Archives for July, 2007
Don’t Believe the Ethanol Hype
Welcome to OpenMarket.org! Please consider Subscribing to our RSS feed, so you don’t miss any of the news and analysis brought to you by CEI’s policy experts.
We happy few here at Open Market have really been in tune with the rock journalists of America recently. First Kurt Loder trashes Michael Moore’s Sicko, and now Rolling Stone blows the whistle on the ethanol scam:
As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, “Everything about ethanol is good, good, good.”
This is not just hype — it’s dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn’t burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption — yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.
So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America’s energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 — twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies, including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon — about half of ethanol’s wholesale market price.
More news and analysis on the topic is available at the Facts About Ethanol site.
Just when you thought the Farm Bill couldn’t get any worse…
Over the last several days, my colleagues at CEI have pointed out some of the worst aspects of the Farm Bill — and it’s bad. But now The Wall Street Journal shines a spotlight on a little-noticed aspect of the bill that would make it even worse:
The overstuffed farm bill now waddling through Congress — toward a possible veto by President Bush — has attracted so much waste that everyone with a genuine interest in agriculture is feeling disheartened. Yet the bill has earned unlikely support from the labor union lobby.
Hmmm. Could this be at all related to a new and unprecedented Davis-Bacon requirement for ethanol construction? Davis-Bacon is the Depression era holdover that forces federal construction contracts to pay a “prevailing union wage” — determined by the Department of Labor — rather than a market wage. This anachronism was attached to the bill last week by House Democrats; a staffer tells us he’s never before seen Davis-Bacon in a farm bill.
This, of course, would make the price hikes for food and fuel that an increased ethanol mandate would engender even worse — as a sop to the Democrats’ organized labor base, this is pandering of the most vulgar sort. The President already has plenty of other reasons to veto the monstruous Farm Bill, but this fight should not end here: Davis-Bacon deserves to be repealed.
This is the first time that Davis-Bacon has been in the public spotlight since the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when President Bush suspended Davis-Bacon in areas affected by the storm to help facilitate rebuilding in those areas — only to reverse his order in the face of political pressure.
As I noted at the time, Davis-Bacon was supported by all-white labor unions during the 1930s, in order to disadvantage African-American workers in federal construction projects (Any praise for Bush for suspending Davis-Bacon then is moot now, since he reinstated it soon after without even attempting to defend the suspension):
The Not-Just-Private-Equity Tax hits shareholders of REITs
Posted by John BerlauAn Associated Press story today on proposed “carried interest” tax hike legislation aimed at soaking private equity had this interesting description of what the proposals would do:
Congress is debating whether to force companies set up as limited partnerships — and their managers — to pay taxes at the same rate as income earned by ordinary Americans.
But reading the fine print of the press release of main sponsor Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) shows that the House bill would also hike the taxes of plenty of “ordinary Americans” as well — specifically, the numerous American shareholders in real estate investment trusts, or REITs.
The question-and-answer section at the end of Levin’s release asks, “Would this affect REITs,” and answers, albeit in a convoluted way, in the affirmative:
To the extent that a Real Estate Investment Trust is receiving income in the form of a carried interest in another real estate partnership, this would affect the character of income received for purposes of determining the character of income distributed to shareholders. [Emphasis added]
You may not have understood all of this, but you can probably infer that Levin’s short answer is: Yes, REIT shareholders will get their taxes hiked, too.
Let me try to explain this. In a partnership — private equity or any kind — the partners are taxed on a business’ earnings at individual tax rates instead of the business itself being taxed at corporate rates. In a limited partnership, the general partner gets an ownership stake in exchange for managing the firm and assuming all the legal liabilities for the other partners. He or she will be taxed at the rates of ordinary income for management fees, and for much of the business’ activities. But the general partner will pay the individual capital gains rate when the other partners receive capital gains for sales of such things as stock and real estate. This is called the carried interest.
More Reasons for DDT Use
Posted by Angela LogomasiniA recent upsurge in Dengue offers a depressing reminder that malaria is not the only serious mosquito-borne disease affecting the world. Dengue—a virus transmitted by mosquito bites—can lead to fever, severe joint pain, internal hemorrhaging, and death for some.
