They might have a notoriously thin grasp on their demand list. They might totally miss the irony of wearing $150 Ray Ban sunglasses while carrying signs denigrating “corporatism” and “consumerism.” Some of their members may, in fact, see the protest as nothing more than a way to exhibit their least attractive qualities, including but not limited to anti-Semitism. Heck, they’re pretty sure even they don’t know what they’re doing (aside from asking America to pretty, pretty PLEASE bail them out of the student loans they racked up in four years studying foreign film at the New School).

But they may have a long-term effect on your pocketbook and the financial stability of the nation if any of the concrete items on their rambling, incoherent list of demands makes it to the level of national governance. Although the protesters themselves might be a loose collection of Communists, socialists, card-carrying ANSWER members, SEIU stooges, English department mainstays and professional grievance-mongers, some of the “big names” pulling the strings behind the scenes and influencing #occupywallstreet with New York Times editorials are suggesting that the “occupiers’” attempt to influence Washington movement on some key issues contained in the jobs bill.

Specifically, the progressive thinkers want their unwashed hippie army pushing D.C. to ram through a provision called “Carried Interest” which they define as “punishing the rich” but which is more closely defined as “destabilizing the American real estate and investment markets.” From the #OccupyWallStreet “Manifesto”:

2. Currently, the 1% takes bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continues to give executives exorbitant bonuses…

Close the “carried interest” and “founders’ stock” loopholes, which allow our wealthiest citizens to pay very low tax rates by pretending that their labor compensation is a capital gain.

(more…)

It’s a chemical that has been used in everyday plastic products like eyeglasses, medical equipment, bottles, and food can linings for over fifty years.  But the compound Bisphenol A (BPA) has been the target of scare campaigns over the last few years.  On one hand critics contend that BPA at low doses can affect endocrine systems and reproduction, and cause birth or developmental effects, as well as cancer.  On the other hand, a search of the literature finds no single case of illness or death related to BPA.

Most recently, BPA came under attack November 2 when Consumers Union, the parent organization of the respected Consumer Reports, sent out a press release announcing the results of its lab tests that purportedly showed high levels of the suspect compound in 19 food products.  The authors of the Consumers Report article did not claim that they had found any harmful effects in anyone, just that BPA had been detected.

The Consumers Union press release inspired panic-inducing headlines.  ABC News, the Los Angeles Times, Fox News, and the New York Times dutifully announced the “results” with alarm.  In a separate commentary, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff compared the danger of BPA to those he has faced as a reporter of “threats from warlords, bandits and tarantulas.”

(more…)