Communists may create those well-paying “green” jobs
Things change. The tide goes out, empires rise and fall, pant legs grow wide and then narrow. Sometimes, the things we think we knew for sure — the eternal verities — don’t seem so eternal.
Conservatives are still worried about communism/socialism/Marxism, which preoccupied U.S. foreign policy for more than 50 years. But the Soviet Union is no more. Russia isn’t a Communist country in the classic sense. It’s an authoritarian state.
Indeed, there are only a couple of actual, card-carrying, self-avowed Communist (capital “C”) countries remaining. China is one of them.
Interestingly, Thomas Friedman writes today that China might overtake the U.S. economically because its dictatorship — state planning and all that — is insisting on the creation of green jobs.
It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.
So, while we remain stuck in a political conversation more appropriate to 1963, China is doing what needs to be done. This is what “Communist” means in 2009.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
50 comments Add your comment
Scott
September 9th, 2009
4:33 pm
You sound stuck in a political conversation more appropriate to 1917.
Scott
September 9th, 2009
4:49 pm
The left is now beginning to admit they’re a bunch of communists. I just read the Thomas Friedman column Ms. Tucker references. Here is one line she did not mention: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”
Get that? What the people want doesn’t matter any more. We’re stupid. We need the “enlightened” to “just impose” what’s good for us. Our wise, benevolent leaders know best.
People like Ms. Tucker and Mr. Friedman are no longer attempting to hide their elitism and snobbery.
The emperor’s clothes are off. Wake up people, and behold the nakedness!
jconservative
September 9th, 2009
4:52 pm
Friedman is probably going to end up being correct on this. In this country we are spending so much time on “cultural” issues that the big issue of who is going to control the technology of the 21st century remain unanswered. We are slowly bleeding to death over culture.
Scott
September 9th, 2009
4:58 pm
Hey, Ms. Tucker? Perhaps you remember JFK? Remember what he said during his speech in Berlin? “There are those who say that Communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Let them come to Berlin.”
The Democratic party, folks, is no longer what it used to be. The Democratic party is no longer the party of JFK.
It has been taken over by the elites, the commies, and the snobs.
Scott
September 9th, 2009
5:08 pm
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Oops. Stuck in 1963 again.
Scott
September 9th, 2009
5:13 pm
“Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty! We are free at last!”
Yeah, freedom. That funny little concept from 1963.
Davo
September 9th, 2009
5:54 pm
Unbelieveable.
Even Bookman knows you don’t dive in the shallow end of the pool. For all her ’supposed’ opposition to Cynthia McKinney, Tucker sounds more like her campaign advisor.
joe matarotz
September 9th, 2009
6:30 pm
After your cush job folds, will you be moving there? You should strongly consider it, Cynthia. You’ll fit right in.
Tank
September 9th, 2009
6:41 pm
Cynthia, you have truly gone off the deep end.
Or, are you now coming out of the Communist/Socialist/Marxist closet.
Karl Marx
September 9th, 2009
6:55 pm
Wow. I guess Cynthia just came out.
saywhat?
September 9th, 2009
7:54 pm
Here is a simplification for the apparently reading comprehension impaired folks above me: The column does not say “Communism is da bomb. lets all be Commies!” It says, “clean renewable energy is the wave of the future, and America is going to lose out to a Communist country if we don’t get our sh!t together”.
Scott, you are a moron. Those raging communists who wrote our US Constitution formed a government to “promote the general welfare”. One way of promoting general welfare is to use government influence to push the country toward a desirable goal. While China does it autocratically, the US can do it democratically, by having Congress use tax code incentives and penalties to steer us in the right direction. Do you oppose having the US become the world leader in renewable energy and energy conservation technology, or would you prefer China or Europe hold that role? Why do you hate America?
Sinthia is a big dummy
September 9th, 2009
7:56 pm
Sinthia, China owns us anyway.
Mrs. Norris
September 9th, 2009
8:02 pm
“Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.”
What’s your point? Communism good, Democracy bad? Well, thanks for coming clean on that.
Scott, you’re my hero. Kudos to Davo. For those who think the government is the answer to all of our problems; you are scary, very scary.
saywhat?
