IPI PolicyBytes

Skewered Cableco Anyone?

Solveig Singleton — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:21:45 -0500

The FCC's determination to fine Comcast for it's treatment of BitTorrent net traffic has put the cableco in a difficult position. If Comcast objects that the FCC nondiscrimination principles are not really rules the violation of which can result in a fine, the firm is setting the stage for more stringent net neutrality regulation. But if Comcast does not object, it in essence allows the FCC to make rules without a specific mandate from Congress concerning their substance, let alone the consequences of a violation, and to do so retroactively. Ex Post Facto laws, indeed.

My position is that net neutrality rules are premature, especially given that no one as described an institutional device to systematically keep the rules for developing over time into a system in which regulators micro-manage prices and terms of carriage, as did the FCC and the ICC.

As regulators have lined up on the side of regulation, though, some second-best suggestions are in order. Assume that the FCC's four principles make an acceptable starting point. To keep the rules from being manipulated by those dependant on the Internet as a platform into a means of piggybacking on other's investment, OR by those who build the plaform as a means of wresting all the value from the enterprises it supports, the best thing to do is to throw any disputes over the rules into fast-track arbitration. (The economist Pablo Spiller has done some good work on this). Existing mechanisms of commercial arbitration could be used, or special forums could be created as part of a system of network self-regulation.

Bear in mind--if such a system did not work, something more aggressive could be done. But if a more interventionist approach is adopted from the start, it is likely to become a prime vehicle for deliberate manipulation, a game the little guy is unlikely to win. And it will be very hard to get rid of.

A Reverse Brain-Drain

Solveig Singleton — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:12:16 -0500

This study came out a while back but is worth noting--the phenomena of those educated in the U.S. but squeezed out by the legal difficulties of staying:

A Kauffman Foundation study finds: More than one million skilled immigrant workers, including scientists, engineers, doctors and researchers and their families, are competing for 120,000 permanent U.S. resident visas each year, creating a sizeable imbalance likely to fuel a "reverse brain-drain" with skilled workers returning to their home country...

SoundBytes 151: Are Government Workers Overpaid?

SoundBytes — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:10:06 -0500

The Institute for Policy Innovation’s Dr. Merrill Matthews says they are in one California town.

There is a widespread perception that people who work for the government make a sacrifice because they get paid less than the private sector.

Well, not in Vallejo, California.

The city of Vallejo is filing for bankruptcy, and the reason is the city’s salaries:

Nearly three-fourths of city employees make more than $100,000 a year.
The city manager makes $317,000, and a police captain makes $306,000 in salary and benefits.

According to National Journal, city wages and benefits take up more than 75 percent of the general revenues. Now the city’s broke.

But it’s indicative of many government programs, including Social Security, which promise more than they can pay.

The politicians take the credit for being generous, while taxpayers are stuck with the bill.

Click on the icon below to listen to this 60 second SoundByte, that has aired or is currently airing on XM Satellite Radio's CNN and Fox News channels.

Mission Accomplished, Says Peter Ferrara in National Review Online

Erin Humiston — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:31:34 -0500

In a new op/ed published this week in National Review Online, IPI’s Peter Ferrara says the war in Iraq is over, and it’s too late for Barack Obama to surrender.

An excerpt:

"Barack Obama continues his overseas trip today in the Middle East, where the facts on the ground have recently been moving so fast hardly anyone in the U.S. has really kept up. But unheralded press reports in recent weeks establish this new reality.

The war in Iraq is over. America and her allies won. Sorry, Barack, but it is too late for you and your misguided, uninformed, anti-American netroots to surrender.

The surge that Obama opposed and said would fail has succeeded spectacularly. McCain was right about that from the beginning.

General Petraeus, leading American and Iraqi troops, has smashed al-Qaeda, which has now basically withdrawn and fled to remote hideouts in lawless, ungoverned, western Pakistan. The Sunni Awakening is now over a year old and has been widely reported. The Shia majority government of elected Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has moved brilliantly in recent months to rout the Shia militias as well, creating a broad, popular base of support for him. The Kurds continue to prosper in peace and harmony.”

To read the full article, please visit National Review Online.

Peter Ferrara Live Today, 4:30 pm ET--"Barack’s Left-Wing Extremism"

Erin Humiston — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:42:39 -0500

Peter Ferrara, IPI director of entitlement and budget policy, will appear live today on the “Let’s Talk Frank” radio show with hosts Lee and Terry Frank to discuss his recent American Spectator op/ed: “Barack’s Left Wing Extremism.”

