Denver School Board Sees Therapist … Hold the Jokes, Please

by Ben DeGrow | 5:03 pm, December 3, 2009

Education News Colorado editor Alan Gottlieb offers up a laugh about the new Denver Public Schools board calling in a therapist to help everyone get along. In case you haven’t heard, it was all brought on by some low-class politics at Monday’s board meeting (H/T Ed Is Watching):

As board member Michelle Moss walked up to [...]

DeMint Questions Bernanke

by Mr. Bob | 3:51 pm, December 3, 2009

#tcot #teaparty #redco #fanniemae #freddiemac
Well done interview of Bernanke by Senator Demint. Key points hit…

Senate Republicans Try to Fix..rather than KILL the healthcare bill

by Mr. Bob | 2:52 pm, December 3, 2009

#tcot #redco #healthcare #obamacare #RINO From RedState

As Predicted, the Senate Republicans Are Improving the Health Care Bill so it Passes

Friends, it is as bad as I feared. The Republicans are playing so nice with the Democrats in the Senate that they are improving the health care bill so it can pass.

Here is an email from Don Stewart in Senator Mitch McConnell’s office:

The Leaders just locked in a unanimous consent agreement for four amendment votes tomorrow. READ THE REST AT REDSTATE

Beware! Evil Lurks in Refunds…

by Jon Caldara | 12:30 pm, December 3, 2009

Those of us who are not bleeding heart, emotional hippies are used to being called names: selfish, mean-spirited, angry, malicious, greedy, and sometimes even, Jon Caldara. So it comes as no surprise that the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) president called us “sinister” in this letter to his members.
Dear DCTA member,
BEWARE: You may [...]

Obamacare: How The Unions Are Getting Well

by Rossputin | 10:22 am, December 3, 2009

From Americans for Limited Government, the following article is a must-read if you want to understand what health care “reform” is really about.  As many of us have said all along, it’s not about health care, it’s about power.

See “Obamacare: How The Unions Are Getting Well“, Howard Rich, GetLiberty.org, 12/3/09
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1814

Cold Weather Heightens the Amusing Irony of Climategate Scandal Fallout

by Ben DeGrow | 9:12 am, December 3, 2009

Given yesterday’s and today’s weather here in the Mile High City, it only seems fitting to write about the latest in the Climategate fallout. Two quick Thursday reads:

Our own hometown journalist David Harsanyi explains clearly why we have a reason to be skeptical
The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens says if you want to understand why [...]

Democratic voter registration continues to dive

by Rossputin | 5:12 am, December 3, 2009

According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, the number of Americans self-identifying as Democrats has dropped to a 4-year low of 36%.  While still 2.9% higher than the number of Republicans, the current spread is the narrowest since December, 2007.   A closer look at the numbers implies that the Dec ‘07 number of 2.1% was a remarkable outlier, since the month prior came in at 4.9% and the month after at 5.6%.  In reality, this is the narrowest gap since the first half of 2006.

For those who don’t follow this stuff closely, it should be noted that there is a persistent registration gap in favor of Democrats, but Republicans tend to have higher turnout (though not in 2008, obviously).  That’s how Republicans can win elections, sometimes by wide margins, even with more Americans being registered as Democrats.

The 33% Republican registration is within, but at the high end, of the range going back to 2006.  (In 2004 and 2005, GOP registration was closer to 35%, but fell to the 33% area with George W. Bush fatigue in early 2006.)  The 36% Democratic registration is the lowest since July, 2007, which was essentially idential at 35.9%.  Indeed, the lowest Democratic registration level going back to 2004 is 35.9% which happened 3 times (the July ‘07 reading and twice in 2005.)

In other words, the substantiall fall-off in Democratic registrations is barely benefiting GOP registration.  More former Democrats are becoming independent/unaffiliated voters rather than Republicans.  Over the past year, Republican registration is barely changed while unaffiliated voters have increased from about 25% to nearly 31%.

The implication of these numbers, particularly when combined with the much more intense feelings by anti-Obamacare voters than pro-Obamacare voters, is that Democrats may have a serious turnout problem next November.  Republicans are highly motivated.  Democrats are not so motivated; many so unmotivated that they are leaving the party.

It is always difficult to defeat an incumbent politician.  And the Democrats have an enormous 81 seat majority in the House, meaning that 42 seats or 10% would have to change from Democratic to GOP in order for the GOP to retake the majority.  (There’s a decent chance for the GOP to hold all its seats except for the RINO Joseph Cao in Louisiana.  If Cao loses, then there would need to be 43 GOP takeaways.)

In a normal year, the odds against one party picking up more than 40 seats would be at least 10:1 if not 50:1, but at Intrade.com, the contract is trading at 2:1 odds (and I’m buying some.)  (The price represents the % chance of Democrats maintaining control of the House after the November 2010 elections.)

And over the past several months, the betting on the Democrats’ chances of winning the presidency in 2012 are slightly but clearly slipping, though they have not reached the lows of the stock-market and economic meltdown earlier in the year:

In my view, the Democrats have one enormous thing to fear (at least if they want to maintain a majority in Congress): The passage of Obamacare.  If a bill anything like what we’ve seen so far gets signed by the president, 2010 will make 1994 look like a great year for Democrats.  (In 1994, the GOP picked up 54 House seats…)

When even Jon Stewart gets skeptical about climate “science”…

by Rossputin | 4:28 am, December 3, 2009

Like it or not, a lot of young-ish Americans get their “news” from Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and his Daily Show.  Stewart, while no Chris Matthews, does tend toward the liberal. And, again like it or not, Stewart is a bit of an opinion leader in this country.  So when he picks up the “climategate” story and shreds the pro-alarmist scientists, it’s important (even if he continues to skewer certain “skeptics” like Sen. James Inhofe.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

Senate health bill’s huge tax increases

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, December 3, 2009

Writes Cato’s Michael Cannon:
Amid double-digit unemployment, a record $1.6 trillion federal deficit and a national debt projected to double in 10 years, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., voted to bring to the floor of the Senate a health care overhaul with so many job-killing tax increases that it’s hard to fit them all into one [...]

Sometimes Life is Stranger than Fiction

by wesley | 9:16 pm, December 2, 2009

Last week, I started reading George Orwell’s 1984 for the first time. Yes, I know, I’m an uncultured heathen. Deal with it. I’m only about one third of the way in, but Orwell’s already painted a pretty frightening totalitarian society of the future. The below passage struck me as very topical as the Lies of [...]

New Perlmutter Challenger for CD7 has McCain Connections

by elpresidente | 9:13 pm, December 2, 2009

Campaign launch info for Lang Sias: The Republicists are excited to learn that Lang Sias – veteran of two wars, fighter pilot, “Topgun” instructor, and fellow McCain 2008 staffer – will announce tomorrow that he will challenge Democratic Congressman Ed Perlmutter for Colorado District 7. A press conference is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Thursday, December [...]

Educational Video National Debt

by Mr. Bob | 2:43 pm, December 2, 2009

#tcot #redco #debt #teaparty
This should be shown in every home and classroom in this country. It does not even address the current administration’s spending frenzy and additions to entitlement programs. It was created during the Bush administration.

Congress to raise debt limit….in secret

by Mr. Bob | 2:22 pm, December 2, 2009

#tcot #teaparty #debt
“The No. 2 Democrat in the House of Representatives said on Tuesday he supports raising the United States’ debt ceiling to a high enough level so lawmakers will not have to boost it again before the November 2010 congressional elections.” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

Read Shhh…CONGRESS IS RAISING THE DEBT LIMIT at the Heritage Foundation.

Malkin T-shirt contest my entry

by Mr. Bob | 1:02 pm, December 2, 2009

#tcot #redco #malkin #democrats #teaparty
Michelle Malkin has decided to have a t-shirt contest for photo-shoppers and photo manipulators in response to the Democrats new T-shirt touting the accomplishments they are proud of.

