When I first saw the now infamous Google doodle published last week I was a bit perplexed. Was every social justice warrior’s favorite search engine honoring an unsung Asian suffragette, or perhaps one of Anita Sarkeesian’s cyber-feminist forebears? As it turns out, Google was paying tribute to a Marxist, anti-American demagogue who admired cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and the late Al Qaeda emir Osama Bin Laden. Yuri Kochiyama would cut an odd figure today, coming as she did from what’s now one of the most well-educated and generally well-off non-white ethnicities in this country; a group which politically is more often associated with the liberal, yet deeply patriotic, Japanese-Americans living in Hawaii than avowed Maoist revolutionaries. Even her experience as Nisei living during an era where she and her family were interned for years and dispossessed of their worldly possessions doesn’t fully explain her radicalism when you consider the path taken by her  contemporaries under similar circumstances. 

However, there was an undercurrent of Leninist and culturally Marxist thought running through the Asian-American community during the peak of ’60s and ’70s radicalism, even among normally staid Japanese-Americans. Although never approaching the critical challenge posed to the state by Communists in Japan, which has been chronicled brilliantly by novelist Haruki Murakami, this subculture did exist within the United States. The fact that Ms. Kochiyama existed is not nearly as curious, for some people, as the reasons behind Google’s decision to honor her on its flagship search page. Of course, for those of us who are immersed-unfortunately-in the ideological warfare that has engulfed more and more of the private sphere, the fact that the most-visited website in the world would choose to valorize a woman with a burning hatred of the United States is not surprising in the least. Although the creators of and executives within Google are doctrinaire Democrats, I have no doubt that they would categorically reject any association with the founder of Al Qaeda and the Great Helmsman-although I wouldn’t describe them as the sworn enemies of the Chinese Communist Party either. That said, the climate within their company is such that there is no internal pushback against a decision to extol thoroughly loathsome individuals who would have crushed Google in its cradle, if given the opportunity.

If you think I’m jumping to conclusions, I would direct your attention to the case of my friend Oleg Atbashian, creator of the coruscating satirical website known as The People’s Cube. A site that was purged from Google’s database in such a comprehensive and swift manner that it would have made the man of steel himself blush, and which was only restored after a successful, nationally publicized Internet campaign on its behalf. Of course, Google representative Matt Cutts denied any political motivation behind his company’s initial decision to cast TPC into the Outer Darkness, which seems to be a common refrain for Web behemoths accused of purposefully manipulating what you come across online. It seems like a convenient dodge, especially when they have repeatedly done things which cast doubt in the minds of their critics, such as cut off the advertising stream to conservative weblogs and ban advertising for perfectly legal products which are being targeted by powerful government officials and leftist grievance organizations.

Tomorrow, I’ll examine another global source of information-and disinformation-which has been accused of distorting the online playing field in much the same way.

I think most of our readers know of my deep respect for the global brotherhood of firefighters. Not only because some of them were and are members of my extended family, whom I deeply love, but because of the courage it takes to perform their duties. They were, along with the Fukushima 50-the only people willing to sacrifice their health, and potentially, their lives, in order to preserve the safety of millions of Japanese civilians.

That’s why I’m urging all of you who can to help The Rebel rebuild Fort McMurray. A city whose residents have now been exiled by a devastating wildfire. The bravery of these firemen-and the loss of these citizens-is unfathomable for those of us who haven’t been visited by such a horrific natural disaster. You can make your contribution here, if so inclined. Americans are known throughout the world for their generosity and hospitality, especially towards their neighbors, and the people of this Alberta town need your help.

Tell us what you think about the latest iteration on a classic cinematic monster, including whether or not you agree with Japanese observers, who believe Godzilla needs to go on a low calorie diet, in the comments below.

Update: Here’s a link to a somewhat more concise review I did for Goodreads. 

