The FTC to Clamp Down On Bloggers

So it begins: the Federal Trade Commission will now regulate bloggers to the extent that bloggers will soon be required to state whether they are on the payroll of any product they review. I wonder if the same rules will apply to "grassroots" political supporters--e.g., when you start blathering about the evils of Limbaugh or Obama, will you have to admit that you're also working for some political organization? The slope is slippery indeed, depending on how civil courts and regulators decide to interpret this rule.

Potpourri XXXIII

Another wild weather day in Huntsville: severe thunderstorm, flash flood, and tornado warnings. Spent some time in my "designated protective area" and everything. Best calm down by doing a little writing.

Here's a perennial chestnut: "Warp drive is possible!" Okay, fine. Send me the data when you've nailed that down, buddy.

Tip o' the fedora to Twila for this one: Some more useful data from the American Society for Engineering Education.

The Justice Department is unlikely to recommend prosecutions against the lawyers who gave legal advice to the government on interrogations of captured al-Qaeda terrorists. Translation: They did nothing illegal. However, that won't prevent them from suggesting that these same lawyers should have their professional lives and reputations ruined by being sanctioned or disbarred by their state bar associations. This is a chilling message to any lawyer asked to give advice to the feds. Bottom line, if you're asked: "Just say no."

Tip o' the fedora to Martin for this: an FAA report on the economic impact of the space industry.

The Department of Homeland Security is trying to backpedal for defining peaceable conservatives like Your Humble Narrator as dangers to the state.

A refreshing take on foreign aid spending by New Zealand's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The inactive Sun might indicate an oncoming ice age.

The mafia is being investigated for ownership in wind farms in Italy.

The UK is keeping annoying talk radio jock Michael Savage out of their country. Now mind you, I'd have different reasons for keeping away from the guy, but clamping down on him for his legal expressions of free thought is a bad one.

The economy might be showing signs of recovery...before most of the economic stimulus bill has been passed or spent. So now I must ask: was the stimulus really necessary? And the fact remains that even if the economy DOES recover, we will all now be stuck with Obama's increased spending and nationalization of the banks and the auto industry. As Rahm Emanuel has been fond of saying, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

"Promise You'll Visit Me in the Re-Education Camp?"

Hearings are likely to begin on reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine," a law that keeps controversial (i.e. conservative) topics off the radio by requiring radio stations to give equal time for opposing views. This is flatly absurd. Left-leaning attitudes overwhelm the magazine racks, the major television networks, the movies, books, newspapers, and a good chunk of the Internet. Conservatism dominates in one segment of the communications world--radio--and THAT'S the place where liberal politicians want to ensure "fairness." The quotation above was said to me by a fellow conservative. Heck, I might be next to him inside the fence.

What's really amazing is how I have been told that I'm closed-minded for not wanting to watch or read all this liberal stuff, but it's okay to impose a fairness doctrine on Limbaugh. Apparently 95% control of the media is not enough.

*

Another thing's got me in a twist lately: specifically, the notion that business is inherently less moral than government, and that therefore it is government's job to "rein in" the private sector. Those who dislike what the private sector does often cite the "excessive" salaries of this or that individual, or the amount of power businesses have to control lives.

The fundamental difference between "power" in the business sense and power in the governmental sense is that government writes and enforces the laws, with weapons if necessary. Yes, financial concerns can prevent particular ideas from spreading, but only through pressure ("If you run this ad, we'll pull our advertising"), not life-endangering threats ("Run this ad, and we'll close down your business, arrest you, seize your assets, and put you in jail"). I'm not saying either side is more moral. What I am saying is that human beings operate both types of agencies--public and private--and thus are equally susceptible to corruption or power-seeking. The difference is in methodology: businesses cannot force you to buy their products, and if they did, government would often come in and break up their monopoly.

And if I were to seek assistance in fixing the current economic crisis, I'd ask business leaders, not government leaders because business leaders understand the give and take of the marketplace. Government is used to being obeyed. In the Western system of law, only governments have a legal monopoly on the use of force. If you would rather work with people on a voluntary basis, you work with business. If you want people ordered about, you go through the government.

One reason conservatives favor limited government is that they prefer voluntary exchanges. You cannot engage in a purely voluntary partnership with the government when they control the laws. The advantages are all on the government's side. Businesses can offer incentives to elected officials (voting, lobbying, campaign contributions), but they cannot FORCE the government to do anything. Power relationships matter, and the less power government has, the better. My $.02 this fine Sunday morning.