Coalitions & Outreach

Activist Jim Boulet RIP

by John Berlau on February 1, 2009 · 1 comment

in Coalitions & Outreach, Odds & Ends

The freedom movement lost a valuable ally way too soon a couple weeks ago. James J. Boulet, Jr., executive director of English First and creator of watchdog web sites such as EEOCWatch.com and KeepRushOnTheAir.com, died of cancer on Jan. 16 at the age of 50.

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.

Berlau on Air America today — debating deregulation on Thom Hartmann

by John Berlau on December 4, 2008 · 6 comments

in Bailout Watch, Coalitions & Outreach, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty

Today at noon Eastern time, I will enter the lion’s den.

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.

[click to continue…]

Bureaucrash’s Pete Eyre in the DC Examiner

by Ivan Osorio on November 14, 2008 · 2 comments

in Coalitions & Outreach, Culture

Today’s DC Examiner features a (very) brief interview with Bureaucrash Crasher-in-Chief Pete Eyre, in which he explains how the new Bureaucrash Social network helps libertarian activists around the world get, and stay, in touch, and share ideas.

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.

Meet the real boss…

by Ivan Osorio on November 12, 2008

in Coalitions & Outreach, Culture

Seen on the street today:

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

Last Day to Vote For Freedom in Economist.com Debate

by John Berlau on March 27, 2008

in Coalitions & Outreach, Economy, Nanny State, Odds & Ends, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk

Today is the last day to vote for the free market and against overregulation in a debate I am participating at the web site of the magazine The Economist. If Open Market readers aren’t enthused about any of the candidates in this year’s presidential election, here is a venue where their vote could make a difference and the principles of freedom are definitely at stake. If CEI and I and the free-market side win this debate, it could have a positive influence on the larger debate over regulation of financial markets.

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!

Celebrate the Repeal of Prohibition, YouTube Style

by Richard Morrison on November 30, 2007 · 1 comment

in Coalitions & Outreach, Culture, Nanny State

Raise a glass to 21st Amendment!

Chris Horner on Book TV

by Richard Morrison on July 31, 2007

in Coalitions & Outreach, Global Warming

Chris 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).

Just Say No…to The Yes Men

by Richard Morrison on July 13, 2007

in Bureaucrash, Coalitions & Outreach

This week DC played host to the anti-corporate shenanigans of The Yes Men, self-proclaimed “culture jammers” who get off on impersonating corporate and government spokespeople and proceeding to make ridiculous and/or horrifying public statements. The general idea behind culture jamming is to use a mainstream medium to communicate a subversive message. A more specific (and jargon-filled) definition comes to us courtesy of our good friend Wikipedia:

Culture jamming is the act of transforming mass media to produce commentary about itself, using the original medium’s communication method. It is a form of public activism which is generally in opposition to commercialism, and the vectors of
corporate image. The aim of culture jamming is to create a contrast between corporate or mass media images and the realities or perceived negative side of the corporation or media. This is done symbolically, with the “detournement” of pop iconography.

That’s quite a mouthful. In any event, The Yes Men employ culture jamming techniques to spread their message. Unfortunately, their message seems to consist mostly of anti-capitalist, anti-trade, anti-corporate ideology. Which brings us to the events of this week.

They had contacted CEI and several other free market think tanks, claiming to be documentary filmmakers retained by the ad agency Hill & Knowlton to make an updated version of Milton Friedman’s landmark series “Free to Choose.” Supposedly, a wealthy private donor had commissioned the new series, and hired H&K to produce it. Several of the groups, taking them at their word, leapt at the chance to talk about how economic freedom leads to an open, prosperous society, and scheduled interviews. By Monday evening, however, troubling details began to emerge.

After some advanced level Google work, we discovered that their cover story was not checking out. The people who we thought were creating a tribute to our hero Dr. Friedman were, in fact, almost certainly setting out to do the opposite. Thus informed, we hit the phones on Tuesday and advised other groups in town of The Yes Men’s lying ways. In addition, we discovered that our friends at the Cato Institute had interviews with their own analysts scheduled for the very next morning. Thus, when Wednesday morning rolled around and the Yes Men crew showed up at Cato HQ on Massachusetts Avenue, everyone was prepared.

First, Cato’s media department informed the crew that they would not be taping any interviews after all. Then, as they were being escorted out of the building, a pro-freedom activist crew led by Bureaucrash Crasher-in-Chief Jason Talley treated them to a little street theater from the other side of the ideological spectrum.

In a way, what Bureaucrash does is not that different from what The Yes Men specialize in. Many past crashes have featured the same kind of re-purposed media and culture jamming techniques the other guys have used, except, of course, in the pursuit of freedom instead of an expansion of government power. During the “Progressives Against Progress” crash in 2004, for example, crashers infiltrated the Green Party national conference in Madison, Wisconsin and got many a Green to sign on to their outrageous satirical petitions.

Over the years, The Yes Men have proven their skill at fooling everyone from conference organizers and government officials to network television producers. One group they couldn’t fool, however, was CEI’s feisty younger brother, Bureaucrash. See the video confrontation below; more details on the crash available here.

George H.W. Bush Only Feared One Opponent Enough to Put Him in Jail

by Richard Morrison on June 29, 2007

in Coalitions & Outreach

LaRouche poster

Dave Weigel has a great post today on the Wacky World of Lyndon LaRouche over at Hit & Run. We often see the acolytes of LLR here in DC near Open Market World Headquarters on the corner of Connecticut and K Streets. They pass out pamphlets, they chant, they sing, but most of all they annoy with a vengeance. As Dave points out, though, this is the first presidential election cycle since
1976 that has not seen LaRouche running for the Democratic nomination. He’s getting on in years, so his college-aged cultists will have to pick up the torch.

Also, here’s a little celebrity prison trivia from an old version of his Wikipedia entry archived on answers.com:

LaRouche did not stop all political activity while in prison. He ran for president again in 1992, met with international personages, and gave interviews. During part of his imprisonment he shared a cell with televangelist Jim Bakker at the Federal Medical Center located in Rochester, Minnesota. Bakker later wrote of his astonishment at LaRouche’s detailed knowledge of the Bible. According to Bakker, LaRouche received a daily briefing each morning by phone, often in German. Bakker reports that on more than one occasion LaRouche had information days before it was reported on the network news. Bakker also writes that his cellmate was paranoid and convinced that their cell was bugged. LaRouche was released on parole in 1994.

The Victims of Communism Now Have a Memorial – It’s About Time

by Ivan Osorio on June 12, 2007 · 1 comment

in Coalitions & Outreach, Economy, Personal Liberty

Picking up on Richard’s note on the new Victims of Communism Memorial here in D.C. — My face is red from enduring the June sun for nearly three hours (security requires people to arrive early), but it was well worth it. My own family, after all, fled a then-newly installed Marxist regime in Nicaragua in the late 1970s. Naturally, I was pleased to hear President Bush list the Sandinistas among the thuggish regimes for whose victims the monument is meant.

The sacrifices of these individuals haunt history — and behind them are millions more who were killed in anonymity by Communism’s brutal hand. They include innocent Ukrainians starved to death in Stalin’s Great Famine; or Russians killed in Stalin’s purges; Lithuanians and Latvians and Estonians loaded onto cattle cars and deported to Arctic death camps of Soviet Communism. They include Chinese killed in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution; Cambodians slain in Pol Pot’s Killing Fields; East Germans shot attempting to scale the Berlin Wall in order to make it to freedom; Poles massacred in the Katyn Forest; and Ethiopians slaughtered in the “Red Terror”; Miskito Indians murdered by Nicaragua’s Sandinista dictatorship; and Cuban balseros who drowned escaping tyranny. We’ll never know the names of all who perished, but at this sacred place, Communism’s unknown victims will be consecrated to history and remembered forever.

The most….provocative moment, however, came from Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), a survivor of both the Nazi Holocaust and Hungary’s Communist regime. Speaking of the new security challenges facing America, he lauded the end of what he termed the Chirac-Schroeder era in continental Europe, and proclaimed that, “We will rebuild the Atlantic alliance,”and strengthen the West’s resolve against Islamist terror. But what a memory Rep. Lantos has got! Jacques Chirac stepped down as French President only recently, but Lantos reserved special vitriol for the much-longer departed German Chancellor Schroeder, whom he called a political “prostitute” for “taking checks from Putin” to lobby for Russian energy interests.

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →