My occasional “Least Objectionable Legislator Award” (no prize) takes a detour today and goes to a bureaucrat instead. So the LOL Award (pun intended, I guess) is temporarily the Least Objectionable Bureaucrat Award.
I regard the lack of an exit strategy as a feature built into every government program. She does not, however, and that’s commendable. But, she’s helpless, as the United States is no longer governable in any normal sense; However her plea is worth repeating to a deaf world:
“We really need to think through the exit strategy because (government guarantees) could become a crutch,” ….Weaker financial institutions “need to be allowed to fail,” Bair added.
The government needs to decide which banks and other institutions receive the financial support, and eventually, “How do we get out?”
Too often, a small step back for government is needed for there to be a giant leap for mankind. Her feeble warning isn’t much given the torrential pro-unlimited-bailout hailstorm coming out of Washington, but I’ll take it.
Some of the brightest minds in the online conservative movement — John Hawkins, Patrick Ruffini and Mark Tapscott — are discussing what it would take to build a “rightroots” movement, aimed at replicating the political activism of the left “netroots.” As Patrick makes clear in a further post, this is not about building a partisan shilling machine (if it was, the effort would deserve to fail), but about a grassroots-driven insurgency and about harnessing ideological lightning (of which lots more later) to power the political world.
This is a worthy effort. They are right to say that the right is having its clock cleaned electorally as a result of the online community’s deficiencies in the areas of fundraising and online activism, yet I think there are two more important problems identified. First, as Mark points out, the net holds massive promise for investigative journalism, a point that Paul Chesser of the Carolina Journal has made repeatedly; look at his revelations about the Center for Climate Strategies and the way leftist donors have used it to impose alarmist global warming policies on governors around the country. Meanwhile, here at CEI, we established the Warren Brookes Fellowship to keep alive the tradition of a great columnist who never let opinion or prejudice get in the way of fact. And in the UK, it is conservative and libertarian bloggers who have often pushed against the Labour government when the official opposition was too timid to do so. Guido Fawkes is a great example.
The second problem is identified well by John:
Just to give you an example of what I’m talking about, here’s a generic conversation, some variation of which I’ve had with different congressional aides at least half-a-dozen times over the last four years.
Anonymous Aide: Hawkins, I want to ask your advice. John Hawkins: Shoot. Anonymous Aide: We’re thinking about doing idea x. John Hawkins: Are you out of your mind? That’s going to be a disaster! Anonymous Aide: Well, they’ve already decided to do it. How do we sell it to the bloggers? John Hawkins: You’re asking me whether you should put mayonnaise or mustard on a sh*t sandwich. I can give you some advice, but it’s not going to go over well no matter how you spin it.
John is right. The net provides the single best method yet devised of allowing the individual supporter into the messy business of policy formulation. Again, a look across the pond is valuable. The Conservatives in Britain have realized exactly that — ConservativeHome has become a sort of guardian of the Tory conscience, where individual party members have their say on emerging policy issues. The Party’s guarded retreat from the excesses of greenery and the re-emergence of tax as a defining issue have in some degree or another been driven by net-based activism. One might even suggest that the era of the political consultant or guru is over. Creative destruction in action!
Jason and the rest of the Bureaucrash crew are making their way across the northeast part of our great continent this week, as part of Crash Across America 2007, a traveling celebration of liberty. You can see the map of their route here, and watch their videos from the road. Here’s the first one to get you started.
This week DC played host to the anti-corporate shenanigans of The Yes Men, self-proclaimed “culture jammers” who get off on impersonating corporate and government spokespeople and proceeding to make ridiculous and/or horrifying public statements. The general idea behind culture jamming is to use a mainstream medium to communicate a subversive message. A more specific (and jargon-filled) definition comes to us courtesy of our good friend Wikipedia:
Culture jamming is the act of transforming mass media to produce commentary about itself, using the original medium’s communication method. It is a form of public activism which is generally in opposition to commercialism, and the vectors of corporate image. The aim of culture jamming is to create a contrast between corporate or mass media images and the realities or perceived negative side of the corporation or media. This is done symbolically, with the “detournement” of pop iconography.
That’s quite a mouthful. In any event, The Yes Men employ culture jamming techniques to spread their message. Unfortunately, their message seems to consist mostly of anti-capitalist, anti-trade, anti-corporate ideology. Which brings us to the events of this week.
They had contacted CEI and several other free market think tanks, claiming to be documentary filmmakers retained by the ad agency Hill & Knowlton to make an updated version of Milton Friedman’s landmark series “Free to Choose.” Supposedly, a wealthy private donor had commissioned the new series, and hired H&K to produce it. Several of the groups, taking them at their word, leapt at the chance to talk about how economic freedom leads to an open, prosperous society, and scheduled interviews. By Monday evening, however, troubling details began to emerge.
After some advanced level Google work, we discovered that their cover story was not checking out. The people who we thought were creating a tribute to our hero Dr. Friedman were, in fact, almost certainly setting out to do the opposite. Thus informed, we hit the phones on Tuesday and advised other groups in town of The Yes Men’s lying ways. In addition, we discovered that our friends at the Cato Institute had interviews with their own analysts scheduled for the very next morning. Thus, when Wednesday morning rolled around and the Yes Men crew showed up at Cato HQ on Massachusetts Avenue, everyone was prepared.
First, Cato’s media department informed the crew that they would not be taping any interviews after all. Then, as they were being escorted out of the building, a pro-freedom activist crew led by Bureaucrash Crasher-in-Chief Jason Talley treated them to a little street theater from the other side of the ideological spectrum.
In a way, what Bureaucrash does is not that different from what The Yes Men specialize in. Many past crashes have featured the same kind of re-purposed media and culture jamming techniques the other guys have used, except, of course, in the pursuit of freedom instead of an expansion of government power. During the “Progressives Against Progress” crash in 2004, for example, crashers infiltrated the Green Party national conference in Madison, Wisconsin and got many a Green to sign on to their outrageous satirical petitions.
Over the years, The Yes Men have proven their skill at fooling everyone from conference organizers and government officials to network television producers. One group they couldn’t fool, however, was CEI’s feisty younger brother, Bureaucrash. See the video confrontation below; more details on the crash available here.
Congratulations to Jason and our friends at Americans for Prosperity and the Moving Picture Institute for their recent anti-Sicko demonstration here in DC. Photos and video available here.
Better yet, the protest has garnered a mention in Jason Robertson’s story about Sicko in the Dallas Morning News:
Weeks before the film opened, some health care activist groups began sending e-mails to journalists disputing Mr. Moore’s assessment of America’s health care system, as well as the efficiency of systems in other countries.
Bureaucrash, an international activist group based in Washington D.C., along with members of the Americans for Prosperity, and the Moving Picture Institute showed up at a D.C. premiere carrying signs saying, “Socialism Kills,” and “Guaranteed health care is a Guaranteed Failure.”
Apparently, in Arkansas, skateboarding is a crime. Witness the ridiculous overreaction of one Hot Springs police officer to the threat of youngsters on skateboards. Law enforcement pulls a jerk move, and YouTube is there:
One of the highlights of our big annual dinner last week was our faux public service announcement from a future where nanny-state regulators have taken over. Behold, the terrifying possibilities of the Department of Pre-Regulation:
Credits (in no particular order) include: Erin Wildermuth, Cord Blomquist, Ivan Osorio, Brooke Oberwetter, Jeremy Lott, Megan McLaughlin, William Yeatman, Julie Walsh, Kate McLaughlin, Dominick Saran, Jason Talley, Greg Conko, Christine Hall, Sam Kazman, Al Canata, Holly Jackson and Richard Morrison. Also, special thanks to Philip K. Dick and Scott Frank for a little inspiration.
When it rains anti-anti-smoking indignation, it pours. In addition to Brooke’s press statement, Jason reminds me that Bureaucrash was hot on this MPAA/smoking tip long ago. Last July several crashers headed out to an anti-MPAA protest march where demonstrators demanded an ‘R’ rating for any film that includes any smoking whatsoever. This week’s policy change didn’t go quite that far, but we can all spot a slippery slope when we see one. To re-live those heady days, tune into “Operation Tobacco Road” below. Photos here.
Zimbabwe’s likely appointment as head of the UN Sustainable Development Commission (see below) bring to mind a recent Bureaucrash operation. On April 20th, a crowd consisting mostly of African expatriots gathered outside the Zimbabwean Embassy here in Washington to protest Robert Mugabe’s bloody misrule of their homeland. The photos are here, and the video is below.
In my web browsing last evening, I came across a booklet published by the Church of England last month. It’s called “How Many Lightbulbs Does It Take to Change a Christian?” Alas, I couldn’t read it online — the pamphlet can only be ordered from the Church at a price of £4.99. But the promotional copy gave me a sense of its Christian mission —
In eight sections ‘How Many Lightbulbs?’ will inspire you, your church, and your community towards actions that will reduce your ecological footprint, from turning off the tap, to starting a church compost heap.
It turns out that the booklet is part of an official Church of England initiative started last year called “Shrinking the Footprint.” It seems like quite an elaborate program that tells churchgoers all sorts of things they should do in their everyday lives. It’s not clear whether the “footprint” program replaces the more standard spiritual activities of the Church, such as praying, attending services, giving spiritual guidance, comforting and counseling parishioners, etc.
My favorite Church activity is Generate Your Own Renewable Energy, with photovoltaic (PV) cell systems featuring prominently. But, I can’t use PVs right now to save energy and money, the website notes. That’s not likely to happen until 2030; but that’s alright, I’m assured — one could still make “an iconic statement” now using a PV cell installation.
A point to note is that current micro-generation technology is still relatively new and can be expensive even when grant aid is available. A recent report from the Energy Saving Trust indicated for example that domestic-scale photovoltaic (PV) cells are unlikely to produce equivalent cost energy before 2030, even taking grant aid and possible sales of surplus energy to the national grid into account. In short, where there is a limited “green budget” there may be more cost efficient ways to reduce carbon emissions.
This does not mean that these technologies should be ignored. A wind turbine in a churchyard or PV cell installation on a church roof can make an iconic statement and be a visible symbol of the Church’s commitment to adapting to climate change. In certain circumstances, other renewable technologies can make good financial as well as environmental sense, but each case needs to be considered on its own merits with the benefit of professional advice.
But lest churchgoers get complacent and think about hiding their footprints, I would like to point out that each diocese of the Church now has an Environmental Officer as part of this wide-ranging program. According to its website,
The Church’s national network of Diocesan Environment Officers will be undertaking a variety of local initiatives as part of Shrinking the Footprint as it progresses from energy conservation through to a variety of other environmental issues.
I’m not going to laugh anymore when CEI staffers and others talk about carbon offsets as the new indulgences. I think the Church of England has a sale on them.