Here is the original and the contest plea.
Here is my entry, click on the pic for full size.

The Substance Missing from Obama’s Afghanistan Speech at West Point

by Ben DeGrow | 9:05 am, December 2, 2009

I listened carefully to Barack Obama’s West Point speech yesterday evening — at least as best I could while indulging the important concerns of the two Little Virtuses and ultimately having to turn off the radio to sit down for dinner. By that point I could tell the speech had dragged on too long for [...]

Colorado 2010 State Senate Showdown: An Early Look at Hot Races

by Ben DeGrow | 6:09 am, December 2, 2009

Colorado Republicans need to win four seats in the upcoming 2010 elections to win back a majority in the state senate. While such a development remains improbable at the moment, it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Of the 35 four-year seats in the chamber, 19 are contested in 2010 (including two for special [...]

David Obey’s war surtax: Is your life worth more than your neighbor’s?

by Rossputin | 5:40 am, December 2, 2009

Congressman David Obey (D-MI), who holds the extremely powerful position of Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is proposing an income surtax to fund any additional troops sent to Afghanistan.

It’s not a new idea for Obey, who suggested roughly the same plan in 2007.  This time, Obey is arguing for a graduated surtax, ranging from 1% for lower earners to 5% for those with high incomes.

The first thing to say about Obey’s idea is that nobody should think it’s because he wants to fund a war.  Rather, he knows that our current skyrocketing deficits are a political disaster-in-waiting for the Democrats.  Given his position and seniority, he has more than most to lose if the GOP were to reclaim the majority in the House.  So, Obey wants to raise taxes so that he doesn’t have to cut back government spending in other areas in order to try to even slightly stem the tide of red ink coming from this Congress and President (not that the last Congress and President were anything to applaud.)

What has always struck me most, however, about these proposals is the “progressive” (i.e. soak the rich) structure they’re proposed with.  Even a flat surtax would cause high earners to pay more in tax than lower earners.  But is there really more benefit to high earners than to other Americans from having strong national security?

I’m not looking for a debate here on whether the war in Afghanistan contributes to our national security.  Some strongly believe it does, and others disagree. To be frank, I haven’t figured it out yet though at this time I’m most sympathetic to those who say Afghanistan has proven through history that it cannot be tamed.  But if our commander-in-chief, even if he is a dilletante like Barack Obama, makes a strong case that this is a “necessary war”, I am hard-pressed to see how it’s more necessary for a rich American than a poor American.

If the necessary war reduces the chance of a terrorist bomb going off in America or among Americans overseas, how is that of proportionately greater benefit to a millionaire than a factory worker?  If a bomb were to go off, would the bomb know to aim for the rich guy?

I understand that within any group of people there are many different views on the value of life, including of a person’s own life. But on average, across a large society, would you not expect that factory workers value their own lives (and by value I don’t mean in a financial sense) about the same way that the rich members of an exclusive country club do?  Again, leaving aside a few outliers with unusual views about the value or importance of life, would not most people agree that their lives are the most important thing they have?

So, does Obey’s proposal not suggest the extremely undemocratic and unDemocratic idea that rich people’s lives are worth more?  I understand Obey might not see it this way…maybe he just wants to go where the money is.  But when you’re talking about a war against the people who facilitated the 9/11 attacks, this isn’t just about soaking the rich to fund entitlements.  National security brings the same benefit to rich and poor alike, namely the protection of their lives.

Before I make my suggestion based on the above thoughts, let me make one thing clear: I do not support a war surtax. The government takes enough of our money. Any surtax is simply a way to let Congress avoid even having to think about fiscal discipline. And, future presidents will simply claim we’re always at war with someone since the War on Terror has no borders, no definable enemy, etc., and the tax will be with us forever.  So the following suggestion is in the vein of “If we knew for sure there would be a war surtax, here’s what it should be.”

