Issue in a Minute: The Fairness Doctrine

Cord Blomquist, Technology Policy Analyst at CEI , discusses the Fairness Doctrine.

Watch it here

CEI's New Weekly Podcast

This week, your hosts Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist talk about big trouble with big labor in California, Google's new 'Chrome' web browser, Comcast limiting Internet usage, dropping oil prices and an Olympic doping scandal out of Brazil.

SPECIAL GUEST INTERVIEWS : In addition to our news topics, we interview Robert Bidinotto, editor-in-chief of The New Individualist and CEI's very own Senior Fellow Iain Murray on the politics and philosophy of environmentalism.

Listen to it here

>> Check out the latest blogs posts, articles, and Op-Eds from the public policy experts at the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

Brookings Winds Up Doomsday Clock
by Iain Murray
Iain Murray, author of The Really Inconvenient Truths, provides a classic “fisking” of an alarmist op/ed on global warming by the President of the Brookings Institution. He concludes, “Brookings has resorted to what science communications expert Matthew Nisbet (not someone likely to agree with me on the details) terms as framing global warming as a ‘Pandora’s Box,’ with all sorts of calamities ready to emerge. Yet evidence suggests it doesn’t work. Brookings’ entry into the debate merely advances harmful policies in an ineffective way. They really should know better.”

http://www.openmarket.org/2008/08/28/brookings-winds-up-doomsday-clock/

Buy The Really Inconvenient Truths here:

http://www.amazon.com/Really-Inconvenient-Truths-Environmental-Catastrophes/dp/1596980540/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207666124&sr=1-1

The word ‘absurd’ does not do justice

by Gary Howard Jr.

Gary Howard discusses leftward opposition to the University of Chicago’s plans to establish a research institute named after the late Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.

http://www.openmarket.org/2008/08/28/the-word-absurd-does-not-do-justice/

Google Chrome & the Coming Antitrust Suits

by Cord Blomquist

One implication of Google's into the browser arena is that—should Chrome be at all successful—they will soon be accused of using their supposed search monopoly to squeeze out competition from IE and Firefox.

http://techliberation.com/2008/09/02/google-chrome-the-coming-antitrust-suits/

Court Uses Inconsistent Reasoning to Reject Sarbanes-Oxley Challenge

by Hans Bader

“a divided D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-to-1 to uphold a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” rejecting “a constitutional challenge to the PCAOB , the regulatory board set up by Sarbanes-Oxley . . The red tape generated by the board has cost the stock market over $1.4 trillion, and annually imposes compliance costs of over $35 billion . . . driving businesses overseas.”

http://www.openmarket.org/2008/08/22/court-uses-inconsistent-reasoning-to-reject-sarbanes-oxley-challenge/

“Pre-crime social dangerousness”

by Ivan Osorio

In a series of two posts, Ivan Osorio discusses the case of Cuban punk rock musician Gorki Aguila Carrsco, who was arrested on the charged of “pre-crime social dangerousness” for criticizing the rule of Fidel and Raul Castro. The Cuban government imposed a fine after Aguila’s case got considerable international attention.

Part I: http://www.openmarket.org/2008/08/28/pre-crime-social-dangerousness/

Part II: http://www.openmarket.org/2008/09/03/pre-crime-social-dangerousness-ii/

For more analysis and wit, visit OpenMarket.org and GlobalWarming.org/blog.

In liberty,

Cord Blomquist

Online Editor

Competitive Enterprise Institute

http://www.cei.org

http://www.openmarket.org

We have many RSVP's from good folks nationwide. Its that handful that drive ya nuts every year before event, LFOD statement bulked out yesterday was intended for them.

We did 1000+ bulk invite reminder e-mailing off our mailing list last week. I screwed up & part went out not BCC'd. A twit in CO attached bunch of crap to it & re-emailed it. Luckily, most knew it wasn't from us.

Too bad about Poker Face mess. Stuff going back & forth with FSP. I made clear it wasn't just FSP. Everyone’s & organizations hands held over the fire. That seems to be finally calming down. Hopefully for the best.

If damn rain lets up will be best year yet.

Sent out call to arms for volunteers & minutemen for battle. Many responses. Abernaki tribe calls & sez: "Our ancestors were in Continental Army" I said, "Don't forget the Tee-Pee's". He Sez: Their Wig-Wams".

Also, Don't forget fabulous pig roast at battle 8/23 7-10 PM.

Hope to see you all!

Jean Coutu, L.F.O.D. Rally'

Another week of bad news, bad reviews and campaign chaos for the McCain campaign.  The only change: the campaign's increasingly desperate response.