September 9th, 2009
8:14 pm
Read the preamble to the Constitution some time Mrs Norris. And spare us that tripe about “people who want government to solve all our problems”. I have never met a single one. I do know that I agree with this nations founder’s, who thought that government could and should solve SOME problems.Are they very scary too?
Scott
September 9th, 2009
8:46 pm
Say What? says that our “communist” founders wrote the Constitution to “promote the general welfare.” Say What? should do a little more investigation into what the general welfare clause means, and what it does not mean. James Madison (who would know a thing or two about the Constitution, since he was the father of it) stated in no uncertain terms that the general welfare clause was never meant as a grant of power to the federal government.
He said: “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character where there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Madison says elsewhere: “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers. … It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers.”
That’s important, saywhat: “nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers.” In other words, by “promote the general welfare,” the Constitution means nothing more than to exercise the powers specifically delegated to the federal government.
Moreover, saywhat, Ms. Tucker does not say that America needs to compete with Communism. She says that Communism will create high-paying jobs. She doesn’t say Capitalism will do this. She doesn’t say the Constitution will do this. She says Communism will do it.
Thomas Friedman, in the column Ms. Tucker sites, also says this–and in no uncertain terms. He says that “one-party autocracy” (which in China is the communist party) can “just impose” prosperity on the nation. None of this messy democratic process for Mr. Friedman; no, he longs for nations that can “just impose” it.
In closing, saywhat, let me just point out–and I never do this, but since you’re the one who questioned my “reading comprehension” and posited that I was a “moron”–let me just point out that I have a graduate degree in English and teach literature at a university. I’m not in any doubt about my ability to comprehend a couple newspaper articles, the Constitution, and James Madison.
Scott
September 9th, 2009
8:50 pm
Oh, and one more thing…your last question: “Why do you hate America?” That is such a loaded, absurd, idiotic (dare I say “moronic”?) question that it does not merit a reply. I mean, When did you stop beating your wife? Please.
Scott
September 9th, 2009
8:55 pm
Thomas Jefferson on the general welfare clause: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
Yep…same thing James Madison said. Enumerated powers. Limited government.
Birther or Bust
September 9th, 2009
9:13 pm
You are really scraping the bottom on subject ideas. If you need some suggestions, try Van Jones, or Why if there’s so much waste in Medicare/Medicade, as Obama says, why not FIX that NOW, instead of tying it to paying for tax payer funded “TeddyCare”?
RA
September 9th, 2009
9:22 pm
Is Cynthia Tucker communist?
Does she realize that communism equates to slavery and oppression?
“I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” – Harriet Tubman
John Galt Jr.
September 9th, 2009
9:38 pm
Cynthia-please do not try and change our country to YOUR liking. We like the USA just the way it is and was intended, a REPUBLIC. Please move to China, Delta is ready when you are. You make me sick.
Ron
September 9th, 2009
9:42 pm
Someone else must be giving Tucker ideas as what to write about. She all of a sudden begins writing about even weirder subjects than usual. Of course she finds this more interesting than Van Jones, Atlanta mayor race, etc.
stew
September 9th, 2009
10:13 pm
AJC, please trade Cynthia to the Obama administration for 2 players to be named later.
Mrs. Norris
September 9th, 2009
10:34 pm
Ooh, a hit dog does holler. By the way, I memorized the preamble when I was in 6th grade and I remember it today, thank you very much. And if you didn’t understand Scott’s excellent explanation of the preamble, let me put it in simpler terms. It says the government shall promote the general welfare, not control it.
Jackie
September 9th, 2009
10:40 pm
What is it about this article that the so-called conservatives don’t understand?
China, a Communist country, is moving toward a green economy. The USA, a democratic republic, has a need to move our economy toward a green base. If we don’t, what happens to our economy?
Are these folks so afraid of looking at the situation and the dramatic decline in our living standards inaction will have, they continue to EXTRAPOLATE, CONFLATE, OBFUSCATE?
Peter
September 9th, 2009
11:50 pm
Republican Greed won’t let it happen……. Can’t kill anyone, or bully anyone…….Look at the water wars between the three states…… The Southern Company is behind it all !