One of the most common critiques of contemporary American society, and Western culture more broadly, is its purported enthrallment to the opiate of celebrity. The notion that ordinary Americans are so dumbfounded by popular entertainment that they can’t understand linear, logical thought, let alone come up with workable solutions to complex problems which require such understanding, is not new. The late Neil Postman wrote an entire book exploring the damage wrought by modern communication techniques-namely, television and advertising-to the process of information-gathering, and by extension, rational argument and inquiry. However, even Henry David Thoreau-who lived before radio had attenuated the attention spans of humans weaned on the printed word-lamented the prospect of instantaneous communication.

Even so, you can’t properly understand the term celebrity until you’ve looked at a totalitarian state which is dominated not so much by an ideological impulse or dogma as by a cult of personality. That’s why the book written by celebrity ghostwriter Michael Malice-seen above in his dashing North Korean suit-about the late despot Kim Jong-il serves as an invaluable resource.  Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il-gives a western audience the rare opportunity to peer into the mind of someone who stood at the apex of a regime in which there was only one family and one person who was to be celebrated-upon pain of imprisonment, torture, and death. 

The unique nature of the North Korean state lies not so much in its depraved sadism-although it’s difficult to argue that it doesn’t equal or exceed even the most barbarous governments on the planet in this regard-but in the fact that it has managed to extirpate any public expression of individuality. Not only has the Kim dynasty suppressed any and all political dissent for the better part of seven decades, it has succeeded in effacing the personality of 24 million Koreans. In the tropical gulag that is Cuba you will find exuberantly defiant bloggers standing up to the Castro brothers tyranny. In the despotic theocracy that is the Islamic Republic of Iran, you will find courageous resistance to the Khomenist regime and first-hand accounts of what it’s like to be incarcerated in the notorious Evin Prison.

You won’t find internal dissidents in the DPRK, because to all intents and purposes, they do not exist. To dissent is to sign your own death warrant-not only for yourself, but for three generations of your family. You won’t hear the conditions inside of kwan-li-so described, because-with a few exceptions-no one leaves these concentration camps alive, and the only way outsiders are able to view them is through satellite photographs.

The brilliance of Dear Reader is its ability to convey these horrific truths in a way which compels the reader to look at North Korea in all its unvarnished brutality. At first glance, the concept of writing a book about an ongoing holocaust which relies upon humor to any extent is controversial, if not revolting. One of the reasons that a film like Goodbye Lenin can be enjoyed by ordinary people is because they recognize that it satirizes ugly crimes perpetrated by a regime which is safely immured in the past, and which will in all likelihood never be resurrected. The atrocities being committed in the DPRK, on the other hand, show no sign of abating.

The truth is that this book is suffused with humor, but not the type of humor that most people associate with Kim Jong-il or Kim Jong-un. It’s not designed to focus on the trivial manifestations of their well-cultivated international image of eccentricity, e.g. the goodwill tour by washed-up  NBA power forward/media spectacle Dennis Rodman. It’s used as a means of illustrating a lethally serious point. Namely, that this ruling clique has successfully employed an architecture of myth-based upon fear, ignorance, anger, and the desire for vengeance-in order to not only immiserate the Koreans under their rule materially, but to also impoverish their spirit and their souls.

One of the ways the author makes this viscerally disturbing narrative digestible is by contextualizing the Kim dynasty. People today can’t comprehend how a state created out of the spoils of World War II, a vestige of the Cold War conflict between the United States and USSR, became a singularly isolated and defiant  national socialist, i.e. fascist, regime predicated upon the worship of a single individual and intense, multigenerational racialism.

He does this in a number of ways, most interestingly perhaps by humanizing his subject, i.e. one of the most loathsome dictators of the past half-century. As off-putting as this might seem to the uninitiated, it’s a surprisingly effective means of explaining how and why the North Korean state exists, in spite of an increasingly porous web of information control. Taking traditional biographical tropes about family life and adolescent angst and transposing them into a story about Southeast Asia’s most iconic despot is an unconventional technique, but ultimately a successful one. A particularly affecting anecdote involves a young Kim Jong-il guarding the study of his father, Kim il-Sung, as he sleeps. Oddly moving, it serves as a metaphor for his guardianship of his dad’s legacy, even at the cost of the enforced starvation of over a million of his countrymen.

