G-20 fun

The radical left took to the streets of London with their unique brand of peace, love and understanding:

Note the media presence

Why does this stuff always happen with fringe elements of the left? Why are they unable to get their point across without breaking windows and running wild? Like I've said before, this isn't incidental -- it's the whole point. It's all about finding some action and causing a ruckus. The issues are incidental.

Protest update

Apparently the demise of George W. Bush's presidency doesn't meant that the radical left can't still think of reasons to protest. Walking home tonight I encountered the following protest/jamboree at Dupont Circle:

I wasn't sure what they were protesting -- their chants seemed drowned out by the music they were playing -- but I think it had something to do with war or education, or possibly both. It's just for occasions such as this that I try to take my digital camera with me everywhere. Inevitably Che Guevara was in attendance:

Meanwhile, in one of the most dangerous cities in America we had the following police presence:

Absurd in every respect.

Update: Also noticed that Code Pink is jumping on the AIG protest bandwagon in their quest to remain relevant in the post-Bush era.

Milton Friedman

Spotted in D.C. today:

Keep in mind that some of Milton Friedman's signature issues include:

• Abolishing conscription in favor of an all volunteer military.
• Instituting a negative income tax to help poor people. This was adopted in the U.S. as the Earned Income Tax Credit.
• Education vouchers so that poor parents could send their kids to private schools, offering them the same opportunities as those afforded to those better off.

And for this he earns the hatred of the radical left, which shows how delusional and ignorant these people are.

In the interest of full disclosure I read some DC-based blogger last week that noticed the same thing, but I can't remember who it was and thus can't credit or link to them.

Protesting

A guy I know participated in a London protest recently against Israel's incursion into the Gaza strip and wrote about the experience, saying that he won't be doing it again owing to the amount of anti-Semitism and radical Islamic sentiment he encountered. Those are good reasons to avoid future such protests, but I also wonder why he bothered attending in the first place.

Protests as a general rule aren't about accomplishing anything. Really. Their impact on the public discourse is minimal. Does anyone think for a second that Israel -- a country whose citizens are being killed in rocket attacks and which believes it is in a perpetual struggle for its very existence -- is going to allow its actions to be dictated by some protesters in the UK? Did prior protests in London halt the UK's participation in the Iraq War? Meanwhile, the largest anti-war/pro-surrender protests held in Washington in September 2005 (which I attended) were actually followed by Bush's decision to do the opposite -- increase the number of US troops in Iraq via the surge.

The real purpose of attending protests is to engage in conspicuous acts of social consciousness since much of leftism (and leftists love to protest waaaaay more than right wingers) revolves around demonstrating how much you care about various causes:

You show up, fight the power, feel righteous, maybe get a phone number from a fellow protester and then go home and congratulate yourself about how you made a difference. What a waste of time.

Vehicles for moral preening

I'm sure that most people are familiar with the concept of conspicuous consumption and using one's wealth to flaunt their status. We've got plenty of that here in DC, but something else we also have in abundance is moral preening and trying to advertise oneself as more caring than the next. Apparently if you occupy a higher moral plateau it's your job to let the whole world know about it.

I spotted the following signed taped on to the side of a sedan on my walk to the grocery store this morning:

The message, in other words should be, "Detroit: Stop disagreeing with me!" Let's think about how silly this is. The car is in DC and has DC license plates. They are preaching to the choir. But the point, I suspect, is less to impact the public debate than to show off their green credentials and how socially conscious they are. Walking around the neighborhood with my camera I witnessed just how stiff the competition is.

Literally around the corner from the first car I found this automobile, which is a real study in cognitive dissonance. Among the slogans plastered on the back include such left wing fare as "Combat the Racist Infrastructure," "People Before Profits" and "Sustainability: The Final Frontier." That last one kind of cracked me up considering that the person who put it on there is driving an SUV. Perhaps however, aware of their own hypocrisy, it explains why they also placed the sticker that says "Follow Me to Certain Death."

In addition to the leftist sloganeering the vehicle also features more right-wing stuff such as "Don't Steal: The Government Hates Competition" and "A Patriot Must be Ready to Defend His Country Against His Government."

So, evidently this person is a low tax, free market type presumably armed with a sizable arsenal to defend against his own government that also believes the current infrastructure (that elected Barack Obama) is racist and that profits are bad. I dunno maybe you can figure it out.

Eh, then again leftism and logic are usually at odds with one another, as can be seen by the next bumper sticker I encountered:

What. An. Idiot. Of all the mindless messages on the back of cars this one had to have been the worst. How utterly delusional. I guess it is a lot easier to arrive at solutions when they don't have to comport with reality. "Make war crimes tribunals, not war." Jesus, why didn't anyone think of this before? I bet the Bush Administration has to be kicking themselves right now thinking, "How stupid of us! Instead of invading Iraq, why didn't we just go arrest Saddam Hussein and put him on trial?"