If we were to have a war surtax, it should absolutely not be with a graduated “progressive” tax rate.  Indeed, even a flat tax rate is probably unjust, as even that implies that a rich person’s life is worth more than a poor person’s.  Instead, each American citizen and resident should be assessed some flat fee, the same fee for everyone.  When the Democrats squawk, simply ask them whether they mean that a rich person’s life is really worth more than someone else’s.

One more victim of Medicaid and employer-based insurance

by Brian Schwartz | 1:28 am, December 2, 2009

John R. Graham of the Pacific Research Institute offers a great critique of Nicholas D. Kristof’s recent New York Times column.  Kristof relates a distressing story about a John Brodniak, who lost his job due to illness, exhausted his COBRA benefits, and ended up on Medicaid.   Yet, Kristof reaches an odd conclusion. A couple of [...]

Spaced Out: Denver To Vote on “UFO Commission” in 2010

by elpresidente | 1:27 am, December 2, 2009

The Mile High City welcomes you! Local UFO “ambassador” Jeff Peckman–he of the failed “Safety Through Peace” ballot initiative from 2003–must be feeling outta this world tonight, after his previously shelved plans to create a Denver “UFO Commission” has been approved for a vote in 2010: A proposal to create a Denver commission to study [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appearing at Boulder County breakfast club Wednesday morning

by CTBC Director | 8:20 pm, December 1, 2009

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold is appearing as the guest speaker at this Wednesday’s (2 Dec) Boulder County Breakfast Club meeting at the Longmont IHOP at 7AM.
Join Matt at Saturday morning’s meeting to learn more about the Mullarkey Court’s repeated assaults on the Colorado Constitution, the resulting impact to your wallet, the degradation or outright elimination of YOUR constitutional rights, and what you can [...]

Congressional avoidance – then and now

by Rob Natelson | 8:02 pm, December 1, 2009

Americans have been dipping into the history of the Founding Era for clues as to how to get our country out of its current mess.
Here’s an instructive story: In 1783, the Constitution had not yet been written, and Congress was operating under the Articles of Confederation. Congress had no ability to enforce its laws, no [...]

Rep. Jared Polis YouTube video featuring Fake Marine “Rick Duncan” Still Posted 18 Months Later

by elpresidente | 7:57 pm, December 1, 2009

On the night President Barack Obama outlined his plans to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, we see that now-elected Rep. Jared Polis (D-CD2) is still featuring a video with discredited and fake Marine and anti-war protester “Rick Duncan” on his YouTube channel: And a screencap for posterity: Isn’t it time to take acknowledge the [...]

Memo to Colorado GOP: Court–Don’t Co-opt–The Tea Party Crowd

by Ben DeGrow | 5:30 pm, December 1, 2009

Update, 12/2: More valuable insights from Joshua Sharf.
First, the Denver Post’s Dan Haley weighed in on the Republicans’ “Platform for Prosperity.” Today, the story went national with coverage from Wall Street Journal reporter Stephanie Simon, and a quote from from one of my favorite grassroots activists (in spite of her misplaced football loyalties):

Republicans, however, said [...]

Colorado Supreme Court “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” ruling back in the news as lawmakers take aim at “What’s in YOUR wallet”

by CTBC Director | 3:03 pm, December 1, 2009

As the Colorado Legislature’s Joint Budget Committee meets this week to “review agency budgets in advance of the 2010 General Assembly” (and you thought your wallet and property were only at risk while the legislature is IN session), last year’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling upholding the blatantly unconstitutional “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” is back in the [...]

Howard Dean Gets Real Honest

by Mr. Bob | 2:35 pm, December 1, 2009

From http://Breitbart.tv #tcot #socialism #aynrand #capitalism #teaparty

Some honesty from Dean, he says; The Debate between socialism and capitalism is over,we are now closer to the European model, we now permanently campaign, instead of just during elections, we campaign for policy changes, oh and he seems to just be realizing that most people don’t pay attention to race.