Republican’s pray to the Oil Gods…….thus the War in Iraq !
Kamchak
September 10th, 2009
12:17 am
Scott
Sept. 8th 2009
9:54am
“mob,” mad dog,” “unhinged,” “nutty,” “crazy.” Can’t resist that name-calling can you Ms. Tucker? Of course not. In Hamlet’s words, “It’s as easy as lying.”
Scott
Sept 8th 2009
9:21pm
You know what Ms. Tucker? Your snobbery and elitism are plain to see. Maybe you should run for Congress. You’d fit right in with the crowd of self righteous know-it-alls.
Scott
Sept 9th 2009
4:52pm
The Democrat party is no longer the party of JFK.
It has been taken over by the elitists, the commies, the snobs.
In only two days since our last conversation you have managed to find you own inner ad hominem.
In your own words: “self righteous,” “know-it-alls,” “elitists,” “commies,” “snobs.” Can’t resist that name-calling can you Scott? Of course not. In Hamlet’s words, “It’s as easy as lying.”
Jessica
September 10th, 2009
1:03 am
A green jobs program in China is a joke. It’s window dressing, and if you look a little closer you will see that China has no intention of reducing the insane amounts of pollution spewed out by their industry. They would be perfectly happy to see the U.S. go totally green because that would drive even more industry to other countries — like China.
As for communism, those who support it (openly or secretly) should take a closer look at history. It’s been an abysmal failure! The few communist countries that have managed to avoid total collapse have a) modified their system to include capitalist elements, b) oppressed their poverty-stricken populations to keep them from revolting, or c) some combination of a and b.
Communism might sound very noble to some with all its sharing and equality, but it fails because it depends on everyone in society acting from unselfish motives all the time. In the real world, it is impossible to eliminate greed and laziness. You can’t educate or legislate away those vices. Capitalism isn’t perfect either — no economic system is — but it motivates imperfect people to get off the couch and go do something to pay the bills, or to expand their business instead of hoarding wealth.
Kamchak
September 10th, 2009
2:17 am
Capitalism isn’t perfect either —no economic system is — but it motivates imperfect people to get off the couch and do something to pay the bills, or to expand their business instead of hoarding wealth.
From Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
“Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002-2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928 according to newly released IRS data by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
During those years, the Piketty-Saez data also show, the inflation adjusted income of the top 1 percent of house holds grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.”
The only thing that motivated people was easy access to cheap credit. Now that well has dried up, and the bottom 90 percent is starting to feel they have been taken advantage of.
Kent Clark
September 10th, 2009
3:11 am
China will reduce pollution and emissions because they recognize, unlike some enlightened Americans, that there are consequences for our actions. Remember the Beijing Olympics where China’s primitive technological and manufacturing system, supported on the backs of slaves, resulted in a polluting miasma not seen in the US since the (communist inspired statist overreach) Clean Air Act? Who remembers the Cuyahoga River burning from pollution dumped indiscriminately? Who remembers people sickened and dying from air inversions in LA and New York?
How self-destructive, self-indulgent and foolish can the self described conservatives continue to be, including alleged liberal arts professors who fantasize about stopping time at James Madison? Way to go Amish boy, stay off the paved roads. Somalia’s unfettered freedom beckons to you. This country has benefited in the past and will continue to benefit in some fashion from innovation and a rejection of the kind of conservatism that demands, say, state’s rights in order to preserve slavery, or limiting constitutional interpretation to what they imagine the authors would have thought in the pre-industrial days. Ignorant fundamentalism is what will prevent America from continuing to be a leader in the world and what hobbles us most at home and abroad.
highly amused
September 10th, 2009
7:10 am
Has anyone considered that America isn’t a leader in the world because “enlightened” people make it so? America isn’t about being a leader in the world. America is about the freedom of individuals to pursue their dreams and ambitions without the chains of the “enlightened” people telling them how to go about it. America became a leader because of the innovations of it’s free people. Green jobs will thrive when they become economically viable to do so. No amount of wishful thinking is going to make that happen. Wind farms require wind. Electric cars require batteries which have a shelf life and very well may do more harm than good to the environment in the long run. Solar panels supply little energy compared to the foot print they require.