This year, many Asian nations—particularly Cambodia, Indonesia, and
Vietnam—are suffering from a serious outbreak. Regarding this year’s occurrence Kroeger Axel of the Dengue research coordinator for the World Health Organization notes: “We always think next year it will get better, but we always find next year it gets worse … There’s a very clear upward trend.”The spread of Dengue could eventually affect the United States, as it did in 2001 when there was an outbreak in Hawaii. U.S. public-health officials quickly controlled that outbreak with the assistance of pesticides. Unfortunately, many nations do not have access to the products we use, which are expensive. They stand to lose the most from green activist campaigns against products like DDT, which otherwise could offer a safe, affordable, and effective tool in this battle.
Bergman the Hack
Posted by Eli LehrerFran,
Obviously, I’m sorry to see that Ingmar Bergman has died. But, beyond some half-praise for his visuals, I can’t think of much good to say about his movies. Bergman and, more importantly, the critics who adored him, did more than any other director to harm the reputation of foreign-made films here in the United States.
Heavily subsidized by the Swedish state for many of his films, most of what he did was boring, slow moving, and utterly unaware of the nature of the medium. Parts of the Seventh Seal would have worked very well on stage but become preposterous, slow, pretentious on film. Even in his last film, the much acclaimed Fanny and Alexander, he goes way over the top more than once.
He rarely got good performances out of his casts either. Only one actor who frequently worked with Bergman (Max von Syndow) had a substantial Hollywood career. What remains in most of his movies hearkens back to his original career as a puppeteer: over-the-top stage acting, nice visuals, and not much in the way of writing. It’s not very surprising that he spent the last 25 years of his life directing only on stage. His style was ill-suited to the camera. I tend to think that many in Hollywood liked him because his films so evoke high-brow legitimate theater that many big time actors idealize.
The acclaim that critics and the Hollywood elite showered on Bergman resulted in many people going to see his films and then, I think, deciding that foreign films in general just weren’t the bother. Insofar as he influenced much better filmakers–Krzysztof Kieslowski, Woody Allen, and Robert Altman to name three–I guess the world is poorer without Bergman around. And, while I haven’t seen any of his plays, I’m willing to believe that he was a great stage director. But as for his films, well, I strongly suspect they’ll be forgotten within my lifetime.
Chris Horner on Book TV
Posted by Richard MorrisonChris recently gave a presentation on his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) before an eager audience here in Washington. The smart producers at C-SPAN sent a camera along and here is the result (total playing time 32:55).
At Last, Competition for Amtrak?
Posted by Eli LehrerA small upstart company run by a Colorado multi-millionaire, GrandLuxe Rail Journeys, appears to have broken a major barrier and started providing scheduled, competitive rail service in the United States. While the company also provides “land cruises,” (that emphasize sightseeing by train) it also has a few services that would be useful for people looking to go from point a to point b. Although I have no idea if it has a viable business model, its existence seems to show that the death of government-run Amtrak won’t mean an end for long-distance rail service in the U.S.
A handful of tourist-oriented heritage railroads and at least one other “land cruise” company still operate in the U.S. but, for about 35 years, only Amtrak has provided scheduled point-to-point inter-city service over significant distances. Amtrak also operates most of the commuter railroads in the country under contract and will even provide the locomotives for GrandLuxe.
This new company seems to be providing a high-end product at an appealing price: a little checking around shows that its Washington, D.C.-Miami fares are lower than the best business-class fares I could find. It’s a niche market with limited client base to be sure but, of course, so are Amtrak’s own inter-city trains.
Maybe the market doesn’t exist for this kind of travel. It’s a lot slower than flying however one chooses to look at it. But at least one entrepreneur appears willing to see if there’s a market niche where Amtrak has failed.
Lott Vindicated?