To listen in live in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky, tune in to WKVL Knoxville, WLOD Loudon, WGAP Maryville, or WATO Oak Ridge today at 4:30 pm ET. ...

TechBytes 5:24: IPR in the “Top 20” at the G8

TechBytes — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:26:29 -0500

Since the annual meeting of the G8 is one of the most significant policy events of the year, it was a positive sign that “Protection of Intellectual Property Rights” was prominent on the list of global economic issues discussed by G8 leaders in Japan.

At the Summit, leaders reaffirmed their commitment to stepped-up efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting, namely through support of the Standards to be Employed by Customs for Uniform Rights Enforcement (SECURE) initiative at the World Customs Organization, and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which is currently being negotiated by the U.S., EU, Japan and several other nations.

This support is important and well-timed. It should serve as a rebuke to an alarming campaign being waged by a group of leftist non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academics that is almost impossible to explain. While our sputtering global economy desperately needs to nurture innovative breakthroughs to address pressing global health needs, exploding energy costs, climate change, food shortages and many other challenges, a small, but vocal group of NGOs and academics are arguing that “concepts” like piracy and counterfeiting have been created as part of a hidden conspiracy to promote the intellectual property “imperialism” of the developed nations.

This view is flawed on many levels. First of all, the effort to promote and protect IP is neither a concept nor a conspiracy. It is the clear and publicly stated policy of the world’s leading economies, because they understand that intellectual property is key to future economic growth and job creation, and is an essential ingredient to driving innovative solutions to tough global problems.

Second, there is a thriving, well-documented global trade in illicit goods, including electronics, auto parts, information technology, entertainment and pharmaceuticals, that threatens global economic stability and the health and safety of consumers. This assertion is backed up by statistics from U.S. customs and law enforcement agencies that show dramatic increases in seized goods, more sophistication in the fake goods coming to the U.S. and more organization by the criminals involved.

The G8 has sent a clear message regarding the importance of IP protection. And it is made real , in part, by work being done in Congress to enhance our own IP enforcement efforts.

These important steps will continue to face opposition from those who froth about concepts, conspiracies and other fantasies, instead of valuing the rule of law and enforcement.

SoundBytes 150: How Big Is Your Waistline?

SoundBytes — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:42:59 -0500

How Big Is Your Waistline?

Dr. Merrill Matthews of the Institute for Policy Innovation says it makes a difference . . . if you live in Japan.

When the government pays for health care, it has a vested interest in making sure its citizens are healthy—whether they like it or not.

That’s why the Japanese government recently passed legislation requiring everyone between the ages of 40 and 74—56 million people—to have their waistlines measured regularly.

The maximum waistline for men is 33.5 inches. That’s the maximum. For women it’s 35.4 inches.

Those whose waistlines are larger will have three months to shape up, or undergo what’s being called “reeducation.”

Those who persist in ignoring the will of the government will face fines and other penalties.

There’s an old saying that “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.” The Japanese will soon learn that a waist is a terrible thing to mind.

Click on the icon below to listen to this 60 second SoundByte, that has aired or is currently airing on XM Satellite Radio's CNN and Fox News channels.

TaxBytes 5.25: Let the Good Times . . . Stop!

TaxBytes — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:42:34 -0500

It’s fun spending other people’s money—at least until the money starts running low. That’s pretty much the position a lot of state lawmakers are in.
While the good times rolled, right up through most of 2007, states had no trouble finding ways to spend the revenues that came their way: on schools, roads, health care, jobs, tax breaks and the like.

Unfortunately, good times don’t roll on forever. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) predicts that 23 states face budget shortfalls—nearly $50 billion—in 2009.

It’s easy enough to understand why revenues quit soaring: subprime mortages, gasoline prices, food prices and layoffs, all leading to a slowing economy.

Now legislators have to figure out what to do. Raise taxes? Taxpayers never appreciate that. Cut spending and programs? That’s tough, too. But, unlike Congress, most states must balance their budgets, so something has to be done.

New Jersey just cut spending across the board, shedding 2,100 state employees, and eliminated two cabinet-level agencies. That’s a good start!
Nevada’s governor called for 4 percent cuts in all state agencies, on top of reductions earlier implemented, and depleting the reserve fund by $267 million. Better, in our view, to target the cuts, but across-the-board will work.
California, with a projected $17 billion shortfall, doesn’t know yet what it will do. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) hopes the state’s lottery program will float a loan. Wanna bet?