Flying in our private jets to global warming conference

by Mr. Bob | 2:22 pm, December 1, 2009

#tcot #globalwarming #Copenhagen #teaparty #socialism
Jonothan Foreman at UK Times online chronicles just a smig of hypocracy as global warming evangelists jet set around the world leaving more pollution behind them in a week that most people do in a lifetime. He also lists one or two celebs who put their money where their mouth is.

Excerpt;

The Copenhagen summit next week will generate vast quantities of hot air. It will see 16,500 people coming in from 192 countries. That amounts to 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. Also, the organisers will lay 900 kilometres of computer cable and 50,000 square metres of carpet. More than 200,000 meals will be served and visitors will drink 200,000 cups of coffee — at least that will be organic.

When asked if the carbon footprint might have been reduced by turning Copenhagen into a video conference, a spokesman for the event said: “For such a major agreement, people need to meet together and negotiate face to face. We have delegates from all over the world. Video-conferencing systems are extremely useful, but they don’t match the personal touch. This is one of the main factors in having a good conference.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Where are today’s “Principled Politician”-s?

by redrocks | 12:59 pm, December 1, 2009

Adam Schrager’s book, The Principled Politician, could easily be the screenplay for a Frank Capra movie, ala Mr. Smith Goes to Washington…

…except it’s a true story, about a real man, (and it doesn’t have a “justice and fair play triumphs over all” ending).

Libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and history buffs [...]

Abolish the FTC: New Blogging Rules

by Ari Armstrong | 12:12 pm, December 1, 2009

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has imposed unjust new rules — “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising” — that take effect today.

Eric Robinson summarizes the nature of the rules:

[The FTC's rules] suggest that bloggers or other consumers who “endorse” a product or service online may be liable for civil penalties if they make false or unsubstantiated claims about a product or fail to disclose “material connections” between themselves and an advertiser. (Although Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC’s division of advertising practices, told Fast Company that the Commission will focus on warnings and cease-and-desist orders, rather than monetary fines, and told PRNewser that the Commission will target advertisers for violations, not bloggers. Another FTC official reiterated this.)

The new rules pose a variety of problems. The FTC has no legitimate authority to issue such rules, which defy the First Amendment and constitute censorship and the chilling of free speech. The rules are extremely broad, ranging from free review copies of books to Twitter posts. The rules are arbitrary and ambiguous, such that their precise requirements and penalties cannot be determined in advance. The rules thus open the door to political abuses. The rules are discriminatory in that they subject bloggers to different standards than print journalists.

The FTC is acting in blatant defiance of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore the FTC should be abolished and its rules rescinded.

First I summarize the basic arguments against the FTC’s rules. Then I link to other commentaries about those rules. Finally I review and analyze the rules in some detail.

FTC’s Rules Overreach and Violate Rights

1. The FTC’s rules constitute censorship and onerous controls.

Censorship consists not only of forcibly restricting what people may say and write, but forcing people to say and write things against their judgment. In this case, the FTC is forcing people to issue disclosures regarding communications that do not in any way violate anyone’s rights.

Edward Champion points to an article by Caroline McCarthy for Cnet News indicating that the FTC rules apply to Facebook and Twitter posts as well. The FTC’s Richard Cleland told McCarthy, “There are ways to abbreviate a disclosure that fit within 140 characters [Twitter's limit]. You may have to say a little bit of something else, but if you can’t make the disclosure, you can’t make the ad.”

The FTC thus requires that any Twitter post that could be construed as an “endorsement” include a disclosure that meets the FTC’s guidelines, within 140 characters. Such a policy limits the amount of information a user can post to Twitter or discourages the use of Twitter for certain purposes.

Champion notes that even an “Amazon Affiliates link” might trigger the FTC’s disclosure requirements.