This highlights another aspect of North Korea’s unique regime, which is later revealed explicitly by Kim himself, when he admits that his advisors are not chosen because of any technical competence or foresight they may display, but because of their intense loyalty to Kim il-Sung, i.e. Kim Jong-il, thought. The consequent economic, social, and environmental disasters that resulted from this leadership method are, naturally, a necessary evil for preserving the sanctity of the true Korean state in the eyes of the Dear Leader.

Malice makes the sclerotic nature of this system comprehensible, which might come as a surprise to many of us who have been repeatedly told that there is no rhyme or reason to the actions taken by the DPRK’s leadership. In fact, there was a brutal internal logic and rationality to the actions of Kim Jong il, from extolling a juche philosophy that seemingly prized autarky-even while living parasitically off the extorted handouts from hostile neighbors and the United States-to an incomplete series of garish monuments exalting the only family to have ruled North Korea since its creation.

Therefore, the Agreed Framework between the United States and the DPRK was not a shameful capitulation, but a necessary expedient to preserve the Juche ideal, while also debasing both a former and current President of the United States. True to the promise on Dear Reader’s book jacket, this part is 100 percent “true,” as a perusal of Bill Clinton’s letter to Kim Jong-il at the time demonstrates. The bellicose rhetoric emanating from North Korea is not the rantings of a paranoid lunatic, but Songun diplomacy, which, regardless of its dubious morality, was extraordinarily efficacious. Kim’s explanation of an humanitarian aid package accepted five years later illustrates why:

After much grandstanding and hyperbole, the American and Korean negotiators reached a compromise. The Americans claimed that they were neither rewarding me nor condoning my violent rhetoric. That is absolutely true. They didn’t “reward” me or “condone” my rhetoric. On the other hand, they did financially compensate me because of my aggression. 

Accepting charity from the Yank devils was not a repudiation of the principles undergirding his very regime, but a brilliant strategic maneuver. And it wasn’t charity but reparations for the harm inflicted upon the DPRK for decades by the American imperialists.

This didn’t contradict the Juche principle of self-reliance one bit. I didn’t look at the package as aid so much as the repayment of a debt. The US imperialists had been threatening Korea for decades. It was entirely their fault that I’d had to expend such enormous sums on the military. 

Even actions that seem completely inscrutable to outside observers, e.g. the North Korean government’s evident pride in being lavished with praise by equally dysfunctional nation-states like the West African, Marxist backwater Burkina Faso or the South Asian dumpster fire that is Pakistan, become explicable once you understand them from the perspective of the man pulling the strings. As absurd as having Mali as one of your strategic partners might seem to us, it serves the interests of the Kim regime. Just like its arsenal of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, the International Friendship Museum is intended for domestic consumption, not for our benefit.

If there’s one thing to take away from Dear Reader, it’s that there is a calculated reason for every decision made at the upper echelons of power within North Korea. As Kim Jong-il avers himself, he was “no buffoon,” and his actions-however clownish they may have seemed to foreigners-had deadly consequences which were methodically plotted out beforehand. This is a book worth reading, if only because it illuminates the dark corners of a society whose people have suffered for too long in the shadows of their loving parents.

Today, of course, is Veterans Day. An appropriate time to mark the bravery of a small group of men who were among the first Americans to retaliate against the overwhelming might of fascist, imperial Japan. Doug Powers recounts the heroism of the Doolittle Raiders on Michelle Malkin’s site, which includes video footage of their final toast. A good friend of mine has also penned a thoughtful  tribute to American veterans, which is worth checking out. For those readers who are currently serving or have served in the Armed Forces, you have our gratitude and appreciation for your sacrifices to this country.