Nobody enjoys spectacles like these. Good programs, good people get hurt when the budgetary buzz saw starts up. But forgive us if our sympathy is targeted towards those who are hurt by the cuts, not the legislators.

In the late 1990s, state coffers were overflowing, so state legislators started spending like drunken . . . well, politicians. When the dot.com bubble burst, the legislators had to cut.

They didn’t learn their lesson. In the past few years they went on a spending spree again, and now its time to address the shortfalls . . . again.
The best solution isn’t raising taxes or hightailing it to Washington hat in hand hoping the feds will bail the states out—Congress has its own overspending problems—but cutting back on the additional spending. Yes, it will hurt. But maybe these fair-weather legislators will learn that when the good times return, as they surely will, they’ll resist the urge to let the good times roll.

What Obama fails to note about Europeans and languages

Tom Giovanetti — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:09:18 -0500

I've just (only in the last hour or so) returned from a week in Europe, so my ears were particularly attuned to the latest Obama incident; this time his criticism of Americans for being language illiterate compared to Europeans.

His exact quote was:

"You know, it's embarassing when Europeans come over here , they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup'!"

Well, Mr. Obama, Mr. Just-Now-Getting-to-Know-Your-Own-Country, let me ask you a question: What kind of Europeans come to the United States? Isn't it pretty much the upper-class Europeans with above-average education that come to the U.S.?

I just went through customs in the Chicago O'Hare airport. I saw any number of examples of Europeans who could not speak English to the customs staff, who needed other family members to translate for them, or who were struggling to figure out what to do BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T SPEAK OR READ ENGLISH.

And I spent the last week in Geneva, Switzerland, one of the wealthiest and most highly-educated cities in the world. I was surrounded by Genevois (people from Geneva) who could not speak English. Waiters, cab drivers, people on the street from whom I asked directions.

Granted many Genevois DO speak English, but the point is that many don't as well.

Yet another example of the apparently low view Obama seems to have about the people who inhabit the country he wants to govern.

TechBytes 5:23: “Amazon.Cop”

TechBytes — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:57:31 -0500

A new proposal, currently called the “Organized Retail Crime Act of 2008,” is floating around the US Senate these days—a proposal to fight organized crime that involves “the theft and interstate fencing of large volumes of stolen retail merchandise.” That is to say that the purported purpose is to crack down on counterfeit and stolen goods that may be sold on the Internet.

Indeed, that sounds pretty good…for a title anyway.

The reality is that the proposal conscripts “operator(s) of an online marketplace.” So sites such as eBay and Amazon.com, which allow sellers to engage in business on their site, would be forced to be the cops of the Internet.

Worse, the proposal specifically reverses well-established law that makes clear that “interactive computer services” (any information service, such as a website or Internet service provider), are not liable for third-party content. This rule was designed to encourage online speech by freeing service providers from monitoring their services.

Newly applying this Internet-only, third-party liability threatens e-commerce, and is a wholesale attempt to regulate the Internet, since businesses, not law enforcement professionals, would now be forced to patrol the Internet exercising policing powers based on their own judgment and at their own risk. E-commerce sites will have to determine if every seller stays clear of “reasonable suspicion” in their activities, which will encourage investigations based on complaints that merely raise concerns about the types, prices, or quantities of goods being sold.

Reasonable suspicion is such a minimal standard that it is not even enough cause to arrest a person on the street. Yet these new e-cops will be able, and required, to investigate a seller’s online activities while compiling records of their activities to keep for years. All without due process.

And if service providers don’t? They can be prosecuted as if they were the criminals.

This police-state proposal puts e-commerce-marketplace operators in a new digital bind, handing over the policing of the Web with vague guidelines and jail time or civil lawsuits as the thanks. This is not outsourcing of government work, but rather conscription of vendors.

Stolen goods may well be pervasive and black-market transactions serve only the criminals. But forcing vendors to act as a police force by reporting to the government and keeping records of a person’s activities, even when they could be legal, under threat of criminal prosecution cannot be the answer.

SoundBytes 149: When Are Senators Hypocrites?

SoundBytes — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:49:31 -0500

When Are Senators Hypocrites?

Dr. Merrill Matthews of the Institute for Policy Innovation says when they condemn employers and then do the same thing.