In what has become a recurring theme, McCain's week was dominated by foreign policy gaffes, misleading attacks, terrible reviews and new polls showing him lagging far behind among key groups of voters.  Instead of addressing those challenges, the McCain campaign chose to lash out at the media and launch desperate new attacks.  Despite starting his general election campaign by pledging "to conduct a respectful campaign" and run "the most positive kind of campaign," McCain has resorted to the kind of negative attacks that would make even Karl Rove blush--capped off with McCain himself questioning Senator Obama's patriotism.

As observers noted, McCain's new line of attack "smacks of desperation," "undermines his brand" and makes him look "bitter to the point of nasty." Said Howard Fineman: "hard to imagine things looking much bleaker."

MCCAIN'S CAMPAIGN LAUNCHES MORE DESPERATE NEGATIVE ATTACKS

McCain Ad Claiming Obama Is Responsible For Rising Gas Prices Is "Nonsense… Absurd." FactCheck.Org wrote, "A Full Tank of Nonsense: McCain ad says Obama's the guy to thank for emptying our wallets at the filling station. We say that's ridiculous. McCain's new ad accuses Obama of keeping gas prices high, all by himself. That's absurd, and McCain knows it - he has said repeatedly that our current problems were '30 years in the making.' The ad also tells us that gas prices are high because 'some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.' Not true. The federal government's estimate is that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply and prices. For the same reason, it's simply not true that drilling more now will 'rescue our family budgets.'"  [Fact Check.Org, 7/22/08]

McCain Ad Claiming Obama Voted Against Troop Funding Is "Oversimplified To The Point Of Being Seriously Misleading." FactCheck.Org wrote, "Prior to the sole 2007 vote cited by the McCain campaign as justification for this ad, Obama voted for all war-funding bills that had come before the Senate since 2005, when he was sworn in. So did all other Senate Democrats, except for a few absences. As recently as April 2007, Obama voted in favor of funding U.S. troops again, but this time Democrats added a non-binding call to withdraw them from Iraq. McCain (who was absent for the vote) urged the president to veto that funding measure, because of the withdrawal language. President Bush did veto it, and McCain applauded Bush's veto. Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that 'McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops.' But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading, which is exactly the problem with McCain's ad. Furthermore, by saying that 'John McCain has always supported our troops,' the ad insinuates that Obama doesn't. But funding a war and supporting troops are not necessarily the same thing. If they were, we'd reiterate our point above, that both men expressed a willingness to see a war-funding bill killed unless it met their conditions." [FactCheck.Org, 7/22/08]

McCain Said That "Obama Would Rather Lose A War In Order To Win A Political Campaign"; Time Columnist Joe Klein Wrote That That Is The Most "Scurrilous Statement" He's Ever Seen, "Smacks Of Desperation" And "Renews Questions About Whether McCain Has The Right Temperament For The Presidency." "John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire: 'This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.' This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad." [Joe Klein, Time Magazine, 7/22/08]

McCain Web Ad Falsely Linked Obama To Castro.  The Politico noted that a new McCain web ad displays side-by-side photos of Obama and Fidel Castro, with the caption: "FIDEL CASTRO Thinks he [Obama] is 'the most advanced candidate.'" [Politico, 7/24/08]

McCain Adviser Said That The Obama Campaign's Attempt To Point Out That McCain Had His Facts Wrong On The Anbar Awakening Undermines "The American Troops And Their Sacrifice And Their Effort." According to Talking Points Memo, "Now we have a McCain surrogate explaining away McCain's flubbing of the Anbar Awakening and surge timing by saying that asking for the truth about Iraq undermines the troops." McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer said "Barack Obama and his supporters can try to litigate what came first or what was crucial, but that's really an attempt to undermine the significance and the impact of the American troops and their sacrifice and their effort." [Talking Points Memo, 7/23/08]

The McCain Campaign Implied That Obama's Commitment To Preventing Genocide Was Not Sincere And Attacked Him For His Comments At An Appearance At The Israeli Holocaust Memorial. "The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment to preventing a future genocide was not sincere, attacking the Democratic candidate during his appearance at the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem. In an early morning press release, entitled Obama on Genocide," McCain aide Tucker Bounds emailed reporters a quote from Obama's appearance in which the Illinois Democrat reiterated the cry "never again." He followed that quote with one taken a year ago from an interview that the Senator gave with the Associated Press in which he said that genocide or humanitarian crises were not a prerequisite for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq." [Huffington Post, 7/23/08; McCain release, 7/23/08]

McCain Said Obama Has The "Most Extreme" Record In The Senate And When Asked If He Though McCain Was A Socialist, Said "I Don't Know." McCain said Obama had the "most extreme" record in the Senate. Asked later if he thought Obama was an extremist, McCain said: "His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont." Does McCain think Obama is a socialist? "I don't know. All I know is his voting record, and that's what people usually judge their elected representatives by." [Kansas City Star, 7/18/08]

