David's Amazing Blog

After reading this article on the Keystone XL pipeline, I need to suggest a correction.

The people opposing the pipeline are not NIMBYs, or "Not in My Backyard"s. They do not, for example, resemble the late Senator Edward Kennedy in his reaction to the Cape Wind project, which he thought would ruin the lovely ocean views from his home. Instead, they are an entirely different creature: a Not In Any Backyard (NIAB).

I first noticed this curious species of human when studying ANWR. Oil companies wanted to drill in the deepest reaches of the arctic, where few ever come, and where typical temperatures are in the negative thirties. Essentially nobody visits ANWR who is not generously paid to be there, almost invariably by an oil company. The overwhelming majority of locals will benefit from drilling, so it is no shock that they overwhelmingly support it. So why should people living thousands of miles away, who will never even visit, have any control over the question?

Keystone XL is the same story. Few of the affluent urbanites arguing against Keystone XL have seen where it will be, or have the slightest idea of what the people there want. As it happens, most of them want the jobs that will come from building and operating the pipeline.

The Keystone XL pipeline will run through areas of the American Midwest virtually none of the pipeline opponents will ever visit, see or have the slightest interest in. Whatever environmental problems might come up in those areas, they will never personally encounter them.

I believe the solution to a question like Keystone XL is simple: Do the local representatives want it? If they do, it should be built. If they don't, it should not be. When election time comes, the people can vote out their representatives if they felt they had poor judgement. Simple.

As an example of how this works, ANWR would be pumping oil right now under those conditions. Those who actually live in the Arctic are overwhelmingly oil company workers and people who benefit from the sale of drilling rights. So naturally, the consensus on the ground is for drilling to go ahead.

On the other hand, Californians have beautiful beaches people actually visit to protect. They have enacted strict rules against drilling and pretty much anything else. If Calfornia wants to fix its budget by reopening the question, that should be the decision of the people and their representatives.

In the case of Keystone XL, local governments agree that it's a great idea – it will bring jobs to the area and oil to US refineries. This is a huge win for our economy and to reduce dependence on oil produced by nations not friendly to us.

Either way, it is not a federal issue. Leave it to the states and the people directly involved.

And the Not in Any Backyards? They should just go home.

Lake Worth, Florida - October 8, 2011

Occupy Wall Street: Was it something vitally important or just a flash in the pan? Was it a movement of the left, right or center? Was it a tea party threat or potential ally? I decided to visit my local Occupy Wall Street Rally, in Lake Worth, Florida, to find out.

Lake Worth's rally was small compared to the enormous turnout in key areas such as Wall Street itself. But it was healthy for a political rally in a relatively small city.

I had expected, based on the Wall Street rally on TV, an organized event with drummers and protest signs and the like. There were plenty of protest signs, almost all handmade. The atmosphere was remarkably like that of a tea party - people milling around and talking amongst themselves, a few speakers but mostly just a gathering of more or less like-minded folks.

Like most left-wing events, people had their pet causes. About half the protest signs adhered to the anti-rich vibe of the event. The other half were about the favorite cause of the sign owner. From GMOs to marijuana legalization, all the usual lefty causes were present and accounted for.

One person wanted to abolish the IRS, which seemed to blatantly contradict what the main body of the rally was saying. I asked him how he thought this was compatible with higher taxes on the rich, he said that the rally allows for all points of view, even his!

I tried to engage with some of the more hardcore people with their anti-rich signs. They pretty much refused to debate me, saying things like "We're way beyond you" and "You're just afraid of our ideas". My remark that I was clearly not afraid since I was there and engaging with them was met with derision. I should have asked why they were scared of mine!

From the pictures of the main Occupy Wall Street protest, I am not convinced that they were entirely peaceful. I strongly suspect they got responses from the police by provoking them - this is a long-standing left wing protest tactic. But I have to admit that the Palm Beach version was peaceful and reasonable. I have felt threatened by folks at International ANSWER protests; I was not here.

I met someone who claimed to be a sponsor of the event, someone with enough funds to pay for expenses such as rental of the park. I was wondering how someone with money could possibly support the goals of Occupy Wall Street, and he basically said that this was a movement that supported any opinion, and in any event he could always pay lawyers to get better tax breaks. I wonder if he was pulling my leg, since both Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Street alike seemed to believe in closing tax loopholes more than any other specific policy. It was on the tip of my tongue to ask him what kind of business he was in, but he darted away before I could ask.

Someone finally gave me a sheet of the Occupy movement's demands, as interpreted by this group. Here they are:

• We want a Wall St. sales tax of 1% on all financial transactions! Make the speculators who caused the depression pay for it.

  My thoughts: Sure, if you want the stock market to collapse overnight. That will definitely create jobs!

• We want the Federal Reserve Nationalized! - Force the Fed to issue 0% interest credit for production and investment in critical infrastructure.

  My thoughts: Since the first Stimulus worked so well, I guess they think it's time for a sequel.

• We want 30 million new jobs at union wages!

  My thoughts: Who's paying? Our nation is broke!

• We want a stop to all foreclosures and amnesty for student debts! - Give us back our homes and our futures!

  My thoughts: How are you going to pay for this again? It would take another bank bailout, and I thought you didn't like those.

So, the positives: This was an interesting event to go to, nobody was violent, and there were many interesting points of view exchanged.

The negatives: If there is a program, it doesn't pass the laugh test. Not even President Obama could present this plan with a straight face, and even with a fully Democratic legislature it would be impossible to put something like this through Congress.

There are Tea Party demands that may not work either. But in the end the Tea Party has a realistic goal: To cut out of control government spending, and get government regulations off our backs. This is a clear plan, and a clear goal, and it's possible to start on it with baby steps right now.

I liked Mark Steyn's characterization of the protesters as "anarchists for big government". Where this can go is best left as an exercise for the reader.

So in the end, I can't see a reasonable end game or a purpose. As a reason for a party, it works. As something that actually can achieve some kind of goal or purpose, it doesn't. I predict that in the upcoming weeks, it will disappate with the coming chill of winter in most places, and we will never hear about it again.

Facebook Album with additional pictures.