Some Democratic politicians accuse employers of being greedy for outsourcing jobs to local contracting companies in order to cut costs. Yet Democrats who control the U.S. Senate are doing the same thing to the Senate dining rooms.

The dining rooms, which are staffed by government employees, have been losing money—and customers—for years. Taxpayers make up those losses.

The House of Representatives privatized its dining rooms in the ‘80s. Now the House dining rooms are full, and the private catering company running them has given back to the government more than a million dollars in the last five years.

One Democratic senator whined that Democrats can’t “condemn the privatization of workers, and . . . privatize workers here in the Senate.”

Well, at least they shouldn’t condemn other employers, but I bet they will.

Click on the icon below to listen to this 60 second SoundByte, that has aired or is currently airing on XM Satellite Radio's CNN and Fox News channels.

TaxBytes 5.24: The End of the Private Sector in Medicare?

TaxBytes — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:29:08 -0500

The government determines how much it pays doctors for seeing Medicare patients, so you know that’s going to create problems.

For several years now, doctors have faced a cut in how much Medicare pays them, with the current scheduled cut at 10.6 percent. But the Congress always manages to come up with a temporary bipartisan fix to postpone the pay cuts.

This time, however, Democrats are claiming that Senate Republicans are blocking legislation that would postpone the scheduled pay cut—and they are, by one vote in the Senate. But there’s a reason.

Democrats want to “pay” for the pay-cut postponement by cutting the Medicare Advantage program, and a handful of Republican senators have said no.

The American Medical Association (AMA) is outraged, and has been running ads targeting 10 Republican senators who refused to shut off debate in the Senate, which would have allowed the Senate to vote on the legislation.

So in the midst of this political infighting, let us bring a little background to the debate.

First, both parties want to fix the reimbursement cut. But for some Republicans there is a bigger issue: whether or not there will be a private sector option in Medicare.

Medicare is a defined benefit program, which makes it very hard to reform. Medicare+Choice (which was created in 1997) was a defined contribution plan that allowed Medicare to give a private sector health insurer a flat amount of money to cover a senior’s health care needs for an entire year.

If Medicare is giving a health plan $10,000 a year (to pick a figure) for a Medicare enrollee, that raises a public policy question: Why can’t people just put their 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax on all earnings directly in their own medical retirement account and hand out that money themselves at retirement?

In other words, Medicare+Choice was considered the first step to moving away from a government-controlled, defined-benefit medical retirement system and putting money and power back into the hands of consumers and patients.

Medicare Advantage has replaced Medicare+Choice, but the goal is still the same: to get the private sector into Medicare.

The Democrats know that, and most of them don’t like it. They would like to neuter Medicare Advantage so that there is nothing left but traditional, government-controlled Medicare.

The Democrats hope that by including Medicare Advantage cuts with the payment fix, they will drive doctors against the health insurers and the Republicans who are trying to retain some semblance of the private sector in Medicare—which is exactly what’s happening. If the various key sectors of the health care system keep fighting over the crumbs, everyone is divided.

What we are seeing is the kind of thing that’s always going to happen when politicians are running health care, which is why it is government that should have its role reduced in health care, not markets.

More Privacy Conundrums

Solveig Singleton — Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:52:13 -0500

Viacom's suit against Google/YouTube for copyright infringement has opened another privacy can of worms. Most recently, the judge has ordered You Tube to turn over data on individual's video viewing.

The EFF has strenuously objected on privacy grounds, citing the Video Privacy Protection Act. Orin Kerr, posting on the Volokh Conspiracy, agrees on their legal analysis.

But in fact it is not clear that there is a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act , because the details of the judge's order reportedly include protective measures the details of which have not been described in the coverage.

There are some deeper issues raised by this wrangle, however.

As a normative matter, it is a puzzle as to why the viewer's privacy rights ought to trump Viacom's rights. There seems to be no reason for it. Both are statutory rights. Viacom's have a constitutional basis. The viewer's arguably do not.

Privacy rights in the constitution limit the power of government, not private entities.

Imagine if instead of the plaintiff being Viacom, the plaintiff was a private person suing YouTube for privacy violations--say, a video had been posted that was taken surreptitiously through the window of a private room. Then it would be privacy versus privacy. Must the plaintiff always lose such a suit ironically in the name of privacy? No? Why would the analysis of copyright be any different? The answer to this rhetorical question is that copyright is different to people for whom the normative roots of copyright are questionable.

In other words, in a sense, the dispute is not really about privacy at all. It is about whether copyright ought to be practicably enforceable--and for some advocates, the answer is apparently, "no."

But there is a second deeper issue. What about the normative roots of the privacy rights in question? Are these, too, questionable? Yes. Very much so. Remember how the Video Privacy Protection Act came about. Judge Bork had been nominated to the Supreme Court. An enterprising reporter interviewed someone at the local video rental store and came up with some juicy details of his taste in videos. Legislators shuddered at the thought that someone might so expose *them*! And so the law was passed. From one standpoint, a nice intrusion on free speech.

My take: By all means, question the breadth of discovery and the fishing expeditions invited by the court's rules of procedure. But do so consistently. There is no reason that discovery should be narrower in a copyright case than in any other case. And there is no reason to honor every legislative privacy fad as one would the Fourth Amendment.

New Peter Ferrara Op/Ed: The Conservative Welfare State

Erin Humiston — Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:49:48 -0500

IPI director of entitlement and budget policy Peter Ferrara is featured today in the American Spectator with a compelling new op/ed, “The Conservative Welfare State.”

In the piece, Ferrara writes:

“Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam argue for restoring the Republican Party through a new activist government agenda focused on addressing the problems and concerns of the working class. The failure to decisively win over the working class is what has prevented Republicans from winning a true governing majority, they argue. The new agenda, they say, should include subsidies and policies to strengthen marriage and the family, and promote having children.

Douthat and Salam have written yet another book advocating the complete revision of conservatism based on embracing rather than rejecting Big Government: Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream. But as editors at the Atlantic magazine, they are really part of the newly emerging neoliberalism in various new institutions and projects in Washington. They draw on the ideas and thinking of this neoliberal crowd, the future heart of the Democrat party, rather than the conservative and free market think tanks and institutions that form the intellectual base of the Republican Party.

Yet, as a libertarian and supply-sider, I still accept their basic premise that conservatives and Republicans should focus on policies that would win over the working class (though we have a style problem among the upper classes that needs to be addressed as well). I even accept that we need to adopt policies that strengthen marriage, the family and child bearing. America has barely avoided so far the collapsing demographics of Europe that has already begun phasing out the social culture and heritage of the old continent. We still have the chance to avoid that fate in America.”

To read the full piece, please visit the American Spectator online.

Barry Aarons in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram: ’Time to Start Hanging Up on Phone Service Program’

Erin Humiston — Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:58:41 -0500

IPI senior fellow Barry Aarons is featured in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram with a new op/ed entitled “Time to Start Hanging Up On Phone Service Program.”

In the piece, Aarons writes:

"Ronald Reagan used to quip that the closest thing to immortality in this life is a government program. And although government provides us with numerous validations of Reagan’s observation, perhaps there’s never been a better example than the Universal Service Fund.
Created in 1934, the UFS was designed to enable national connection of the so-called nationwide wire-line network. And by the 1970s the system worked pretty well, connecting more than 95 percent of America in a switched-access wire-line system of telecommunications.
It did so by taxing all users of telephone service and using those funds to subsidize telephone service in rural areas. But the payments went to the local rural phone companies, not to the telephone customers themselves. ”
To view the full article, please visit the Fort Worth Star-Telegram online

Pieler and Laurson: ’Urgent Need for Joint Effort to Freeze Mugabe Out’

Erin Humiston — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:54:30 -0500

IPI senior fellow George Pieler is featured with International Affairs Forum editor-in-chief Jens Laurson with a new op/ed in South Africa’s Business Day, entitled “Urgent Need for Joint Effort to Freeze Mugabe Out.”

Pieler and Laurson write:

ROBERT Mugabe has again driven a stake through hope for a civil and propitious future in Zimbabwe. A campaign of violence, terror and murder against the political opposition achieved its goal: Morgan Tsvangirai, the Movement for Democratic Change’s (MDC’s) presidential candidate, withdrew from the runoff “election”, giving president-cum-dictator Mugabe his “resounding victory”.
No observer should be surprised, but apparently many were.
The March 29 elections, in which Mugabe’s Zanu (PF) came in second after Tsvangirai’s MDC, were mistaken for a sign of democracy and a precursor of change . Instead they were merely a slip-up by the ruling thugs, who had underestimated how much violence was needed to get Zimbabweans to vote “correctly”. That lack of suppression has since been more than made up for.”
To view the full article, please visit Business Day online.

SoundBytes 147: Are American CEOs Overpaid?