McCain Aides Said They Have Every Intention Of Continuing Their Attacks On Obama On His Overseas Trip. "Senator John McCain tends to follow the old adage 'politics ends at the water's edge,' but his aides tell CNN they have every intention of continuing their attacks on Obama while the presumptive Democratic nominee is on his overseas trip." [CNN, 7/19/08]

FLASHBACK: MCCAIN PLEDGED TO RUN A POSITIVE AND RESEPCTFUL CAMPAIGN

McCain Said "I Want The Best Kind Of Campaign And Most Positive Kind Of Campaign." McCain, on the NC GOP ads attacking Rev. Wright, said "Voters can take into account any issue they feel Is relevant to themselves; I certainly have no control over that. But I have my agenda, and I think this ad is offensive to some and I would like it taken down. I want the best kind of campaign and most positive kind of campaign. McCain reiterated that he can't control the N.C. GOP, but he can ask them to take it down." [National Review, 4/25/08]

McCain: "I Have Pledged To Conduct A Respectful Campaign." McCain: "I have pledged to conduct a respectful campaign. And I have urged, time after time, various entities within the Republican Party to also do that." [CNN, 4/28/08]

MORE BAD REVIEWS

Klein: McCain Attack "Smacks of Desperation."  "This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad." [Time, Swampland Blog, 7/22/08]

Slate: McCain's Indiscriminate Attacks Distracting Him From Making His Case.  "McCain is attacking too much and indiscriminately. The barrage undermines his brand, takes time away from telling voters what he might do for them, and looks awfully old-timey in a year when voters want a new brand. … The gas-prices ad--and the equally disingenuous one on tax cuts--dismantles [his] reputation. In 2000, McCain said that spinning is lying. By that standard, these claims are what? Double-lying. Super lying?"  [Slate, 7/22/08]

Fineman: "Hard to Imagine Things Looking Much Bleaker."  "McCain needs all the pluck (and luck) he can muster to win this presidential race. As Barack Obama embarks on his global coronation tour, it's hard to imagine things looking much bleaker for his Republican rival. McCain thought that by baiting Obama into a tour of Iraq, he'd lure the Democratic contender into a trap. Indeed it was a trap -- for McCain."  [MSNBC, 7/22/08]

New York Times: McCain is Getting Coverage--Its Just Bad Coverage. "It wasn't a television blackout of John McCain; it was worse: split-screen contrasts that at times made it seem as if Barack Obama was on a state visit while back home his opponent chafed at the perks and privileges of an incumbent commander in chief…McCain aides haven't been nearly as creative on his behalf: their stagecraft has been notably unflattering to the candidate. While Mr. Obama was shown striding across military tarmacs and inspecting troops standing at attention, Mr. McCain on Monday was seen being driven around in a golf cart by former President George Bush in the resort town of Kennebunkport, Me. Later, the two men spoke to reporters side by side at a waterfront, and they looked more like fellow members of a Past Presidents' Club than a party elder passing the torch to his political heir." [New York Times, 7/23/08]

Michael Crowley:  McCain Looks "Stiff, Uncomfortable,"  "Bitter to the Point of Nasty." "I can hardly believe how badly John McCain is getting routed in the television-imagery game. As Obama saunters through the Middle East, looking cool and relaxed, McCain has been holding events where he looks stiff, uncomfortable, and, in his bracing claim today that Obama would lose a war to win an election, sounding bitter to the point of nasty." [New Republic, The Stump blog, 7/22/08]

NH Advantage Coalition Executive Director posted insults under a fake name;

Blue Hampshire traced IP address and email to identify Tammy Simmons

Concord, New Hampshire – Blue Hampshire, the state's leading progressive blog, released information today that exposes Tammy Simmons, the NH Advantage Coalition's Executive Director, for purposely hiding her identity and making false statements on the blog in order to support the tax cap and pledge.

According to Blue Hampshire:

Last Thursday I wrote about a Granite State Progress action during Concord's Market Days that was intended to highlight opposition to the NH Advantage Coalition's town by town anti-tax initiative. Four more NHAC and/or tax-related posts later, and suddenly Blue Hampshire found itself with a number of new users who were aggressively pushing the NHAC agenda, writing what has amounted to hundreds of comments back and forth … So. When we did a simple Google search of the email address used to register RockinNH, we were surprised and disappointed to discover that it led to several publicly available web sites showing it to be the email address of Tammy Simmons (one example here with name and the address in question). As this article from Foster's shows, Ms. Simmons is the Executive Director of the NH Advantage Coalition. [Blue Hampshire, 7/23/08]

Blue Hampshire does not restrict staff from participating in the community, but it does call for full disclosure. Simmons purposely tried to mislead people about her true identity, going so far as to write "I thought I had read on [the NHAC] website who exactly was involved with NHAC, but it's not there anymore." and even accuses another user of being on the staff of the NH Advantage Coalition.

"This isn't a situation about a young, overeager staffer making a mistake," said Zandra Rice Hawkins, Executive Director of Granite State Progress. "Tammy Simmons is the Executive Director of the NH Advantage Coalition and should know better. She purposely hid her identity in order to sling insults and mislead the conversation around an issue of great importance in New Hampshire. Both Simmons and the NH Advantage Coalition owe Granite State Progress and Blue Hampshire a public apology, and Tammy Simmons should step down or be removed from her leadership position with the NH Advantage Coalition. People in New Hampshire deserve open, honest conversations about policies and issues."

Granite State Progress was the target of an insult from Simmon's very first blog post to Blue Hampshire, and its work to highlight the damaging impact that the local revenue cap could have in communities was the source of most of Simmon's comments.

Granite State Progress sent an email to NH Advantage Coalition Chairman Mike Biundo to call for the public apology and request that Simmons be removed from her post.

* In addition to being the Executive Director of the NH Advantage Coalition, Simmons is also Treasurer of the Manchester Republican Committee and a Republican candidate for the State House, according to Blue Hampshire. A complete list of Simmon's comments are listed at: http://bluehampshire.com/userDiary/comments.do?personId=1626.

"Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend, with a media entourage as large as some of his rallies. He'll no doubt learn a lot, in addition to getting a good photo op. What we'll be waiting to hear is whether the would-be Commander in Chief absorbs enough to admit he was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq." -- The Wall Street Journal

Obama's 'Judgment'
Editorial
The Wall Street Journal
July 18, 2008

Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend, with a media entourage as large as some of his rallies. He'll no doubt learn a lot, in addition to getting a good photo op. What we'll be waiting to hear is whether the would-be Commander in Chief absorbs enough to admit he was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq.

Mr. Obama has made a central basis of his candidacy the "judgment" he showed in opposing the Iraq war in 2002, even if it was a risk-free position to take as an Illinois state senator. The claim helped him win the Democratic primaries. But the 2007 surge debate is the single most important strategic judgment he has had to make on the more serious stage as a Presidential candidate. He vocally opposed the surge, and events have since vindicated Mr. Bush. Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq.

Yet Mr. Obama now wants to ignore that judgment, and earlier this week his campaign erased from its Web site all traces of his surge opposition. Lest media amnesia set in, here is what the Obama site previously said:

"The problem -- the Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war."

Mr. Obama's site now puts a considerably brighter gloss on the surge. Yet the candidate himself shows no signs of rethinking. In a foreign-policy address Tuesday, the Senator described the surge, in effect, as a waste of $200 billion, an intolerable strain on military resources and a distraction from what he sees as a more important battle in Afghanistan. He faulted Iraq's leaders for failing to make "the political progress that was the purpose of the surge." And his 16-month timetable for near-total withdrawal apparently remains firm.

It would be nice if Mr. Obama could at least get his facts straight. Earlier this month, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad reported that the Iraqi government had met 15 of the 18 political benchmarks set for it in 2006. The Sunni bloc in Iraq's parliament is returning to the government after a year's absence. Levels of sectarian violence have held steady for months -- at zero. (In January 2007, Mr. Obama had predicted on MSNBC that the surge would not only fail to curb sectarian violence, but would "do the reverse.") If this isn't sufficient evidence of "genuine political accommodation," we'd like to know what, in his judgment, is.

The freshman Senator also declared that "true success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not re-emerge."

Yet the reason Iraq is finally getting that kind of government is precisely because of the surge, which neutralized al Qaeda and gave Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki the running room to confront Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite Mahdi Army. And the reason the U.S. can now contemplate more troop withdrawals is because the surge has created the conditions that mean the U.S. would not be leaving a security vacuum. On Wednesday, Mr. Maliki's government assumed security responsibility in yet another province, meaning a majority of provinces are now under full Iraqi control.

Mr. Obama acknowledges none of this. Instead, his rigid timetable for withdrawal offers Iraq's various groups every reason to seek their security in local militias such as the Mahdi Army or even al Qaeda, thereby risking a return to the desperate situation it confronted in late 2006.

The Washington Post has criticized this as obstinate, and Democratic foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution reacted this way: "To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity."

Mr. Obama does promise to "consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government" in implementing his plans. But he would have shown more sincerity on this score had he postponed Tuesday's address until after he visited Iraq and had a chance to speak with those generals and Iraqis. The timing of his speech made it appear not that he is open to what General David Petraeus tells him, but that he wants to limit the General's military options.

Mr. Bush has often been criticized for refusing to admit his Iraq mistakes, but he proved that wrong in ordering the surge that reversed his policy and is finally winning the war. The next President will now take office with the U.S. in a far better security position than 18 months ago. Mr. Obama could help his own claim to be Commander in Chief, and ease doubts about his judgment, if he admits that Mr. Bush was right.

Read The Editorial