One of the fascinating aspects of living in this city is that, for good or ill, you’re exposed to a whole raft of ideologies and political philosophies of which, but for location, you might have remained blissfully ignorant in perpetuity. Granted, some of us choose to remain mired in a state of ignorance notwithstanding the fact that we dwell in the cultural capital of the planet. Even so, those of us with a smidgen of intellectual curiosity find ourselves compelled to investigate  these esoteric political beliefs, if for no other reason than merely to satisfy the more quizzical side of our nature.

That’s what brought me down to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, the site of multiple demonstrations against the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this past week. The largest faction of protesters came at the urging of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, otherwise known as the People’s Mujahadeen of Iran, otherwise known as the MKO, not to be confused with the National Council of Resistance in Iran, which serves as the MEK’s parliament-in-exile. Confused yet? Bear with me.

The banner you see above might look vaguely familiar, and that’s probably because you’ve seen it before-in New York City, no less! That’s right, it was part of the original Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park, which was eventually dispersed by the NYPD.

Despite its many permutations throughout the decades, one of the constants of the MEK has been its association, however attenuated, with the  left. So its decision to align itself with the staggeringly incoherent, yet incontestably leftist, OWS movement should not have come as a surprise. And just as you’ll find PMOI supporters at large gatherings of leftists, you’re more than likely to find a diverse array of leftists-with an interest in anti-IRI activism-at MEK rallies.

At the last MEK demonstration against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I observed an informational booth manned by a member of the Worker-communist Party of Iran-in exile, of course- who stood behind a crimson red banner that resembled this flag. The irony of denouncing the world’s leading state sponsor of terror while venerating-seemingly-Russia’s first mass terrorist apparently being lost on him.

Large sections of this rally weren’t any more intellectually coherent, unfortunately. Case in point, a group of Western feminists protesting the Iranian state’s deplorable treatment of women, including the not infrequent executions of those who run afoul of its clerical leadership’s capricious enforcement of Islamic law.

Although the Iranian regime’s periodic bloodletting of its citizenry is deserving of universal condemnation, I can’t help but think that doing so while wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the image of one of the Western Hemisphere’s most notorious executioners-and a totalitarian, to boot-is a decidedly mixed message.

Even so, it can’t be disputed that the Iranian system of justice-including its hellish penal institutions-is barbaric even by the most narrow definition of human rights. As the poster above indicates, Iran is one of the few countries that still routinely sentences juveniles to death, more often than not carrying out those verdicts. This tragedy is made all the more horrific by the complicity of Western suppliers of construction equipment; equipment that is regularly utilized in one of the Iranian regime’s preferred methods of execution.

Even though this facet of capital punishment in Iran is rapidly changing due to grassroots political pressure, there are other more traditional methods of murdering unsatisfied citizens, as the picture above-and the story of Soraya M.-demonstrate.

Death and imminent danger were recurring themes throughout the rally, along with the threat posed by a potentially nuclear-armed IRI. Those executed by the Iranian state, before, during, and after the 2009 Green Revolution were highlighted at different points throughout the day.

Another issue promoted-in keeping with the depressingly repetitive news coming across the news wires-is the anti-Assad revolution within Syria. In addition to spotting some Syrians sporting hats with the logo of the Free Syrian Army-a group engaged in questionable  actions itself-there were dozens of men and women bearing the pre-Baathist flag of the Syrian Republic, which has become synonymous with the civil war which has ravaged Syria for the past year and a half.

The inextricable bond between that regime and its benefactors in the Iranian government was referenced throughout the rally. That the Syrian government would probably be unable to repulse its domestic opponents without the military assistance it receives from Iran is an inexorable truth.

So is, it would seem, the precarious nature of Bashar al-Assad’s decade-long reign, although making geopolitical predictions-as history tells us-is always a dicey proposition.