Posted by Iain MurraySome readers may remember the long-running defamation suit between John “Freedomnomics” Lott and Steven “Freakonomics” Levitt. Defamation suits are rarely settled in the plaintiff’s favor, so this (subsrciption required) may be regarded as more than a small victory for Lott:
John R. Lott Jr.’s defamation lawsuit against a fellow economist, Steven D. Levitt, has provisionally been settled — but it may yet roar back to life. In documents filed on Friday in federal court, the two parties outlined a settlement that requires Mr. Levitt, who is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago and a co-author of the best-selling book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explains the Hidden Side of Everything, to send a letter of clarification to John B. McCall, a retired economist in Texas. …
By some measures, Mr. Lott appears to have won little from his 15 months of litigation. No money will change hands, and the settlement does not require a formal apology from Mr. Levitt.
But on certain points of reputation and pride, Mr. Lott might take some satisfaction. Mr. Levitt’s letter of clarification, which was included in Friday’s filing, offers a doozy of a concession. In his 2005 message, Mr. Levitt told Mr. McCall that “it was not a peer-refereed edition of the Journal.” But in his letter of clarification, Mr. Levitt writes: “I acknowledge that the articles that were published in the conference issue were reviewed by referees engaged by the editors of the JLE. In fact, I was one of the peer referees.”
The settlement also leaves open the possibility of Lott appealing against the dismissal of the second part of his suit, that Levitt defamed him in Freakonomics itself.
Reformist Attorneys General Target Abuses
Posted by Hans BaderIn recent years, some state attorneys general have used their offices to sponsor lawsuits that redistribute billions of dollars from businesses into the pockets of their trial lawyer cronies. CEI describes this in greater detail in The Nation’s Top Ten Worst State Attorneys General.
Now this problem has been criticized by reform-minded attorneys general as well. This subject (and CEI’s study of the worst state attorneys general) came up for repeated discussion in today’s Federalist Society forum, “Reaching Too Far: The Role of State Attorneys General,” which featured attorneys general Bob McDonnell of Virginia, John Suthers of Colorado, and J.B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin, as well as former attorney general Don Stenberg of Nebraska.
Suthers described how trial lawyers and lobbyists descend like vultures at attorney general conferences in the aftermath of the multibillion dollar tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, in which trial lawyers extracted billions of dollars from the tobacco industry through assistance from some state attorneys general.
Stenberg discussed how contingency-fee arrangements between state attorneys general and trial lawyers to bring lawsuits in the name of the state in exchange for a share of the money recovered breed conflicts of interest and prevent settlements in the public interest. He cited examples of trial lawyers who received millions of dollars under the tobacco settlement but then demanded and sued the states that hired them for even more money (as happened in Massachusetts).
J.B. Van Hollen described his efforts to revitalize law enforcement in Wisconsin, and undo the damage done by his predecessor Peg Lautenschlager, who was ranked number 9 on CEI’s list of the worst state attorneys general. Lautenschlager allowed big backlogs to develop in the state’s crime lab, resulting in violent criminals remaining free to commit more crimes and murders, even while she devoted her office’s scarce resources to ideological causes and nuisance lawsuits against businesses like cranberry growers.
McDonnell discussed how outmoded court rules can turn a meritless lawsuit into a dangerous weapon, such as state rules restricting summary judgment that make it much harder to dismiss lawsuits that have no genuine factual basis in state court than federal court.
Since the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement came up repeatedly in the discussion, it’s worth mentioning that the tobacco settlement imposes disproportionate burdens on certain states, like Colorado and Virginia. As Stanford’s Jeremy Bulow and others have observed, the tobacco settlement effectively redistributes money from states that have growing rapidly growing populations (like Colorado), or growing populations and high cigarette sales (like Virginia) to states with stagnant populations (like New York State, which has 7 percent of the country’s population but receives an eighth of the tobacco settlement). That’s because the MSA is financed by a flat assessment on every cigarette sold in the country by most cigarette companies, while the money is divided up between states based on an arbitrary, fixed formula that remains the same in perpetuity, regardless of how a state’s population (and share of national cigarette sales) changes over time.
State attorneys general in town today to criticize activist colleagues
Posted by Christine HallThe Federalist Society helpfully hosted a panel discussion today on the on-going abuse of power by state attorneys general - otherwise known as attorney general activism. You know, the same group elected officials who brought the tobacco settlement down on us. The $240 billion partnership between the states and Big Tobacco (which CEI is challenging in court).