Cynthia Tucker, Joseph Stalin, or the current Chinese dictator cannot will these things into an economic success. When hard working people bring the green market into economic feasibility, the market will thrive. This type of rhetoric is useless noise.
Turker Slayer
September 10th, 2009
7:17 am
Cynthia is obviously a “product” of socialism. I would have to assume that her upbring stems from welfare recipients. It never ceases to amaze me how the lazy in our society try to justify their very existence. Cynthia is nothing more than a welfare baby.
ken
September 10th, 2009
7:47 am
Our problem is Senators , House and President, too worried about getting relected. A little dictatorship goes a long way.
Tim
September 10th, 2009
8:56 am
Looks like the barking moon bat still works for the AJC. Since you do not have the intelligence required to hold down a real job, why don’t you go to work for the ‘Dear Leader’? Looks like they will take anyone. Your views are as radical as Van Jones, and he is also a racist, so you should fit right in.
Otto
September 10th, 2009
9:23 am
China is not cleaning up this is purely an economic move. China knows that oil costs are rising and other means of energy will be cost effective as well as position their country to sell the technology to everyone else. The factories will still be pouring polution into the making batteries for “green” cars. Read past the headlines Cyntia. I just sent another missionary off to China this past week and my cousin came back a few months ago.
When is the article coming on China’s internet policies and freedom of speach? I’ll be holding my breath.
Bozo the clown
September 10th, 2009
10:15 am
The constitution says whatever I say it does. Didn’t Bush teach us that?
whatever
September 10th, 2009
10:28 am
Seriously Cynthia, this is probably one of your more idiotic rants. Please leave us alone. China floats its currency, releases the economic data it wants the world to know about, and everything else, it keeps close to the chest. If green jobs made money, companies would be jumping into it, but, without more innovation, any business in the business of green needs heavy government subsidization. China is the worst polluter in the world, but, because it says that it is going to go green, you believe them.
You are a pathetic writer. again, please go away.
whatever
September 10th, 2009
10:36 am
Kent,
that ignorant fundamentalism, as you say it, has kept this great nation going through massive economic downfalls, social upheaval, world wars, and human error. Not too bad for a document written several hundred years ago.
whatever
September 10th, 2009
10:39 am
oh and Kent, you must have been the only one that did not read the news before the Olympics. china spent well over $2billion dollars cleaning up the pollution that news cameras would see, including shutting down factories in the area (people out of work), outlawing driving at certain times in the day (people out of work) and using massive barges to clean up the rivers to be used.
Oh yeah, little simple fact as well. The US is cleaner now than it has been in the last 80 years. Environmentalists do not want to admit that. Sorry.
Henley
September 10th, 2009
11:40 am
Anatomy of an Economic Ignoramus – mises dot org/story/3695
Scott
September 10th, 2009
11:56 am
Kamchak — descriptive adjectives based on direct quotations not quite the same thing as ad hominems just thrown out without reference to anything specific. Not splitting hairs so much as discernment and context.
Scott
September 10th, 2009
12:06 pm
“Commie” or “communist” not an ad hominem, anyway, but descriptive of a political philosophy — and Ms. Tucker was the one who used that in her title anyway.
“Snob,” “elitist,” “know-it-all,” “self-righteous,” and variations thereof all backed up with support, such as Thomas Friedman’s reference to China being led by a “reasonably enlightened group of people” who can “just impose” what’s good on the ignorant masses.
These are not ad hominems. These are adjectives to describe what I read.
Kamchak
September 10th, 2009
12:56 pm
Scott
Toh-may-toh
Toh-mah-toh
John De Long
September 10th, 2009
1:14 pm
Cynthia, now we know why you did not have a objection to Van Jones’ comments,so, you just attacked the messenger.
Do you realize this illustrates that you are just a pawn for the far left. Certainly you have a right to your own
opinion, but don’t you understand you would be more respected if you stated your position rather than attacking
anyone that disagreed with you. It is to bad God gave you the talent and I am sure you worked hard to achieve
the position you are in. Why throw it away by being a Shill for anyone?
