The Democrat Protest

I'll sum up my experiences at the anti-war march in New York City yesterday in one word: eh.

There are two reasons for my lack of excitement over what I saw: an undersized crowd and a lack of emotion throughout much of the march. Though organizers are claiming that 300,000 people attended the march, I think they're grossly overestimating the number involved. A better estimate, in my opinion, would be 50,000, with 75,000 being the upper end of what I expect the numbers to actually be. I walked from the end of the march, where probably 5-7,000 people were gathered, up to the tail of the marchers, and would say 50,000 would be a liberal estimate. 300,000 is nuts.

The other problem is that the march was lacking in the aspects that make anti-war marches fun and valuable. The large majority of those involved thought they were committing some act of treason by wearing an "Impeach Bush" button and were tickled pink at the thought of this. The chants consided mainly of "Well, we think something should be done about Iraq, don't want to leave now though 'cause thats bad, but, hey, Bush is evil, right?" in not so many words. I was alone, so I was jumping in and out of the march, and there were times when I'd get in with a group, listen to what they were saying, and leave because it was so lame.

Not only were the protesters mainly centrist, but they also were lacking in emotion. In the D.C. march in September, there was a constant stream of noise and ruckus coming from the crowd, in all areas. Chanting, musical instruments, shouts, singing - everything. In New York, there was mostly just marching, which lacks the effect on spectators, it leaves them wondering how much these "protesters" really care about the issue.

That said, I spent a few hours with the red-flaggers of the Progressive Labor Party waving banners and chanting communist slogans. Then I found out they were authoritarian communists (not anarchist communists) and I booked. But it was enjoyable to be with them because there was a lot of energy and they drew a very large crowd, even if they are batshit insane. On a related note, the anarchist faction, which can usually be used to gauge the size and political orientation of the crowd, numbered around two dozen. In D.C. there were around 100.

The other surprising thing about the march was that there was no counter-demonstrations. There were a good 500 in D.C., and the lack of their presence in New York may reflect the weakness of the anti-war crowd.

Despite my complaints though, many of those on the train with me were at their first anti-war march and obviously enjoyed it tremendously. So despite the fact that I found it sanitized and emotionless, they found it to be vastly more entertaining and powerful. Maybe it'll be enough to drag them left in time for the next march...

P.S. One last note. Parents: DO NOT BRING YOUR CHILDREN TO AN ANTI-WAR MARCH. I was disgusted by the number of six year olds chanting "Stop the War!" First, they have no idea what they're saying and you're exploiting them for publicity. Second, an anti-war march can be a very dangerous place. The one in New York saw no arrests, but if it had been more like Seattle the kids could've gotten killed.

Appendix:
CNN article on the march
CNN gallery on the march (general ideas are there, including three year olds holding flags).

I'll be posting my own pictures once I get them off the camera. But I've got a backlog of homework to do now.

[Addendum to previous post]

Thankfully, George Bush thinks he's found a way to curb rising oil prices. Push for reforms to the system? Subsidize oil to low-income families (as Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, has done for the poor in New York and Boston)? Oh! Maybe open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

No, instead he's rescinding environmental restrictions on refining oil. Saw that one coming, didn't you? To add insult to injury, he's opening up a "probe" of the oil companies to see if foul play is involved. Because, obviously, he's the one who should be conducting an investigation of his good friends.

At least he's starting to see that tax breaks for energy companies are not a good idea (still needs some grammar help though):

"Taxpayers don't need to be paying for certain of these expenses on behalf of the energy companies," Bush said.

Yea, no shit George.

Oil Prices: Who's Responsible?

According to our government and our media, China is. But this is just overlooking the real facts. Though it is true that China's demand is increasing, and, as demand increases, prices go up, it is not true that they are responsible for the increase in prices. Nor, for that matter, are OPEC, the source of much of the world's oil. Rather, a look at the financial statements of an industry giant tells the truth.

Exxon-Mobil reported its total earnings for FY2005 at $36.1 billion. This an absolutely huge amount of money, and thats profit, not revenue. More telling than the total figure is that FY2005 profits were $10.8B higher than FY2004. A barrel of oil at the end of 2004 was around $40 a barrel, while it is around $75 now. A large portion of this increase is reflected in the growing profit margins of the multinational oil companies.

What can be done about this? Quite a lot actually, and it's quite easy to do so. Stop driving your car so much; walk short distances, carpool to work, and ride the public lines when feasible. The government will not do anything to curb costs on their own; it is up to us. The United States accounts for 25% of the world's energy consumption and about 8% of the world's population. We have plenty of cutting we can do, and when demand goes down, so do prices.

Of course, the real solution is to push for a real initative to work on renewable resources that require things that are common all over the world: wind power, solar power, and, eventually, hydrogen power. And don't look to the government to do this. Support greentech companies, sign up with power companies to use renewable resources (many companies have an option whereby all your power needs will be supplied by such power sources for an extra $5-10 a month), and reduce oil consumption. If everyone did their part, things like this would be history.

So, to answer the original question: Me and you.

The Power of Mass Movements

I've come to believe recently that the best way to effect change in society is not through petitions or letter-writing campaigns to congressmen or presidents, but rather, through mass protests. Case in point: After weeks of vowing not to back down on the new job law, the French government decided Monday to scrap it after all.

The law had aimed to make the French work environment more American, i.e. more capitalistic. It would have made it easier to hire and fire young workers, and, in response, over a million protestors gathered for daily demonstrations all over the country. The protests were largely peaceful, and were able to achieve their aims. If Americans would do the same thing, then our voices could really be heard.

Just A Note...

I was clicking through some of the links I set up in my posts and found out the news article they referenced has been removed because of "expiration." So I apologize for any issues this may cause, and I'll see if I can't find a more reliable news source than CNN or Yahoo!.