The FTC’s rules constitute onerous controls in that they require bloggers and others to spend time complying with the FTC’s rules. For example, the primary documentation of the rules runs 81 pages in length. The effort spent complying with the rules detracts from time available to write about other issues.

2. The FTC’s rules are capricious and nonobjective.

The FTC’s rules, by the agency’s own admission, cannot be decided in advance in all cases. Instead, the FTC will “consider each use of these new media on a case-by-case basis for purposes of law enforcement” (page 8. Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the FTC’s documentation of the rules).

The FTC’s rules depends on what “consumers are likely to believe” about a communication, a subjective guideline that cannot be determined in advance (e.g., page 4).

The rules also extend to those who supply free samples or review books. Using the example of a video game manufacturer who sends a free copy of a game to a reviewer, the FTC states, “The manufacturer should advise [the recipient] at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance” (pages 79-80). What constitutes adequate compliance, and under what circumstances a supplier might be subject to enforcement, the FTC declines to detail.

In an interview with Edward Champion, the FTC’s Richard Cleland offered only guesswork in answer to whether a free movie screening constitutes compensation: “The movie is not retainable. Obviously it’s of some value. But I guess that my only answer is the extent that it is viewed as compensation as an individual who got to see a movie.”

Cleland chose to “reserve judgment” on another matter. Champion writes, “In cases where a publisher is advertising one book and the blogger is reviewing another book by the same publisher, Cleland replied, ‘I don’t know. I would reserve judgment on that. My initial reaction to it is that it doesn’t seem like a relationship.’”

Cleland further told Champion, “These are very complex situations that are going to have to looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not there is a sufficient nexus, a sufficient compensation between the seller and the blogger, and so what we have done is to provide some guidance in this area. And some examples in this area where there’s an endorsement.”

Furthermore, as Champion reports, whether the FTC will target bloggers with fines — and how much the fines might be — remain points of ambiguity.

In other words, often there no objective way to determine when and how the FTC’s rules apply prior to an enforcement action by the FTC.

As Walter Olson notes, “FTC enforcers will engage in their own fact-specific, and inevitably subjective, balancing before deciding whether to press for fines or other penalties. In other words, instead of knowing whether you’re legally vulnerable, you have to guess.”

Moreover, Olson notes, the receipt of freebies can “after some ill-defined point” create a relationship requiring a blogger “to disclose that relationship whenever writing about the institution in question.”

Ann Athouse argues that the FTC has “deliberately made a grotesquely overbroad rule, enough to sweep so many of us into technical violations, but we’re supposed to feel soothed by the knowledge that government agents will decide who among us gets fined. No, no, no. Overbreath itself is a problem. And so is selective enforcement.”

The FTC’s rules will therefore have a chilling effect on free speech. Those who are not part of an organization with legal representation — and those who cannot independent afford to pay lawyers — will now face a serious risk in publishing commentary.

Moreover, book publishers and others will face increased costs associated with complying with the rules, increasing the difficulty especially of small firms to publish works and advertise via review copies.

3. The FTC’s rules open the door to further political abuses.

Political operatives inside government once turned to tax audits to punish ideological opponents. More recently campaign finance complaints have chilled free speech. The FTC’s rules will provide yet another opportunity for political attack dogs to harass their opponents by filing complaints with the FTC based on perceived technical violations of the rules.

Even if the FTC clears the accused party, fighting such complaints can consume considerable money, energy, and worry. The possibility for such politically-motivated abuses will further chill free speech.

The FTC’s Richard Cleland told Caroline McCarthy, “As a practical matter, we don’t have the resources to look at 500,000 blogs. We don’t even have the resources to monitor a thousand blogs. And if somebody reports violations then we might look at individual cases…”

McCarthy notes that “angry readers may use the regulations to attempt to get back at blogs they don’t like.” Ron Workman predicts that “the trolls will have a great time turning these offenders in.”

4. The FTC’s rules undermine the equal protection of the laws.

The FTC “acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure
requirements than reviewers in traditional media” (page 47).

