who, upon realizing tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a Sociology degree wasn’t the wisest investment, now expects others to foot the bill for their error in judgment.
One of two strategies is afoot here: this is either the Dims best plan for energizing the base….in which case their more desperate than we thought….or Team Tick-Tock’s deliberately ratcheting up the level of disruption, along with the accompanying angst of middle-class America, to the point their man can ride in and play the role of the great statesman stilling the waves of societal unrest. Stay tuned.
Next up, in the Follow-Up segment, Peter Wehnert comments on The Obamao’s claim that America’s going soft:
According to President Obama, America has “gotten a little soft” during the last few decades. That revelation is a relatively new one for Obama, who during the campaign assured us that “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” As Obama hop-scotched around the country, he informed us that “We are the hope of the future . . .”
Let’s see if we can make sense of this, shall we?
When Obama was extremely popular, a kind of celebrity-politician, the American people were lavished with praise, presumably for our profound insight and wisdom when it came to choosing our political leaders. As Michelle Obama put it during the campaign, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”
But now that Obama’s approval ratings are collapsing and his policies are deeply unpopular, the American people have “gotten a little soft.” Suddenly, we’re not the ones we’ve been waiting for.
Let alone….
….the mindless droids he’d been hoping for!
Speaking of going soft, the WSJ lists another reason the once-Golden State remains almost irretrievably tarnished….
Shoveling for Labor
California tries to raise the cost of construction projects.
We keep hearing that the U.S. needs better roads, bridges and other public works. But then why do politicians keep making it so much more expensive to build them? In the latest example, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill on Sunday that attempts to prevent California cities from banning government-mandated project labor agreements, or PLAs.
PLAs are pre-hire agreements that contractors negotiate with labor unions. Construction firms must generally agree to play by union work rules, pay workers union wages, and contribute to union health and retirement funds—whether or not the employees they hire belong to a union. Non-union workers usually then have to join the union and pay union dues. According to some studies, PLAs raise costs by 12% to 18%, which explains why cash-strapped governments and tapped-out taxpayers are moving against them.
Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan and Tennessee have enacted laws in the last year prohibiting local governments and agencies, which often play into the hands of unions, from mandating PLAs. Voters in San Diego County and the San Diego suburbs of Chula Vista and Oceanside approved bans on government-mandated PLAs last November. The cities of San Diego and Sacramento are planning similar ballot measures next year.
Unions hate this trend, so they, er, encouraged Democrats who run the state legislature in Sacramento to pass the bill that Mr. Brown so obligingly signed. Democrats know that the National Labor Relations Act, a federal law, already prevents local governments from banning PLAs altogether. But what states and cities have been trying to do is prevent governments from requiring PLAs. Democrats hope the new law will deter cities from passing laws that keep the doors open to non-union contractors. Cities that ban government-mandated PLAs could face legal challenges and harassment from unions. The state could also refuse to fund their projects.
The California law is the first of its kind, and non-union construction firms fear that other labor-friendly state legislatures will follow Sacramento’s lead. If that happens, taxpayers will lose the limited ability they have to constrain costs and expedite construction. The result? Public projects that cost more and create fewer jobs, though they’ll be the kind of jobs that Democrats prefer—unionized, and thus with dues payable into campaign funds to elect more Democrats.
And since we’re on the subject of scams, Thomas Sowell details….
The ‘Hunger’ Hoax
Twenty years ago, hysteria swept through the media over “hunger in America.” Dan Rather (Now THERE’S an unbiased source of information!) opened a CBS Evening News broadcast in 1991 declaring, “one in eight American children is going hungry tonight.” Newsweek, the Associated Press and the Boston Globe repeated this statistic, and many others joined the media chorus, with or without that unsubstantiated statistic.
When the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Agriculture examined people from a variety of income levels, however, they found no evidence of malnutrition among those in the lowest income brackets. Nor was there any significant difference in the intake of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients from one income level to another.
That should have been the end of that hysteria. But the same “hunger in America” theme reappeared years later, when Senator John Edwards was running for Vice President. And others have resurrected that same claim, right up to the present day.
Ironically, the one demonstrable nutritional difference between the poor and others is that low-income women tend to be overweight more often than others. That may not seem like much to make a political issue, but politicians and the media have created hysteria over less.
The political left has turned obesity among low-income individuals into an argument that low-income people cannot afford nutritious food, and so have to resort to burgers and fries, pizzas and the like, which are more fattening and less healthful. But this attempt to salvage something from the “hunger in America” hoax collapses like a house of cards when you stop and think about it.
Burgers, pizzas and the like cost more than food that you can buy at a store and cook yourself. If you can afford junk food, you can certainly afford healthier food. An article in the New York Times of September 25th by Mark Bittman showed that you can cook a meal for four at half the cost of a meal from a burger restaurant. So far, so good. But then Mr. Bittman says that the problem is “to get people to see cooking as a joy.” For this, he says, “we need action both cultural and political.” In other words, the nanny state to the rescue!
Since when are adult human beings supposed to do only those things that are a joy? I don’t find any particular joy in putting on my shoes. But I do it rather than go barefoot. I don’t always find it a joy to drive a car, especially in bad weather, but I have to get from here to there.
An arrogant elite’s condescension toward the people — treating them as children who have to be jollied along — is one of the poisonous problems of our time. It is at the heart of the nanny state and the promotion of a debilitating dependency that wins votes for politicians while weakening a society.
Those who see social problems as requiring high-minded people like themselves to come down from their Olympian heights to impose their superior wisdom on the rest of us, down in the valley, are behind such things as the hunger hoax, which is part of the larger poverty hoax. We have now reached the point where the great majority of the people living below the official poverty level have such things as air-conditioning, microwave ovens, either videocassette recorders or DVD players, and own either a car or a truck.
Why are such people called “poor”? Because they meet the arbitrary criteria established by Washington bureaucrats. Depending on what criteria are used, you can have as much official poverty as you want, regardless of whether it bears any relationship to reality.
Those who believe in an expansive, nanny state government need a large number of people in “poverty” to justify their programs. They also need a large number of people dependent on government to provide the votes needed to keep the big nanny state going.
Politicians, welfare state bureaucrats and others have incentives to create or perpetuate hoaxes, whether about poverty in general or hunger in particular. The high cost to taxpayers is exceeded by the even higher cost of lost opportunities for fulfillment in their lives by those who succumb to the lure of a stagnant life of dependency.
On the Lighter Side….
Finally, last but certainly not least, in a slight departure from convention, we wrap things up the Environmental Moment, courtesy today of the WSJ and Robert Bryce’s….
Five Truths About Climate Change
During the decade that Al Gore dominated the environmental debate, global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 28.5%.
Over the past two months, environmental activists have held protests at the White House and elsewhere hoping to convince the Obama administration to deny a permit for the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Some of those same activists have launched a series of demonstrations called “Moving Planet” to move “the planet away from fossil fuels towards a safer climate future.” And next month, leaders from dozens of countries will meet at the 17th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Durban, South Africa.
But for all of the sturm und drang about climate change, what has actually happened? It’s time to acknowledge five obvious truths about the climate-change issue:
1) The carbon taxers/limiters have lost. Carbon-dioxide emissions have been the environmental issue of the past decade. Over that time period, Al Gore became a world-renowned figure for his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” for which he won an Oscar. In 2007, he, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), collected a Nobel Peace Prize for “informing the world of the dangers posed by climate change.” That same year, the IPCC released its fourth assessment report, which declared that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.” (Emphasis in original.)
Two years later, Copenhagen became the epicenter of a world-wide media frenzy as some 5,000 journalists, along with some 100 world leaders and scores of celebrities, descended on the Danish capital to witness what was billed as the best opportunity to impose a global tax or limit on carbon dioxide.
The result? Nothing, aside from promises by various countries to get serious—really serious—about carbon emissions sometime soon. Here’s a reality check: During the same decade that Mr. Gore and the IPCC dominated the environmental debate, global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 28.5%.
Those increases reflect soaring demand for electricity, up by 36%, which in turn fostered a 47% increase in coal consumption. (Natural-gas use increased by 29% while oil use grew by 13%.) Carbon-dioxide emissions are growing because people around the world understand the essentiality of electricity to modernity. And for many countries, the cheapest way to produce electrons is by burning coal.
2) Regardless of whether it’s getting hotter or colder—or both—we are going to need to produce a lot more energy in order to remain productive and comfortable.
3) The carbon-dioxide issue is not about the United States anymore. Sure, the U.S. is the world’s second-largest energy consumer. But over the past decade, carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S. fell by 1.7%. And according to the International Energy Agency, the U.S. is now cutting carbon emissions faster than Europe, even though the European Union has instituted an elaborate carbon-trading/pricing scheme. Why? The U.S. is producing vast quantities of cheap natural gas from shale, which is displacing higher-carbon coal.
Meanwhile, China’s emissions jumped by 123% over the past decade and now exceed those of the U.S. by more than two billion tons per year. Africa’s carbon-dioxide emissions jumped by 30%, Asia’s by 44%, and the Middle East’s by a whopping 57%. Put another way, over the past decade, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions—about 6.1 billion tons per year—could have gone to zero and yet global emissions still would have gone up.
4) We have to get better—and we are—at turning energy into useful power. In 1882, Thomas Edison’s first central power station on Pearl Street in lower Manhattan converted less than 3% of the heat energy of the coal being burned into electricity. Today’s best natural-gas-fired turbines have thermal efficiencies of 60%. Nearly all of the things we use on a daily basis—light bulbs, computers, automobiles—are vastly more efficient than they were just a few years ago. And over the coming years those devices will get even better at turning energy into useful lighting, computing and motive power.
5) The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Furthermore, even if we accept that carbon dioxide is bad, it’s not clear exactly what we should do about it. In September, Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder published a report that determined “switching from coal to natural gas would do little for global climate.” Mr. Wigley found that the particulates put into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants, “although detrimental to the environment, cool the planet by blocking incoming sunlight.”
If Mr. Wigley’s right, then using sources that emit no particulates, like nuclear and natural gas, will not make a major difference in averting near-term changes in the climate caused by carbon dioxide. But then—and here’s the part that most media outlets failed to discuss when reporting on the Wigley study—widespread use of renewables such as wind and solar won’t help much, either.
Will Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton and a skeptic about global climate change, recently wrote that the “contemporary ‘climate crusade’ has much in common with the medieval crusades.” Indeed, politicians and pundits are hectored to adhere to the orthodoxy of the carbon-dioxide-is-the-only-climate-problem alarmists. And that orthodoxy prevails even though the most ardent alarmists have no credible plans to replace the hydrocarbons that now provide 87% of the world’s energy.
It’s time to move the debate past the dogmatic view that carbon dioxide is evil and toward a world view that accepts the need for energy that is cheap, abundant and reliable.
Magoo
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.