P.S. This holds true for anyone else as well
Scott
September 10th, 2009
1:35 pm
Kamchak
LOL.
In truth, I do see where you’re coming from. However, let me give a couple examples to try to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.
Look at Cynthia’s column entitled “Even crazies like Glenn Beck have their say.” In that column, she calls Beck quite a few names, but without citing anything whatsoever that he had said. That makes an ad hominem.
In her column from today, however, she refers to Republican congressmen as “hooligans,” but she ties that specifically to their booing and jeering of Obama. Now, she and I may disagree about whether or not this is true hooliganism, but the argument now is over whether the word “hooligan” applies to the situation in question, not over whether it’s an ad hominem. In this particular context, it’s not an ad hominem.
It’s all about context, and that’s where the necessity for discernment comes in. Since you brought up “tomatoes,” let me use that word to illustrate how context changes the meaning of something. Suppose I were to say, “Look at those lovely tomatoes.” Now, if I were in front of a fruit and vegetable stand, that sentence would mean one thing. But if a woman happened to be passing by at the moment, it would mean quite a different thing.
What makes a particular word an ad hominem is context, not the mere fact that it happens to be an adjective, even an adjective with negative connotations.
Kamchak
September 10th, 2009
2:08 pm
It’s all about context, and that’s where the necessity for discernment comes in.
And tone, let us not forget tone. I followed your posts for three days and noticed a definite tone to attack. At first your posts were thoughtful but by day three you were name calling.
Scott
September 10th, 2009
2:52 pm
Situational, situational, situational. Kamchak, you could say the same thing about Jesus. There are times when you could say that he’s being “thoughtful,” and then there are other times when he’s calling people “hypocrites” and “vipers.” He even called Peter “Satan” at one point.
Now, I’m not claiming I’m Jesus; far, far, far from it. My point is that there’s no sin at times in being … well, direct … if you think the situation calls for it.
My only point–and this is the last thing I say on the matter, I promise–is the difference between having some factual support behind your adjectives, and just throwing around adjectives for the sake of throwing around adjectives.
saywhat?
September 10th, 2009
5:58 pm
Gee Scott, you can almost tout having a “graduate degree in English, and that you “teach literature at a university” without coming off as an elitist snob. And I’m fairly certain the preamble to the constitution was written by Governeur Morris, but that’s unimportant to the discussion.
Perhaps in your skilled reading of the constitution, you overlooked section 8 of article one, where lo and behold, in the very first line, Congress is specifically delegated the right to “lay and collect taxes”…” to “provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States”. Tell me again why I’m wrong to believe it is in line with the Constitution for Congress to promote green jobs through tax policy, and that this is not “communism”?
You write “Moreover, saywhat, Ms. Tucker does not say that America needs to compete with Communism. She says that Communism will create high-paying jobs. She doesn’t say Capitalism will do this. She doesn’t say the Constitution will do this. She says Communism will do it.”
Again, your expert reading skills have failed you. You infer way too much, and way too little. Yes she does say communists, specifically China, will create high paying green jobs.But she most certainly implies (mostly by the selection of the quote from Friedman) that the US could and should do what it can to compete. NOWHERE does Ms. Mckinney state she thinks the US should start a green energy industry by autocratic methods. Show me where she does.Thats also a neat trick of yours to quote a different part of the article and attribute agreement with it to Ms. McKinney. I am sure if that was a part of the article she wanted to quote, she would have done so herself.
Just because a Communist nation does something, doesn’t make that something “communist”. China has an army, does that mean the US army is communist? China hosted an Olympic games, but so did the US, does that make us all communists? China promotes a green energy industry, does the US become communist if we promote a green energy industry? If Communists are able to create wellpaying jobs, are all people who have well paying jobs communists?
Of course this leads to the other point of her article, which you completely missed.The point was that people throw around terms like communist without any real sense of what it actually means. At least you were able to illustrate her point, even if it was unwittingly done.
Finally, I am relieved that you pointed out that my calling you a moron was not an ad hominem attack. I almost felt a little guilty for a minute or two. Since it followed a string of moronic statements by you though, “moron” was apparently used in the appropriate context and was just an adjective used to describe what I read.