The FTC’s Richard Cleland explicitly acknowledged that the FTC’s rules subject bloggers to different standards than newspaper book reviewers.

5. The FTC’s rules violate privacy.

A blogger properly has the right to choose what information to disclose and what information to keep private.

In some cases, the FTC’s rules might require bloggers to disclose information that could compromise an individual’s privacy or safety. For example, following in the footsteps of America’s founders, someone might choose to write anonymously about a controversial political issue, such as abortion or homosexuality. A blogger with a material connection to the writer could not write about the anonymous work without disclosing personal information about the author.

The ability to write anonymously is central to the First Amendment, as it was central to American independence and the creation of the United States Constitution.

6. The FTC’s rules are unnecessary.

In clear-cut cases of a seller paying somebody to promote a product, generally those parties do have a moral obligation to potential customers to disclose the nature of the relationship. However, most things that are moral obligations ought not be forced by law.

Publications large and small generally implement policies to assure readers or viewers that their material is free from financial incentive, or that any incentive is disclosed. Bloggers have an incentive to disclose relevant material connections in order to build trust with readers, and consumers tend to promote reputable sources of information. Producers and consumers of information tend to interact voluntarily to resolve potential problems of disclosure.

Those who hide a clear bias generally suffer exposure and ridicule, as John Lott discovered after posting positive comments about his own work under an assumed name.

The government does have a legal responsibility to crack down on fraud. For instance, if someone claims to be an uncompensated reviewer but is in fact paid to write positive reviews, that would constitute dishonest fraud, properly the target of a criminal or civil suit.

However, short of fraud and overt calls for violence, what people say and write, and how they say and write it, is properly none of the government’s business.

The FTC’s rules rest on the fallacious doctrine that material conditions determine ideas. Granted that some people express views because of financial incentives, generally what matters most is a person’s ideological conclusions. While ideology is necessary to integrate ideas, it can adhere to the facts of reality or stray from them. Often the more dangerous bias arises not from financial incentives but from ideological blinders, and obviously no federal rule can address that vastly more serious problem.

Even a direct and substantial financial connection need not indicate any financial bias. Often a paid spokesperson already supported the product in question. The much weaker and distant material connections the FTC’s rules may also cover, ranging from free books to Amazon links, don’t pose any serious problem of bias, and certainly not any problem serious enough to warrant threats of federal enforcement actions.

Whether a substantial financial relationship is present or not, and whether it is disclosed or not, consumers of information and products have a responsibility to critically evaluate claims. A consumer who takes a single blogger’s weakly substantiated word about some product is frankly an idiot, and no federal rule can compensate for that.

The FTC’s rules continue the trend of infantilizing American adults. The FTC presumes that American consumers are just too stupid to check the facts for themselves and properly evaluate claims about products. Yet such rules tend to generate a self-fulfilling prophesy: they encourage consumers to rely on government bureaucrats to do their thinking for them. Such rules promote Homer Simpson’s mentality: “The whole reason we have elected officials [and their legions of bureaucrats] is so we don’t have to think all the time.” Thus, such rules undercut the self-responsible individualism that is the backbone of America’s success.

Links to Other Commentaries About the FTC’s Rules

Regulating Speech to Death
by Diana Hsieh
October 5, 2009

A double standard for online speech
by Vincent Carroll
October 14, 2009

Interview with the FTC’s Richard Cleland
by Edward Champion
October 5, 2009

FTC: Bloggers Must Disclose Payments for Reviews (NYT)
by Ron Workman
October 5, 2009

Yes, new FTC guidelines extend to Facebook fan pages
by Caroline McCarthy
October 5, 2009

Where Did You Get That Keychain?
by Walter Olson
October 16, 2009

New FTC Rules Aim to Kill the Buzz on Blogs
by Eric P. Robinson
October 8, 2009

The FTC going after bloggers and social media is like “sending a government goon into Denny’s to listen to the conversations in the corner booth and demand that you disclose that your Uncle Vinnie owns the pizzeria whose product you just endorsed.”
by Ann Althouse
October 6, 2009

Letter to the FTC on Guides Governing Bloggers>
by Laura Sell, Senior Publicist, Duke University Press
October 7, 2009

Disclosures

The document, “Ari Armtrong’s Disclosures Unjustly Compelled by the FTC,” has now been published. I will update it from time to time in an attempt to comply with the FTC’s unjust and rights-violating rules.