One of the intriguing elements of the anti-Assad faction within this demonstration was the attempt to cast a non-sectarian facade over their efforts. Even though the ecumenical sentiments of these opponents of Baathism were no doubt sincere, I’m not certain that Syrian Christians feel the same way, especially after witnessing the fate of their Assyrian and Catholic brethren in neighboring Iraq.

Though the Syrian regime’s persecution of religious and ethnic minorities is well documented, the prospect that Syria’s most imperiled minority will benefit from yet another Islamic awakening during this Arab Spring is doubtful. One need only look to the precedent established by the Islamic Revolution in Iran in order to see that non-Islamic faiths don’t always thrive in the aftermath of Middle Eastern regime change.

That said, those looking to depose the mullahs in Iran have a compelling argument to make. One that I hope to examine in my third and final post on this subject, in which I’ll continue to explore the history-and perhaps the future-of one of the most vocal and controversial Iranian opposition groups, the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq.

Today is the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, an act of war which was followed shortly thereafter by America’s entry into the Second World War. Before the war had concluded, our country would suffer the loss of over 400,000 men who had enlisted or been drafted into the United States Armed Forces. The New York Daily News has a slideshow of photographs from that fateful day, which I highly recommend you take a look at. There are also historic audio broadcasts from December 7, 1941 which are worth listening to.

Here’s a statement from our friend Glen Nocera,

Today December 7, 2011 marks the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. May we never forget those brave soldiers that died and shed their blood on that day defending our freedoms. May God always watch over them and bless their souls. Please if you meet a Veteran please thank them for their service to our country. Without them we would not be a country.

Thank you, and may God always Bless America.

Glenn P. Nocera, President of the Brooklyn Young Republican Club. Going Strong Since 1880

Yesterday, as I was standing behind hundreds of other job-seekers in line for one of the periodic job fairs held by the New York Post at the Affinia Hotel, I realized how pivotal forums like the Intelligence Squared U.S. debate-pictured above-which I attended on Tuesday are to the economic debate occurring in this country. This was the first in a series of insta-debates hosted by Intelligence Squared, which are intended to “debate a topic at the forefront of current events,” according to the program guide for IQ2. 

That topic, in this instance, was President Obama’s proposed jobs plan, which had recently been rejected by the United States Senate. Therefore, the resolution was modified to reflect the President’s legislative defeat: Congress Should Pass President Obama’s Jobs Plan…Piece By Piece. 

One of those pieces-as labor economist and former advisor to President Obama Cecilia Rouse pointed out during the debate-is a law that would prohibit firms from publicly dissuading potential applicants who are unemployed from applying for advertised job openings. The tangibility of this issue was brought home during the job fair I attended, when in response to a recruiter asking what the best strategy for being hired is, someone caustically replied, “have a job.” In addition to this provision, which Rouse admitted was mostly a cosmetic measure-mitigated to some extent by discretionary waivers that could be issued by the government, similar to those issued under PPACA-intended to encourage those long term unemployed seeking work, there are a host of other measures that Democrats in Congress and President Obama continue to push in one form or another.

As Professor Rouse described it, 40% of the bill would consist of direct stimulus, e.g. $1,500 in tax cuts for those earning 50,000 dollars or less, the extension of unemployment benefits for those who’ve exhausted their 73 weeks, while 20% would be earmarked for labor cost efficiency. That would encompass everything from an extended payroll tax cut for employers to federal stipends for hiring those who are among the long term unemployed, which as the debate was taking place stood at 6.2 million. Another element of the jobs package would be the creation of a national infrastructure reinvestment bank, an idea that has been in circulation since the beginning of the housing and banking crises in 2007. Most of these measures would be funded through the elimination of certain tax credits attaining to wealthier Americans and hedge funds, something that Mark Zandi-Chief Economist at Moody’s Analytics, and Professor Rouse’s partner in supporting the debate resolution-conceded was “a negative, but a modest negative.”

All of these measures are intended to provide short term stability and integrity to an economy experiencing a profoundly sluggish recovery, notwithstanding its slightly improved showing this 3rd quarter. As Mark Zandi pointed out during his introductory remarks, the 75,000 new jobs that are being added per month need to be doubled simply in order to maintain a stable rate of unemployment. Both Zandi and Rouse emphasized that there would need to long term, deep structural changes in order to achieve permanent economic growth for the foreseeable future. Zandi’s recommendations included reform and simplification of the tax code as well as implementation of recommendations submitted by the deficit reduction commission, a.k.a. the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Professor Rouse, on the other hand, touted the work sharing programs in place in nations that have weathered the recession slightly better the United States; specifically, Germany and Canada. This proposed solution has been suggested by other analysts who’ve tried to resolve the seemingly intractable problem of joblessness plaguing the United States for the past three years.

Both Rouse and Zandi, however, agreed that the best short term solution to the woeful economic problems we’re currently facing is to immediately enact the proposals advocated by the Obama administration. Zandi asserted that the original, 850 billion dollar stimulus package, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, succeeded in its intended effect, i.e. propping up an economy that was reeling from the implosion of the housing industry and concurrent banking crisis. In support of this argument, Zandi cited the fact that in February of 2009 the American economy was shedding 750,000 jobs every month, whereas by June of that same year-after the stimulus had been enacted-the economy was showing a monthly increase in job growth. He asserted that we have created 2 million new jobs since February of 2010, demonstrating that the stimulus was an effective stop gap measure in shoring up our economy.

By contrast, the opponents of the debate resolution, NYU Law School professor Richard Epstein and Cato Institute economist Daniel Mitchell, argued that the Obama stimulus plan had been a complete failure, and that enacting a stimulus-heavy jobs bill would simply recreate the same problems found in the first legislative attempt at restarting our sputtering economy. Mitchell took particular aim at the Keynesian underpinning to these plans, which relies upon the notion that government injecting money into the economy will spur private sector growth, without acknowledging that the public sector needs non-governmentnal, private sector prosperity in order to fund its expenditures. He asserted that “government can’t put money into the economy without taking money out,” which amounts to the central critique of Keynesianism. Rather, Mitchell suggested that expanding economic growth entailed expanding the pie, not redistributing pre-existing wealth-a reference to the surcharge that would defray the costs of this jobs bill.

When Mark Zandi claimed that “fiscal stimulus is a tried and true response to recession,” which had been implemented after every major economic downturn since World War II, Mitchell countered that it was a solution that had proven to be a failure time and time again. To buttress his argument, Dan Mitchell cited the 47 percent increase in government spending during four years of the Hoover administration, the over 100 percent increase in spending from 1932-1940, the government support of industry during the Ford administration, as well as the 16 different stimulus programs Japan has experimented with since its lost decade-none of which succeeded in spurring economic growth or job creation-as examples of why centrally planned management of the economy does more harm than good when it comes to creating employment opportunities.

His partner in opposing the debate’s resolution, Richard Epstein, acknowledged that infrastructure spending, such as building roads, bridges, etc., might be justified, yet insisted that the way this spending was channeled through the federal bureaucracy insured that whatever benefit might obtain from such projects would never materialize. He described the institutions set up as a result of the American Recovery and Investment Act as “a massive bureaucracy designed to waste money.” He took aim at the buy America provisions in particular, claiming that these caused the government to spend as much as possible on labor, whereas the goal of businesses is to minimize labor costs. Epstein had a corollary critique of the prevailing wage mandates that contractors accept while working on stimulus projects, which he believes negate whatever benefit might be derived from new construction projects. This is why he suggested stripping the Davis-Bacon Act from any future stimulus projects, despite opposition from organized labor-one of the central themes in Professor Epstein’s argument was that much of the spending overseen by federal agencies is directed at rewarding President Obama’s political benefactors, rather than boosting the American economy.