Scott
September 10th, 2009
6:43 pm
I only brought up the bit about my having an English degree because you mentioned reading comprehension; otherwise, I’d not have done so. My point was not to shout from the mountaintops, “Look at my education!” but to point out the danger of making an insinuation about someone else without knowing all the facts needed to make that judgment. In terms of the word “moron,” it is a synonym for “stupid,” and therefore fits into the same point–an evaluative judgment about someone else’s intellectual capacity, when what is at issue is a disagreement over substance. That’s as close as I can think of to a pure ad hominem, but I’m willing to overlook it because the totality of your comments are substantive.
Having said that, before I go any further, let me emphasize that I entirely see where you’re coming from in reading the article the way you do. The fact of the matter is, Ms. Tucker is a bit ambiguous and elliptical in what she’s getting at, so if either you or I are misreading her, it has to do with that ambiguity, and not in any intellectual deficiency on the part of either you or myself.
For example, you say that Ms. Tucker does not specifically state that the United States needs to become Communist. And that’s true. She also never states specifically that we need to hurry up and start jumping on the green jobs bandwagon or the Chinese will overtake us. Eitehr conclusion must be inferred from what she has written.
I’m not sure it entirely matters whether Ms. Tucker wants the United States to become communist or not. For the sake of discussion, I’m willing to stipulate that she does not. It’s alarming enough that she and Thomas Friedman admire the ability of a totalitarian government–whether Communist or not, it does not matter–to “just impose” things on the nation, regardless of democratic process or the wishes of the people.
I agree that it’s unimportant who wrote the preamble, because I never said that James Madison did. I said he was the father of the Constitution, which is saying something very different.
Sure enough, the Constitution gives the government the power to lay and collect taxes. However, it needed to be amended to give them the power over income taxes, and in my view the progressive income tax is a violation of the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws. Further, to attempt to manipulate the tax code in order to favor one kind of business over another (a green business vs. a non-green business) is a similar violation of the equal protection of the laws. Similarly, the Congress cannot use the tax code in order to do things it was never specifically granted the power to do.
Sure, Communist nations do things that we also do, which does not make them Commmunist. But I don’t wish to argue about the Olympics, merely about the point of “imposing” things on a nation by fiat, which Friedman and Tucker to all appearances admire. Yes, the part of the Friedman article where he uses the term “just impose” is not the same as Tucker quotes. However, Tucker does use the phrase “state planning,” which is more or less the same thing, so I feel pretty safe in comparing what Friedman says to what Tucker says.
In terms of the definition of Communism, it is a system in which the government owns all business. Manipulating the tax code in order to create incentives and disincentives which would (to use Cass Sunstein’s word) “nudge” businesses to behave in a way the government approves of, is not Communism per se, but it’s sort of a half-way house toward Communism that is troublesome to me. The American government would never get away with outright taking over all businesses, but by manipulating the tax code in order to make it all but suicide for businesses not to comply with government wishes, they in effect end up doing that very thing by stealth. Call it Stealth Communism.
What They Are Saying: 09.10.09 | AnnotatedOpinions.com
September 10th, 2009
10:17 pm
[...] Communists may create those well-paying “green” jobs [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] [...]
Pam Perry
November 5th, 2009
2:13 pm
Taiwan, a vibrant Asian democracy, is also taking steps to create green jobs and become a low-carbon nation.
Taiwan’s Premier Wu Den-yih announced that a New Energy Committee established on Oct. 29, 2009 would help Taiwan become a major producer of energy and energy technologies. Minister without Portfolio Lian Chi-yuan will preside over the committee, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) will handle administrative affairs. Wu noted that low-carbon policies to achieve Taiwan’s goal of being a “low-carbon nation” will improve Taiwan’s energy structure and bring growth to the production and technology development sectors.
The MOEA proposed an action plan for the Dawning Green Energy Industry Program, which will use comprehensive strategies to enhance the production value, increase private-sector investment, and create jobs in Taiwan’s green energy industries. In addition, the MOEA established technical and business service teams for green energy industries.