Not that it’s the only bogus lawsuit brought on by state AGs and their trial lawyer buddies. Apparently cranberries can be an AG target. Wisconsin’s current AG, J.B. Van Hollen, relayed the tale of how his predecessor suited a cranberry grower, alleging that the cranberry bogs were a “public nuissance” under Common Law. The ousted AG in question, Peg Lautenschlager, was on CEI’s list of worst attorneys general (not surprisingly).
Other AG lawsuits are equally as bogus but far less amusing. Internet service providers, social networking websites (like MySpace and Facebook), car manufacturers, electric utilities — all targets of meritless AG lawsuits. Former California AG (now state treasurer) Bill Lockyer led a lawsuit alleging that cars are a public nuisance, inflicted by manufacturers. Ironic, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers noted on today’s panel, that the state had spent so many years building highways…for cars.
The list is long, but you can peruse many of the scurrilous stories in Hans Bader’s report, The Nation’s Top Ten Worst State Attorneys General.
Not of (last year’s) baddies were on hand today, unfortunately. Today, in addition to the AGs from Colorado and Wisconsin, we had the Virginia AG Bob McDonnell, the former Nebraska AG Donald Sterngerg, and the Federalist Society’s pro bono director, Peggy Little. One AG even waived the report in the air and said he’s relieved not to see his name on the baddie list! Well, General McDonnell, there’s always the next report to worry about!
See also - Hans Bader’s blog post about the event!
Opera funding — public or private?
Posted by Fran Smith
(Maria Callas in I Puritani)
Over at CafeHayek, Russell Roberts has a post on how opera companies and audiences are burgeoning in the U.S. He quoted from an article in The American about this phenomenon and asked the question – how reliant are opera companies on government funding?
It turns out that government funding represents about 5 or 6 percent of total U.S. opera companies’ funding, according to The American. For the arts in general, that amount is about 12 percent. The rest is from private sources – individuals, foundations, and corporations.
The National Endowment for the Arts breaks down those private funding sources:
Americans donated approximately $13.5 billion to the category “Arts, Culture, and the Humanities” in 2005, the most recent year for which such data are available. In per capita terms, the total amounts to about $45 for each individual in the United States. Individual donors account for about three-quarters of the total, with foundations and corporations providing the balance.
Kevin Smith, the head of Minnesota Opera, seems to think that private funding makes more sense, as he said to The American:
Despite the attraction of government money, Smith believes that there is something “healthy about needing to prove yourself to the community on a daily basis.” He says, “Tough as it is, the American system is good in a lot of ways. In France, they have seven or eight companies that get all the money. If you’re not year-round and fully professional, you don’t get any support. Here, it’s a grassroots system, and you have to demonstrate your value.”
There are other problems with government funding too – political ones. The big grants are likely to go to those with political connections or political savvy. Here’s an article that, while supporting government funding of the arts, points out how political decisions are made about what to fund in the Big Apple.
While the increased popularity of opera in the U.S. can be attributed to a lot of factors, it is encouraging that the growth seems to be mainly supported by private means. That way individual taste helps shape what you’ll see or hear — through buying tickets, subscribing, or donating small or large sums. And it means that opera companies, like other entities, have to prove themselves in the market.
Bergman and Antonioni — a personal appreciation
Posted by Fran Smith
Two great filmmakers died in succession this week. On Monday, Ingmar Bergman died at the age of 89; yesterday Michelangelo Antonioni at 94. The end of an epoch in innovative film-making that began in the 1950s and is imitated even today.
Both Bergman and Antonioni were favorites of my small clique of foreign-film buffs at the girls’ school I attended. In high school – still in our uniforms – we’d go to the downtown “art theatre” that showed Bergman’s early films. In that far distant time, “art theatres” mostly showed porno movies, so we were a bit nonplused by the other audience members – mostly older men slumped in their seats.
My friends and I at school discussed the symbols and deep meaning of The Seventh Seal (1956), Wild Strawberries (1957), The Virgin Spring (1960). Indeed, we were a bit pretentious. But the images from those films have lasted a lifetime.
Antonioni’s L’Avventura (1960) and Blowup (1966) were later favorites. But I just saw Blowup on DVD a few months ago and was disappointed. The photography concept continued to be original and intriguing, but the depiction of the promiscuity seemed overdone and dated. Back then, it was shocking.
I’ll be revisiting Bergman’s films on DVD soon to explore his images again. I don’t expect to be disappointed. His vision was too strong.
They Say They Are A Revolution
Posted by Iain MurrayFriends of the Earth is trying to organize a YouTube “revolution” on global warming, starting with unhappy pop stars. Climate Resistance isn’t impressed:
We at Climate-Resistance have no time for celebrities lecturing us about climate change. None of the celebrities speaking on behalf of the campaign appear to have a clue what it is even about. It is the most shameful indictment of Friends of the Earth that they have to recruit pop-stars to endorse their project because it lacks the content to generate its own momentum. The constituency of this campaign are not politically-engaged individuals, but inebriated festival goers and adoring fans - the two least critically-minded groups we can think of.
And what kind of demonstration calls for more law - especially law which regulates lifestyle and consumption? Could we imagine the serfs of 18th century France, demanding ‘less cake’? Polite requests for less freedom and lower living standards hardly sound like the stuff of mass movements, yet this is what FOE imagine 200,000 video clips will make them. As previous slogans have told us, ‘la révolution est dans la rue’, and ‘The revolution will not be televised’. By televising itself, away from the streets, The Big Ask reveals a protest movement which is neither: it is vague about what it asks for - rather than clearly demands. It is not an expression of collective will, but a database of whinges from individuals whose efforts to change the world only seem to extend as far as pressing ‘record’ and ’send’… Just as it thinks turning the TV off, rather than leaving it on standby, is a world-changing action.
Indeed. ‘Praise Marx and pass the ammunition’ seems to have been replaced by ‘Praise Gore and pass the videocam.’
Michael Eckhart apologizes to Marlo Lewis — or does he?
Posted by Marlo LewisDear Marlo:
I’ve received quite a lot of correspondence from people around the country about my July 13 email to you, and they have persuaded me how wrong I was.
No matter that I thought I was fighting for Free Speech and against what I saw as Paid Speech, I had no right in our American system of freedoms to threaten your career over it. As a moderate-conservative who believes in the Constitution and all it stands for, and as a moderate-liberal who believes that there are important issues to be addressed in making our society better, I was wrong to attack you. It was against my own principles. I apologize to you personally.
At a professional level, the matter took root two years ago when you said me that you believe that global warming is occurring, that you are personally a bit concerned about it, and that you could actually make a compelling argument either way, but that you were compelled to argue against global warming because you are against big government. I was very unhappy to see this occurring. Let’s put this aside if you are willing.
I ask you now, after these two years have passed and more has been learned, five questions:
1) Based on all of your study, do you personally believe that global warming is occurring (yes, no, or probabilities one way or the other)? 2) Do you believe that human actions are contributing to it, and, if so, how much? 3) Do you advise that action or inaction is the best course of action for society? That is, what is the upside and the risk of error for action versus inaction? 4) If you recommend that society take action, what specific strategies would you support? 5) Are there any strategies that are smart for society to pursue in any case?
I don’t mean to pin you or trick you in any way. I truly would like to know where you stand on this.
I’ve responded to every email, and many have come back expressing a desire to see us work out a solution. I’m agreeable to doing that.
Please post this letter on your blog, as I’d like your followers to know that I’ve apologized to your personally and am seeking a resolution of the issues with you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Eckhart
Dear Mike,
I would be happy to accept a complete and genuine apology. However, I do not think yours measures up.
Your apology continues to cast aspersions on my character, although not blatantly as in your Eckhart Response to CEI. You say you now realize you flouted constitutional norms. However, as background, you say you thought you were defending Free Speech against Paid Speech. This distinction implies that I am a mere mouthpiece of paying clients—an allegation made more directly in your email of Sep. 06 (about which your apology is silent), in which you threatened to shut CEI down unless we recant our views on global warming. By repeating that allegation without retracting it, you put it back in play.
Similarly, your apology does not retract the accusation—also made in Eckhart Response to CEI—that I am a liar and you can prove it because I told you so. Nor does it retract the claim that I am out to destroy environmentalists’ careers and, hence, that you were just responding in kind when you threatened to destroy my career.
That is the naughty schoolboy defense: “You started!” Well, no, I didn’t. I would no more tell you that I seek to destroy environmentalists’ careers than I would tell you I lie. Both allegations are outrageous falsehoods. You have not apologized for making those statements.
And how is it that I supposedly destroy environmentalists’ careers? In Eckhart Response to CEI, you say I do this not by attacking environmentalists as people but by criticizing their “underlying assumptions.” Apparently, you confuse refutation with defamation. Thus, apparently, because I questioned your assumptions in this column, and in our subsequent Debate on Energy and Environment TV, you felt entitled to attack me as a person. A policy advocate who cannot tell the difference between refutation and character assassination, challenging assumptions and defaming persons, is bound to flout the rules of civil discourse in the very way you did.
Your apology says I told you I “could actually make a compelling argument either way, but that you were compelled to argue against global warming because you are against big government.” Of course I can make a persuasive case for the other side; if I couldn’t, I also could not make a persuasive case for my side! To construe this as an admission of intellectual dishonesty is another slur.
I therefore feel no obligation to satisfy your curiosity, if that is what it is. Indeed, you posed similar interrogatories before we debated on E&E TV. In retrospect, your only purpose was to “trick” and “pin.” If you are genuinely curious about CEI’s views on climate and energy, I suggest you read the documents (here and here) that elicited your threats.
Sincerely,
Marlo Lewis
How much will the Farm Bill cost the average family?
Posted by Fran SmithWashingtonWatch today listed the cost of the farm bill (H.R. 2419) just passed by the House last Friday. It seems like the average American family will pay $2590.27 for this bloated program that the Democrats — in pushing it through — claimed had “something for everyone.”
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill will bring total spending of programs administered by USDA to $286 billion for the period 2008-2012. It extends major farm income support programs for major commodities — direct and countercyclical payments, crop loans, and marketing loan programs — gives increased funding for export promotion and for rural development. It also includes significantly increased funding for nutrition, research on organic agriculture and specialty crops, conservation, and for block grants and promotion of specialty crops, horticulture, and organic agriculture.
And, that sweet l’il ole sugar program is made even sweeter by raising the price supports and by subsidizing the use of sugar as a feedstock in the production of ethanol. With the current sugar program costing consumers about $1.8 billion a year, the new and expanded program will further increase consumers’ and taxpayers’ burdens.
Oh, and by the way, to pay for expanding some of these programs — to the tune of over $4 billion — there’s a proposal for a new tax on companies in the United States that are owned by non-U.S. firms. What one group against that tax has called “in-sourcing.” Think what that would do for capital investment in the U.S.
So, now the House has a bill that’s going to hurt consumers, taxpayers, and thousands of companies in the U.S. to provide a “safety net” — mostly for rich farmers. (According to USDA figures, 66 percent of crop subsidy benefits went to 10 percent of the beneficiaries of those programs.)
Don’t expect the Senate, however, to have more sense. With election year coming up, the Senate may go the way of the House to deliver the pork — or the sugar — to farm states, including Big Sugar in Florida.
(Thanks to Wayne Crews for the tip.)
-
About Us
OpenMarket.org is the staff blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. We believe that people improve their lives not through government regulation, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace. -
Search
-
Categories
Agriculture
Bureaucrash
CEI in the City
Culture
Economic Liberty
Energy
Environment
Global Warming
Healthcare Reform
Insurance
Intellectual Property
International
Legal
Mobility
Nanny State
Nano & Biotech
Odds & Ends
Personal Liberty
Politics as Usual
Precaution & Risk
Privacy
Sanctimony
Tech & Telecom
Trade
-
RSS Center