SoundBytes — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:45:41 -0500

Are American CEOs Overpaid?

The Institute for Policy Innovation’s Dr. Merrill Matthews says take a look at American athletes.

Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute recently asked how fairly is income distributed in major league sports.

Turns out, not so fair.

For the total U.S. population, the top 20 percent of households makes 51 percent of total family income.

But Malanga says that in football, the top 20 percent of players makes 63 percent of the money—not including all the advertising contracts.

Politicians are increasingly complaining that a small number of Americans make too much money. But they’re talking about CEOs, not athletes.
Apparently, when athletes are well paid, people think it’s because they’re good. When CEOs are well paid, it’s because they’re greedy.

And yet while athletes may give us some Sunday afternoon entertainment, it’s the CEOs who give us jobs.

Click on the icon below to listen to this 60 second SoundByte, that has aired or is currently airing on XM Satellite Radio's CNN and Fox News channels

TechBytes 5:22: Don’t Kill the Green Goose

TechBytes — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:05:17 -0500

The need to achieve technological breakthroughs to provide cleaner, more efficient sources of energy may indeed be the race-to-the-moon for this generation of American inventors, scientists and entrepreneurs.

Clean energy technologies will come in hundreds of variations and will take billions to develop, test and deploy. To sustain this model there must be a global marketplace where intellectual property (IP) and innovation are rewarded according to economic drivers such as value, quality and demand. In essence, the clean energy revolution will only be as effective in solving our energy needs worldwide as the determination to promote and protect the underlying IP.

A proliferation of national strategies to promote the clean energy industry will develop, but there must also be a global approach that prioritizes real world impact while respecting IP and the innovation process.

What must some of the first steps in this global approach be?

Respect IP. Sentiment among some organizations and countries is that any product or innovation that improves human well-being should be made freely available or taken from the owner under a “compulsory license” arrangement. But the necessary major investments in research and development will only be made if the ability to protect these investments is respected.

Avoid using protectionist policies such as tariffs to create national champions at the expense of deploying important technologies quickly.

Seek efficiencies in moving innovations to the market. A major first step the U.S. can take is educating and equipping patent offices around the world to understand and effectively assess increasingly complex clean energy-related applications.

Policymakers must ensure a global environment that respects and rewards the innovation and IP protection necessary to meet the energy challenges of the future so that American innovators and entrepreneurs who have time and again proven their ability to take on huge challenges and deliver breathtaking solutions, can do it again.

Pieler-Laurson Op/Ed on Forbes.com: ’Ireland’s No Gives Europe Breathing Room’

Erin Humiston — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:37:15 -0500

IPI senior fellow George Pieler is featured with International Affairs Forum editor-in-chief Jens Laurson with a new op/ed on Forbes.com entitled, “Ireland’s ‘No’ Gives Europe Breathing Room.”

Pieler and Laurson write:

“Parochial polemics, misinformation and propaganda that feed on citizens' ignorance and distrust.
These, according to some supporters of the European Union (E.U.), are what caused Ireland's electorate on Friday to vote decisively against the Treaty of Lisbon, a document formerly known as the European Constitution that lays out a number of centralizing governmental reforms, provided it's approved by all 27 member states.
Now E.U. officials are convening in Brussels for a two-day summit to tweak the treaty and assuage its critics, which include not only Ireland but also the Czech Republic and Poland.”
To view the full article, please visit Forbes.com.

Maybe don’t be quite so quick to criticize James Dobson

Tom Giovanetti — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:35:45 -0500

Evangelical leader James Dobson is under a bit of fire for questioning Barack Obama's fidelity to Christian doctrine and his interpretation of the Bible.

Well, after learning today that Obama apparently carries Hindu idols around in his pocket for good luck, perhaps people ought to give Dobson a bit of latitude. Or at least some credit for having a handle on what Christians believe.

I'm fairly certain that, no matter which of the various Christian denominations you belong to, or which school of Bible interpretation you favor, Christians have pretty much across-the-board rejected idolatry.

Find me the most liberal Christian theologian you can find. Find the guy who doesn't believe Genesis is literally true, and who doesn't think Jesus actually rose from the dead, and doesn't think Mary was really a virgin. Find me a guy who denies almost everything miraculous in the Christian religion, and ask him if Christians should endow Hindu idols with the ability to bring good luck.

Whatever you think of Dobson's involvement in politics, I think it's pretty clear that Dobson has a better handle on Christianity than Obama does.