You see, the problem with bad guys, the kind that start wars, is that they tend to put up some resistance and don't go willingly to trials. You have to use some kind of force, and maybe even war, to obtain that outcome. But who knows, maybe you can achieve the same end if you just hold enough concerts dedicated to the cause, organize some demonstrations and -- of course -- plaster your car with bumper stickers.

Of course, I don't even own a car so I inhabit the highest moral plane of all.

Update: Thinking about the last bumper sticker more I am starting to think that in the addled mind of the person who owns the car the war tribunals should not be for America's enemies -- people like Radovan Karadzic or Saddam Hussein -- but American leaders. That would make marginally more sense, given that democracies tend to be better followers of the rule of law, but makes the message even more appalling.

Greek protests

The protests in Greece over the shooting of a teenager by police have spread:

Demonstrations against the killing were seen in cities across the continent with left-wing radicals and other sympathisers taking to the streets.

In Spain, 11 protesters were arrested and several police officers injured when clashes took place in Madrid and Barcelona.

In Copenhagen, 32 people were arrested when their protest in support of the Greek protests turned violent.

In neighbouring Turkey, about a dozen left-wing protesters daubed red paint over the front of the Greek consulate in Istanbul.

Around 150 people belonging to a Danish underground movement took to the streets, throwing bottles and paint bombs at buildings, police cars and officers. In Moscow and Rome, protesters threw petrol bombs at Greece's embassies.

Journalists came under attack for the first time in the riots, with a Russian news crew assaulted by a mob of about 50 youths, some of them reportedly drunk.

At first this may seem like a bit of a head-scratcher -- a kid gets shot in Athens and riots break out all over Europe? There's a simple explanation for all of this: leftists love to protest. It doesn't matter the issue, they just love to take to the streets with fists raised in the air in righteous indignation. Or flash the peace sign like this guy:


My real disdain for these people isn't the fact that they disagree with something, it's the method. If you want to express your anger over something we already have plenty of outlets such as letter writing to political officials (believe me, they get read) and media campaigns. I can also understand the occasional peaceful demonstration. But for so many of these people what they are really looking for is action and to cause a ruckus -- the issue they are protesting is incidental. I suspect that many of them actually hope to get arrested so they can brag later about how they earned their battle stripes.

Naomi Klein and the leftist romantics

leftI've never really paid a great deal of attention to Naomi Klein. Anyone who surveys the landscape and concludes that the most pressing problem facing the world today is Nike doesn't seem worth expending much mental energy on. Her arguments seem so transparently ridiculous that it is a waste of time to bother refuting them. As Megan McArdle says:

But what's the point of disagreeing with Naomi Klein? It's like having an argument about economic policy with an eight year old. To have an interesting discussion, you would have to explain too many facts to the eight year old--facts that the child does't have any interest in learning. And the eight-year-old lacks a coherent intellectual framework into which to fit those facts; his reactions are pure instinctive emotion.

However, there is no denying that she is an increasingly influential figure, author of best-selling books who jets around the world giving lectures on the evils of capitalism. It's due to this rising prominence that I decided to read this New Yorker profile of her and her latest screed book The Shock Doctrine. I won't bother with the book or her economic philosophy, which you can see refuted here by the brilliant Johan Norberg who deserves a medal for reading and responding to what must have been 500+ pages of dreck.

What I was more fascinated by was the psychology revealed by the book of Klein and her ilk, what seems to me a really bizarre and misplaced romanticism.

When [Klein's older brother] Seth was little, he worried that all the good fights had already been fought, but Bonnie told him that she was sure he would find something that needed attending to, and from an early age he was on the lookout for what that thing might be—what fight would turn out to be his identity and his legacy. When he was in the sixth grade, his father took him to hear Helen Caldicott speak against nuclear weapons, and he decided that that was it. He started an anti-nuclear group, and after graduating he took a year off to travel around the country with the group, speaking to students.

That first sentence really struck me, a worry that all the good fights had already been fought. Not relief or thanks for all the progress that has been made, but a torment that he wouldn't get a chance to take up the revolutionary mantle. For these people politics is life. Che is not just an icon but a role model.

I am not exaggerating. Witness this quote from Klein's socialist father-in-law:

“I’m more fundamentalist now,” he says. “I have no patience for capitalism at all. I see now that there is almost nothing that is positive in this ugly international system, and that’s why I embrace Naomi’s view of the way the world works. I’m actually tired of my rhetorical outbursts—I’d like to engage in physical aggression.”

One gets the impression that in their ideal world these people would prefer to throw away their iPhones (Klein uses one) and take up a guerrilla existence deep in the jungle fighting off the menacing forces of Wal-Mart and Microsoft. Indeed, the article goes on to describe Klein as particularly fond of Zapatista rebel leader Subcommandant Marcos, who tries to cut a similarly dashing figure as Che.

And these people should lament, with many of the once-pressing battles already won. Women can vote and we're about to have a black president. We are living in the most peaceful time in human existence. But these people will not rest, for it isn't the outcome that they relish but the battle itself. If all the important fights have been fought then they will be deprived of the chance to relive the 60s, placing flowers in the barrels of guns and singing odes to themselves of change and struggle. They might even have to get a job.

With the urge to protest still beating fiercely in their breast they set off in search of new dragons to slay but find only windmills. The result is theaters of the absurd such as the "Battle of Seattle" WTO protests where the teeth gnashing on display was usually commensurate with the level of economic ignorance. These events were so much fun that participants attempted various re-enactments in DC and elsewhere. After all, how many times in your life do you get to put a doo rag around your face, chant slogans and raise your fist in the air while dodging tear gas?

With global poverty on the decline and rising prosperity across the world even this may one day run out as an issue. Already the days of G-7/IMF/World Bank protests seem like a fading memory, with climate change perhaps the heir apparent.

These people don't know what they're fighting for or against, but rest assured, they will continue the struggle.

Protest round-up

As promised, I went to the anti-war protest on Saturday accompanied by my friend Zain and his wife Kathryn. The first stop was Dupont Circle where the Mobilization for Global Justice was having a rally. Shortly after arriving the march began, with the crowd -- I'd estimate at 1,500 or so -- strolling down Connecticut, making a right down K St. and then a left towards the World Bank.

After some milling about in front of the bank the crowd then made a right, heading back towards Dupont. Fortunately they were stymied by some well-placed city maintenance vehicles blocking the street, and finally turned around to head off to join the larger protest by the White House. The main protest was a big event. While some conservative sites have tried claiming that there were only a couple thousand people there this is not true, there were many times that number.

My thoughts:

On the one hand a protest is something to behold as an exercise in democracy. As Zain, a former Peace Corps worker in Uzbekistan pointed out, nothing of the sort would ever be tolerated in that country. It is a testimony to this country that we allow such an outpouring of dissent almost literally at the President's front door.

As for the protesters themselves, a not insignificant number of people were there I’m sure out of genuine outrage, and a sense that they needed to make their voices heard. That's fine and is even healthy. There was another component to the protest, however, that really struck a nerve with me. The black clad anarchists. The cheerleaders engaged in mindless street theater. Those who wrapped themselves in the imagery of Che Guevara and railed against U.S. policy towards Cuba.

These people, or at least I suspect the vast majority, care far more about themselves than the causes they profess to support. It’s all very self-congratulatory -- go out, behave like a clown, and then feel virtuous for participating in the fight against global capitalism/imperialism/chimperor etc. Protests and calls for revolution in a democracy such as the U.S. doesn’t require courage. It requires little in terms of sacrifice. The real dissidents that deserve to be praised, the true keepers of the flame held by Martin Luther King and others are those who run the wrath of their governments to do so. Cuba. North Korea. Venezuela. The very governments so many of these protesters take to the streets to defend. It’s sick.

At one point Zain jokingly started a “Down With Karimov” chant. While it was used in a humorous manner, I wondered how many people there who professed to care so much for the Palestinians and multitude of other causes represented knew or cared who Karimov is -- especially now that the U.S. has pulled out of the country. If it isn't anti-U.S. they simply aren't interested.

In fact, these people actually do a disservice to the causes they claim to support. They make the movement appear unserious, like a circus freak show. I also noticed an inordinate amount of F-bomb dropping, not only spontaneous verbal usage but also on signs and banners. Indeed, I spotted one woman wearing a shirt with a picture of Bush and Cheney that said "Meet the F***ers." She received numerous compliments on it. Organizers of such rallies would be well advised to expunge their movement of such elements. Of course, that isn't possible, because the organizers themselves are a front group for a bunch of hard-core socialists. If there was any doubt how closely intertwined the organizers were from the lunatic fringe it should have been firmly erased when Jesse Jackson, Cindy Sheehan and Al Sharpton all marched side by side with banners of Che Guevara fluttering directly behind them.

The result was a protest that had a high whacko to non-whacko ratio. It wasn't mainstream America voicing their outrage, it was the extreme. And that's not really going to keep either George W. Bush or Karl Rove awake at night.

Update: Thoughts on the protest and anti-war movement from Christopher Hitchens here.

Also, forgot to mention, perhaps the strangest note of dissent sounded at the protest was a guy who had a sticker on his Nalgene bottle that said "Canada Out of Haiti Now".

Another update: Read Zain's excellent take on the protest here and here.