As I note in that document, “I do not expect that the FTC’s rules will be ambitiously enforced in the short-term. Many bad laws (and authorized rules) have no noticeable impact when they are first implemented. Often such laws and rules remain on the books for years before bureaucrats and prosecutors take advantage of them to actively violate people’s rights. That does not make their existence more comforting.”

More Founders Night 2009 Pics

by Jon Caldara | 10:57 am, December 1, 2009

As promised from my web monkey, here are the rest of the 25th Annual Founders Night pictures. The ones you have not seen yet are at the end, about the last half of them.

Will Low Turnout Doom Colorado Democrats?

by RMR | 9:00 am, December 1, 2009

National liberal blog Daily Kos occasionally commissions polls on various races. Their most recent was a national poll on voter enthusiasm. To put it mildly, they found a bit of a gap between Republicans and Democrats:

Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting

Republican Voters: 81/14
Independent Voters: 65/23
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS: 56/40

In other words, 81% of Republicans polled say they plan to vote in 2010 compared to only 56% of Democrats. This is a bleak result for Democrats who finally seem to be realizing that without Barack Obama on the ballot next year, not only will turnout be depreciated from lack of excitement but many demographics might not come to the polls altogether. Couple that with growing discontent among independent voters, and the worst-case scenario for Democratic incumbents could be emerging.

Just for fun let’s take a look at the voter registration breakdown in CD-3, CD-4, CD-7, and statewide. Then let’s take a look at the makeup of the electorate if we adjust to assume that 81% of Republicans turn out, 65% of unaffiliateds turn out, and 56% of Democrats turn out as the Daily Kos poll showed. (Raw voter registration percentages are provided along with the altered values in parenthesis.)

CD-3 (Adjusted)

Republican 34.7%  (41.8%)
Unaffiliated 32.1%  (31.0%)
Democratic 32.7%  (27.2%)

CD-4 (Adjusted)

Republican 37.2%  (44.2%)
Unaffiliated 34.6%  (33.0%)
Democratic 27.6%  (22.7%)

CD-7 (Adjusted)

Republican 28%  (34.4%)
Unaffiliated 33.7%  (33.5%)
Democratic 37.7%  (32.1%)

Statewide (Adjusted)

Republican 34.8%  (41.8%)
Unaffiliated 30.8%  (29.6%)
Democratic 34.4%  (28.6%)

Democrats will probably rally to put on a bit better showing than the Daily Kos poll is predicting now, but in any case it is looking like there will be a distinct advantage for Republicans in turnout. This is basically a flip from the 2008 elections which saw a highly motivated Democratic electorate turn out for Barack Obama. John Salazar, Betsy Markey, and Ed Perlmutter are in for the rudest awakenings as a result: any Democratic candidate elected in 2008 will have their base suddenly M.I.A..

Both of Perlmutter’s elections have been in years with highly motivated Democratic bases and these numbers show that CD-7 could transform into an effective Republican-plurality district when adjusted for turnout. Betsy Markey was an aberration, the floor will fall out from underneath her now that she lacks both an unpopular Republican opponent and sharing the ballot with Obama. John Salazar has had a decent amount of Republican crossover votes, but Republicans making up that large a portion of the electorate when adjusted and combined with anti-incumbent sentiments among independents could doom him.

* Voter registration numbers were taken from COMaps.org for CD-3, CD-4, and CD-7 and are dated August 2009. Statewide numbers were taken from the Secretary of State’s statistics for active voter registrations as of October 2009.

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers