So it is strange that Streep acts so ungrateful to Child in an interview with the U.K. newspaper the Telegraph. She berates Child for disagreeing with her on boosting organic foods and criticizing fats, proclaiming that Child was “seduced” by a “front orgnanization for agro-business and petrochemical business.”

Streep apparently still has a grudge against Child for refusing to lend her support to Streep’s fringe enviro group Mothers and Others for Pesticide Limits. That group was one of the leading promoters of the discredited scare about the pesticide Alar that was spread on apples.

In a low point for Congressional hearings on science, Streep, despite her lack of any scientific credentials, was invited to testify in 1989 before a Senate Labor and Human Resources subcommittee. She proclaimed: ”We don’t know what’s on our food . . . I no longer want my children to be part of this experiment.”

As Neil Hrab, CEI’s 2003-04 Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow, recounted in the American Spectator: “Within weeks of Streep testifying before Congress, Uniroyal, the company that manufactured Alar, began the triage to save its reputation, withdrawing the chemical from the U.S. market. In November of 1989, the EPA ordered a ban on the sale, distribution and use.”

But major scientific bodies would conclude that the Alar scare had been nothing but a bunch of hype. The American Medical Association stated in 1992: “The Alar scare of three years ago shows what can happen when science is taken out of context or the risks of a product are blown out of proportion. When used in the approved, regulated fashion, as it was, Alar does not pose a risk to the public’s health.” Others who condemned the scare included the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Yet in the Telegraph interview, Streep seems oblivious to these facts and to her role in hyping a costly and unnecessary scare. Instead, she bashes Child for daring to question the organic orthodoxy and what many call the “Food Police.”

Streep recalls Child’s turning down a request to help Mothers and Others in its campaign to get supermarkets to carry organic agriculture. “She was very resistant and brushed us off quite brusquely,” Streep says. Also bashing Child’s love of rich fatty foods, Streep rips Child for not making “a connection between the high fat diet of a heavily laden cordon bleu-influenced cusine and cholesterol levels. (I admit I have no idea what “cordon-bleu influenced cuisine” means, but I imagine neither does Streep, who admitted in the same interview that she knew virtually nothing about cooking before she played Child.)

Streep also bashes Child for her involvement with a public health group that also had a long working relationship with CEI in promoting sound science: the American Council on Science and Health.  “I remember being so disappointed that she was in the thrall [of the ACSH],” Streep said. Calling the group a “front organization” for agribusiness and chemical companies, Streep stated, “They seduced Julia into giving them money, so she was on the other side for a while.”

But the only one sucessfully seduced is Streep– into faddish irational fears about conventioanlly grown and fatty foods. Longtime ACSH President Elizabeth Whelan, who knew Child for about 20 years, writes that Child “had two major pet peeves:

•She despised people who demonized specific foods, like butter and sugar.

•She despised activists who terrified people about the safety of their food. ”

Whelan adds: “For Julia, there were no “good foods” or “bad foods” — again, just a variety of foods, all in moderation — including an occasional cordon bleu. Julia, unlike her fictional counterpart, exhibited a constant stream of common sense.”

As for Streep’s charge of ACSH being a “front group” for corporate interests – and similar charges are levied against CEI — Whelan answers that the claim is “absurd — given the organization is funded by a full spectrum of foundations, individuals, and unrestricted grants from corporations.” CEI has a similarly broad-based funding structure.

The cherry on the cake of Streep’s nonsensical rant to the Telegraph is Streep’s claim that “Eventually I think she came around” to Streep’s point of view. But interviews from the last few years before she died show that Child never did “come around” to Streep’s anti-fatty food and anti-food technology extremism.

When asked by Business Week in 2000 what she thought of the low-fat movement, Child replied, “I don’t go for that at all.” She then reiterated the motto of the American Institute of Wine and Food, which she co-founded with winemakers Robert Mondavi and Richard Graff to advance enjoyment of food: “Small helpings No seconds. No snacking. A little bit of everything and have a good time.”

Child also fully endorsed what another bete noir of many enviros — food biotechnology or genetic engineering. In 1999, Child told the Toronto Star: “I think it’s all fascinating. There’s no one-minute answer. The technology’s here. If they can give us a better tomato, I’m for it.”

Perhaps the best epitaph for Julia Child came from Thomas Lifson, editor of American Thinker, upon her death at age 91 in 2004. Lifson wrote in American Thinker:  ”Julia Child, who played a major role in changing the way Americans think about, prepare and eat food, has died at the ripe old age of 91, after a lifetime of urging Americans to go ahead and use butter in their sauces and fry lardons to render some pork fat in which to fry the beginnings of a stew. Take that, health Nazis!”

Past winner have included Bloomberg columnist Amity Shlaes, ABC News co-anchor John Stossel, syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock and Atlantic Monthly editor Clive Crook. Visit the IPN website to read the rules and access the entry form.

Jim’s main focus at English First was stopping bilingualism in public policy. The group didn’t take positions on immigration issues, instead focusing on the dangers of a balkanized society that multilingual policies would lead to. His efforts were praised by well known proponents of both open immigration and assimilation, such as columnist Linda Chavez and National Review’s John J. Miller, and the English First web site is emblazoned with the torch of the Statue of Liberty. “Our symbol is the Statue of Liberty torch capturing the spirit of immigrants who learned English and became full members of American society.”

Jim supported initiatives making English the official language of government, but not private businesses or associations, which is a stance that libertarians can go either way on. But Jim also dug through stautes and regulations to warn about bilingual mandates on the private sector, an effort where free-market groups, including CEI, joined him.

For instance, Jim and I exposed a bill from from then-Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Sarbanes-Oxley fame (or infamy) that would mandate documents in multiple languages that stores offering money transfers would have to create and produce. “The cost of complying with this is going to make Sarbanes-Oxley seem like chicken feed,” he told me for an article I wrote about the bill for Human Events. Perhaps because of this exposure, the Sarbanes bill went nowhere.

Jim would also expose the Equal Employment Oppotunity Commission’s intrusive mandates that increasingly prevent private employers from making English skills a job requirement or requiring an English to be spoken in their workplaces. A notorious example Jim brought to light was when the Bush EEOC actually went after the Salvation Army for firing employees who refused to learn English.

And Jim had the foresight last year to recognize the danger of the FCC’s proposed “localism” rule as a back-door Fairness Doctrine that could be used to silence talk radio. His started the web site with the catchy title KeepRushOnTheAir.com, which feautured a petition against the regulation and links to research on the localism rule, such as an American Spectator article written by me and CEI technology fellow Alex Harris on the issue.

Jim also had the great qualities of being a good listener to the ideas of different groups and of bringing a cheerful disposition to an ideological fight. He will greatly be missed.

I will be live in the New York City studios of liberal network Air America having a friendly discussion about deregulation on The Thom Hartmann Program. Hartmann, author of books such as “”Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class,” usually broadcasts form Oregon, and when I’m guest I have joined him by phone. But today, he’s broadcasting form the home office and I will be joining him live and in person.

Hartmann is tough but friendly, and the last couple times I’ve been on his show, we’ve actually sort of agreed on the issues. The civil libertarian in him and me both strongly objected to the mandatory fingerprint registry in this summer’s housing bill for a broad swath of the mortgage industry. We also both opposed the Wall Street bailout when it was before Congress this fall, though I think his main objection was the “Wall Street” part and mine was the “bailout” aspect.

This time, I am pretty sure it will still be cordial, but there will be strong disagreements expressed as I attempt to defend deregulation’s record. I will be pointing to my recent Reason magazine article that documents that much of the financial deregulation measures opposed by the Left, such as repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial and investment banks, were signed by President Bill Clinton. What’s more, Clinton administration officials have credited this deregulation for fueling the ’90s prosperity that President-Elect Barack Obama has said he wants to go back to.

Here is a list of local radio stations that carry Air America programs. The show is also carried on the Sirius and XM satellite networks. Wish me luck

Peter Eyre first came to the Washington area as an intern for the Cato Institute, and he’s now the “crasher-in-chief” of Bureaucrash, a Libertarian-minded organization that spreads its political leanings by interrupting protests that favor what the group sees as big government action. Bureaucrash, which is now part of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, runs a social networking site that’s designed to bring together Libertarians from all over the world.

Is being based in Washington important for Bureaucrash?

We’ve been involved in getting our message out at protests internationally, but in the past few years we have become more D.C.-centric, and that was part of why we moved into D.C. It’s the seat of government, and there are plenty of opportunities to crash protests that favor a big government here. But we’re committed to the fact that we’re fighting for the rights of anyone, anywhere. People in some countries can feel isolated, and we want those people to know they have rights, too.

What have you done recently?

On [Nov. 6] we had a rally outside the Egyptian cultural center in D.C. for [an Egyptian] blogger who was thrown in jail for speaking out against the government. Egypt receives a lot of funding from the United States, and we wanted to put a spotlight on the possibility of American taxpayers paying for the Egyptian government to jail this man.

How did you get involved?

I started getting involved with Bureaucrash a few years ago, participating in crashes. It’s fun. We show up to rallies, say one in favor of a bill that would expand the scope of government, and we use things like street theater, T-shirts and signs to inject our outlook into the conversation. We take equal stabs at the left and the right and believe when the government is large, it takes away the freedom in our lives.

If it is any consolation, there is at least one world in which he is still the President.

I am arguing in favor of the proposition, “By intervening to regulate business and financial risks, governments have made things worse.” To vote for me and for less regulation, go to the site, http://www.economist.com/debate, register (registration is free), and cast your vote as “PRO.” Voting continues all through today, and will cease tomorrow at an unspecified time.

The voting is neck and neck. I am now winning 52 to 48 percent, after being down earlier this week 47 to 53 percent. Every vote counts for the free-market to squeak out a victory in these challenging times when much of the media is blaming deregulation for all the ongoing financial woes.

Today, after being attacked by three “featured participants” arguing for an ever-expanding regulatory state, I finally get an ally among the guest commenters. Thomas Firey, managing editor of the Cato Institute’s magazine Regulation, writes a masterful refutation of the nostalgia among the commenters for New Deal banking regulations.

“Let us consider just how well US banking regulation ‘worked’ in the post-war period,” Firey writes. “[T]hroughout the post-war period, costs to borrowers were much higher than they are today. Since the banking deregulations of 1980-91, terms for both depositors and borrowers have improved greatly.”

Firey also argues that while stricter lending regulations may have benefitted the lenders and borrowers involved in the 1 million subprime loans now in default, “what of the other 5 million subprime loans that are in good standing, most of which have provided people with homes that they otherwise could not have purchased?”

I make many of the same points in my “Closing Statement” that was posted yesterday. “Indeed, when looked at in terms of distribution, the housing boom’s benefits may have been even more widely dispersed than those of the tech boom,” I argue. “Nearly 70% of US families and close to one-half of American black and Latino families now own the homes in which they live.” I remind readers that the overall foreclosures, while numbering in the millions in correspondence with the dramatic increase in the number of homeowners, is still only 2.04 percent of all mortgage loans.

I argue that while some volatility is the price we pay for a dynamic economy that improves everyone’s standard of living, “volatility can be much reduced through the introduction of what we should call a second stage of deregulation. Let us deregulate private risk management, as we have risk-taking, for ordinary investors as well as hedge-fund fat cats.”

As an example, I propose lifting restrictions that make it difficult for mutual funds to short stocks and other securities. Allowing mutual funds to engage in the same strategies as the smart hedge funds that shorted subprime loans would bring gains to middle-class investors and would have sent a stonger signal to the markets that something was wrong with mortgage securities.

Appreciate any feedback or suggestions from Open Market readers on deregulating risk management. In the meantime, make your freedom-loving voice heard today in the Economist debate!

Mitt Romney chose his CPAC speech on Thursday to announce that he was suspending his campaign. That made McCain’s speech later that afternoon one of rallying conservative support for the GOP frontrunner, rather than persuading conservatives to support him over other primary candidates. There was much media attention on conservative reaction to McCain’s almost-certain clinching of the GOP nomination.

But overlooked in the media was the broad policy focus of the conference. In CPAC sessions and its exhibitors’ booth, the conference featured a broad array of public policy topics of interest to the center-right coalition. There was also a healthy debate on different points of view within the coalition.

Yes, there were some odd topics among the exhibitor. But there were also some overlooked groups from outside the Beltway that had powerful messages. From my hometown of Kansas City, Mo., America’s Majority Foundation made the heartland conservative case for why more immigration benefits America’s economy and culture. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition gave some cops’ perspectives on why the Drug War is a failure, and how drug legalization would reduce crime and let police focus on real criminals.

There were also panels on everything from the failure of gun control in Great Britain to the overcriminalization of white collar crime. All in all, CPAC provided a good chance for conservatives to rejuvenate from the fountain of ideas, whatever happens in 2008.

While I didn’t agree with him on much beside the evil of communism, I did have the pleasure of witnessing one of his last controversial episodes, during his speech at the dedication of the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, D.C. in June 2007, where he caused a small row with Germany when he blasted former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, calling him a “political prostitute, now that he’s taking big checks from Putin,” and quipped that “the sex workers in my district objected so I will no longer use that phrase.” Former French President Jacques Chirac came in for some verbal abuse as well. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq War, it’s always fun to watch politicians tear each other down. RIP.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/2EZ4QMjh2zo" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

What’s overlooked, I believe, in cases like this with customers supposedly “captive” to service providers, is the power of branding. Were there no fare regulation, a customer wouldn’t necessarily be at the mercy of every unknown cab driver.

Rather, companies would spring up with visible slogans they would emblazon on their cab. Consumers would know — from sources ranging from the Internet to word of mouth — approximately what fares a particular cab company or franchisee would charge when they saw them driving by on the street. It’s the same concept that fast-food restaurants and motel chains rely on for drivers on car trips who don’t have time to search around a particular town for a place to eat and sleep.

And in this case, I don’t need to point to theory, because this is exactly what happened in the early days of taxis, with the familiar “Yellow Cab” franchise. In 1907, entrepreneur John D. Hertz, who would later found the rental car company, took his excess vehicles from his Chicago car dealership and painted them the visible color of yellow. According to this article on the web site of the University of St. Francis, “Since the other taxicabs were too expensive for the average person, John made his taxicabs accessible for everyone by lowering the rates. He also told the public that his taxicabs could be wherever they wanted them within ten minutes.” By the ’20s, Yellow Cab had gone national.

So the market already had this problem worked out when cars were barely on the road. To make the taxi business again a stepping stone for the John Hertz-like entrepreneurs of today, we just need to go “back to the future.”

Suffice it to say, the Smithsonian Institution is not buying into the “global warming” hysteria being spread by Al Gore.

While in the District in recent days, professor Jeff Bennett of the Crawford School of Economics and Government at Australian National University toured the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, where he snapped photographs, since forwarded to Inside the Beltway, of two displays that caught his eye — both dealing with climate change and “the Future.”

“Initiation of glacial conditions may be triggered by surprisingly rapid climate changes,” reads one display. “Therefore, the minor global-cooling trend of recent decades … is being carefully watched and studied.”

Global-cooling trend?

Explains the next display: “the period 1890-1945 A.D. was abnormally warm, and there have been signs of cooling in the last few decades.”

Perhaps we should organize a field trip to celebrate this unexpected evenhandedness. While we’re on the Mall, we can even pick up a copy of The Dangerous Book for Boys and score a double victory against the PC enforcers.

How can I prove that Google caused this addiction? Here I am playing Rock Band with Jillian Bandes of Roll Call in Google’s game room.

Jill’s fake drum performance far exceeded my abilities at the fake guitar. Soon after this photo was taken a tech from Google’s New York offices schooled us on how to rock Rock Band and scored a 97% on a much more difficult setting. Thanks to Adam Kovacevich at Google for featuring my silly performance on Google’s policy blog.

On a more serious note, I’m looking forward to working with Google on some of the policy issues that we’ll likely confront in the coming year. CEI is of like minds with the monolith of Mountain View on issues like privacy and competition policy. But we also disagree on policies like network neutrality and the best way to liberalize spectrum in the U.S.

Google is a great company that has created an enormous amount of wealth. I hope that their DC offices focus on creating a freer market for them to operate within and that they move away from the standard Washington favor-seeking.

Whatever one thinks of his policies, there’s no doubt that he was a great player at the game of politics. A fair amount of his success, however, may have to do with his amazing facility (best I’ve ever witnessed) for remembering names. I met him twice while working as a reporter and then did see him in person again for over six years. When I went to work for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist he greeted me by name on my third day at the office, remembered that I had been a reporter, and asked me what I had been up to. Since Frist happened to be on vacation when I started work in the Senate, in fact, I talked with Lott before I spoke with my own boss.
A month ago, while I was meeting with some folks up on the Hill, I passed him in the hallway. (Having not seen him in at least a year.) And, again, he greeted me by name.