The opponents of the resolution disputed both the methodology and the figures employed by Rouse and Zandi to support their position; arguing that the projected economic growth forecasted by the Congressional Budget Office after analyzing the proposed jobs bill relied upon a static, econometric model which didn’t reflect real world consequences of government policies or the responses of individuals to those policies. Both Epstein and Mitchell disputed the notion that the first stimulus package had saved jobs, asserting that this claim was not falsifiable. Cecilia Rouse acknowledged that it was impossible  to prove a counterfactual, i.e. we can’t know what the unemployment rate would have been had the stimulus package not been passed, but contended that an analysis of states that received more stimulus funds-and experienced job stabilization or growth-demonstrated that it was a worthwhile endeavor in staving off even greater unemployment.

Richard Epstein was critical of what he saw as a decision to raise taxes on the most productive citizens, only to put it “into the hands of the government, which doesn’t know how to use it.” This comment drew a vociferously negative response from the audience in the Skirball Center. Rouse countered with the assertion that there has never been a strong relationship between high marginal tax rates and economic growth, citing what was then the largest tax increase in American history during the Clinton administration which coincided with robust economic growth. Dan Mitchell contested the linkage, but averred that he would gladly exchange the budget consciousness of the Clinton Era-which was eradicated by successive presidents-in return for slightly higher marginal tax rates.

One audience member attacked Rouse’s defense of the Clinton Era policies-both fiscal and monetary-pointing out that many have blamed the Greenspan-led Federal Reserve for the boom and bust cycle that ultimately led to the unraveling of the American economy during the last year of President Clinton’s second term. As to the more immediate question of whether the Obama jobs plan would stimulate economic growth, the supporters of the resolution insisted that congressional action-even in a piecemeal fashion-was preferable to doing nothing, insofar as inaction carried the risk of creating a double dip recession. And while Mark Zandi conceded that “Keynesian theory is not an immutable fact” and “it doesn’t work in every environment,” he believed that in this case, it was dictated by the pressing lack of job growth and continued stagnant housing market. His debate opponents vociferously attacked this assumption, maintaining that the first goal of the government with respect to the economy was to “do no harm.” Epstein encapsulated the philosophy of the resolution’s opponents by stating that, “If you don’t know what you’re doing, don’t spend government money doing it.” His solution was doing away with industrial policy altogether, as well as thwarting microeconomic policies that he felt were retarding economic growth, such as the  decision by the National Labor Relations Board  to penalize Boeing for moving manufacturing from Washington to South Carolina, the President’s support for card check legislation, in addition to what he described as implicit taxes contained within the health care overhaul enacted by Congress and signed into law by Barack Obama. In the end, Epstein concluded that the best way to boost job growth was to deregulate labor markets through a reversal of the aforementioned Obama-supported policies. Zandi and Rouse rejected the notion that this would do anything to spur economic growth in the short term, and accused their opponents of not having an immediate program for job development.

The audience was unpersuaded by the argument put forth by the opponents of the resolution, ultimately voting in favor of it by a margin of 69% to 22%, with 9% of the audience remaining undecided. That was actually an increase of 24% from the initial pre-debate audience survey, indicating that Cecilia Rouse and Mark Zandi had “won” the debate. It must be said that the result probably had more to do with the ideological inclinations of the audience coming in to the debate than the persuasiveness of the affirmative’s arguments-unfortunately, that’s one of the more problematic features of IQ2 debates, which occasionally cause a reification of political views rather than an expansion of the spectator’s world view. That said, I was still pleased to be able to attend a debate about such a pivotal issue, which featured some of those most knowledgeable about the current economic crisis.

 That is a photo of myself and Andrew Wilkow, host of the Wilkow Majority on the Sirius XM Patriot channel, standing outside of Zuccotti Park. He was there this weekend co-hosting a live remote with David Webb, seen below, at the scene of Occupy Wall Street. 

The media spotlight continues to shine on those demonstrating at OWS, although whether it’s due to the spectacle of the event itself or the message it is attempting to disseminate remains an open question. There certainly was a carnivalesque atmosphere Saturday, which included a brass orchestra:

As well as theatrical agitprop supporting government movement on climate change:

 There was also a full complement of clowns:

As well as those costumed in other garb, including Captain America: 

Guy Fawkes:

 And the odd penguin:

As well as a self-professed journalist wearing a barrel: 

However, there were individuals at the park with more serious messages. Their causes ranged from the reinstitution of an FDR Era separation between investment and commercial banks:

To personal grievances:

There were also Japanese occupiers who highlighted their opposition to the development of nuclear energy, a hot button issue in the wake of the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant. 

A common theme was distress over high student loan payments.

 There were also Americans who shared their fellow demonstrators’ antipathy towards nuclear power:

Hydraulic fracturing, which is slated to occur in some upstate New York counties,  was also the subject of intense opposition:

There were those decrying instances of police brutality:

As well as a significant contingent of anti-war activists:

Including critics of President Obama’s muscular-some would say reckless-foreign policy: 

Some more clever than others:

Although the President did have his defenders, so perhaps the attempt by national Democrats to mobilize the disenchanted in Zuccotti Park isn’t entirely hopeless. 

There were also protestors who wanted to focus on their own pet causes, many of which had little if anything to do with the relationship between corporate America and the government. There were anti-Israel radicals:

As well as those agitating for the release of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, a mainstay of leftist conclaves.  

There were those seeking to emulate EU nations which hope to ban the introduction of genetically modified foods.  

I also saw several signs demanding wholesale amnesty for illegal aliens, which came as no surprise. 

 Perhaps the person who designed that sign is unaware of the fact that President Obama has, in fact, stopped both the raids and the deportations. Nevertheless, there seemed to be a grab bag of perceived problems that occupiers could voice their displeasure with, as this catch-all sign seems to illustrate:

 The hard core Marxists made a pitch for their own pet issues, including releasing Cuban spies from the Wasp Network who had been convicted of espionage in the United States. That happens to be a favorite activity of the Castro regime. 

Our trade policy, or lack thereof, with Raul Castro’s regime was also targeted:

The detention camp for apprehended Al Qaeda terrorists, which is located in Cuba, was also derided:

Much of the organizational muscle behind Occupy Wall Street, such as it is, comes from organized labor, and union members-both in the public and private sector-were amply represented at Zuccotti Park.

 Although there were many national and local labor unions represented, there were also many fringe figures and organizations pamphleteering, including individuals from the ridiculous, discredited 9/11 Truth movement. However, perhaps the most disturbing element that had embedded itself within Zuccotti Park was a cadre of hard-line Marxists, socialists and Communists. 

The World Socialist Website had an informational booth inside of the park which offered a wide array of Marxist propaganda for sale. 

Including a variety of Trotskyist tracts.

 As well as the ever in demand Arabic-language works of  El Jefe :

The words of Malcolm X were also available, albeit in Spanish. 

As well as those of Marxist-feminist Evelyn Reed: 

Not to be outdone, the Socialist Workers Party had copies of its official newspaper for sale-rather ironically, I might add. 

One of the other newspapers on display was Dorothy Day’s old employer, The Catholic Worker:

There were a variety of other Marxist-inspired organizations proselytizing, including Socialist Action:

Despite protestations to the contrary by some participants in the Occupy Wall Street movement, there did seem to be some activists who were more than happy to embrace class warfare pretty explicitly. 

Even so, there were occupiers who held a distinctly more cooperative point of view, some of whom even advocated policy changes that would push the United States in a more libertarian-oriented direction. Tomorrow, we examine some of those dissenting voices.