|
|
Enron Mail |
THE LIGHTHOUSE
"Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy..." Vol. 3, Issue 44 November 5, 2001 Welcome to The Lighthouse, the e-mail newsletter of The Independent Institute, the non-politicized, public policy research organization <http://www.independent.org<;. We provide you with updates of the Institute's current research publications, events and media programs. Do you know someone who would enjoy THE LIGHTHOUSE? Please forward this message to a friend. If they like it, they can add themselves to the list at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/Lighthouse.html. ------------------------------------------------------------- IN THIS WEEK'S ISSUE: 1. In Defense of Free Speech 2. Antitrust Settlement Bodes Well for Consumers 3. How the FDA Helped Retard Child Development ------------------------------------------------------------- IN DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH The intimidation campaign against New York radio talk-show personality "Grandpa" Al Lewis's website ISP is by no means unique. Recent efforts to suppress the voices of ideological opponents are widespread and not limited to one particular ideology or viewpoint. While "Grandpa Munster" drew ire for his outspoken views in opposition to the U.S. government responses to the Sept. 11th atrocities, some on American college campuses have been reprimanded for voicing support for the U.S. military response -- or even for simply displaying American flags, according to Paul Craig Roberts, research fellow at The Independent Institute. "It is permissible to burn the American flag on university campuses. But don't try waving one," writes Roberts in his syndicated column. College administrators on some campuses have ordered the removal of American flags from student dorm rooms and school buses, and banned the staff of a university TV station from wearing red, white and blue ribbons. Some professors have also been demoted or had their websites shutdown. At San Diego State University one Arabic-speaking Ethiopian student was put on warning when he chastised three Arab students he heard "expressing their delight in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," writes Roberts. American colleges and universities were once famous for permitting all forms of speech to be heard in the "marketplace of ideas." Too often today we see one form of orthodoxy trying to silence another -- all to the detriment of the spirit of free inquiry and open debate. One need not agree with Noam Chomsky's political leanings to recognize genuine patriotism when he said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." See "Losing on the Home Front," by Paul Craig Roberts, at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-1.html. Also see the transcript of John R. MacArthur's Independent Policy Forum address, "Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War: How Government Can Mold Public Opinion," at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-2.html. For more on political correctness in academia, see the Independent Institute book, THE DIVERSITY MYTH: Multicultural Intolerance on Campus, by David Sacks and Peter Thiel, at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-3.html. ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT BODES WELL FOR CONSUMERS Last week's settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department is good news for consumers because it does little to hamper Microsoft, according to economist Dominick Armentano, a research fellow at The Independent Institute, in an op-ed published in Canada's NATIONAL POST. The settlement -- still to be approved by the federal judge assigned to the case and several state attorneys general -- would require Microsoft to adopt certain specific operating practices (namely to stop engaging in exclusive dealing arrangements with computer makers, share its Windows source code with competitors, and allow computer makers more freedom to display non-Microsoft software applications). Microsoft, however, has already nearly abandoned its exclusivity arrangements and moved toward an "open source" arrangment, observes Armentano. "In short, the government got virtually nothing from this legal monstrosity of a lawsuit, which is precisely what it deserves," Armentano writes. "Microsoft, on the other hand, is a clear and decisive winner on the issue that first sparked the lawsuit: the tying of its Web browser to its operating system." Like the antitrust prosecution of IBM in the 1970s and early '80s, the Microsoft antitrust case was without merit, and illustrate the need to fundamentally reform or repeal antitrust policies, according to Armentano. "Antitrust has a long and sorry history of prosecuting aggressively competitive companies that have innovated rapidly and lowered prices to consumers. And most antitrust 'remedies' attempt to restrain (price) competition -- witness the provision in the Microsoft settlement that requires published rates and uniform discounts -- or make it easier for less efficient firms to do more business. "Consumers and businessmen need free, open markets and they need protection from force and fraud. They don't need antitrust regulation and protectionism that hampers innovation and harms society," Armentano concludes. See "Microsoft's Big Win," by Dom Armentano (THE NATIONAL POST, 11/3/01), http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-4.html. Also see "Settlement is 'a reward, not a remedy,'" by John Borland (CNET News.com, 11/3/01) http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-5.html. For a summary of Dominick Armentano's classic, ANTITRUST AND MONOPOLY (The Independent Institute, 1990), see http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-6.html. For a summary of Stan Liebowitz and Steve Margolis's book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, (The Independent Institute, 2001), see http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-7.html. ------------------------------------------------------------- HOW THE FDA HELPED RETARD CHILD DEVELOPMENT When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved two new additives for infant formula, the agency's leaders cheered that the FDA was hard at work to improve children's health. The additives -- DHA and AA, two fatty acids present in breast milk -- play an important role in the development of healthy brains and eyes. Unfortunately, as Alexander Tabarrok, Research Director at The Independent Institute points out, the FDA could have safely approved the additives years ago but didn't. Britain, Japan, Israel, Belgium, the Netherlands and more than 50 other countries have been using DHA- and AA-enhanced infant formula for years, but this did not help speed up the approval of the infant formula additives in the United States. Consequently, millions of babies have been denied the benefits of 4 more I.Q. points and approximately one line of better vision on a standard eye chart. This horror story is but one example in the long history of FDA over-caution. "Numerous studies have shown that FDA rules and regulations have resulted in high prices, fewer new drugs, and long delays in getting new drugs to market," writes Tabarrok in a recent op-ed. How can the FDA be reformed, so that Americans can enjoy the benefits of pharmaceutical innovation more quickly? "As a good first step," writes Tabarrok, "the U.S. should establish reciprocity agreements with countries that have a proven record of approving safe drugs -- including most western European countries, Canada, Japan, and Australia. "If the U.S. and, say, Britain had a reciprocity agreement, for example, then drugs and supplements approved in Britain would gain immediate approval in the U.S., and vice-versa. Such an arrangement would reduce delay, and eliminate duplication and wasted resources." See "Excess FDA Caution Threatens Health," by Alexander Tabarrok (PROVIDENCE JOURNAL, 8/23/01), at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-8.html. Also see: "Off-label Prescribing of Drugs Calls FDA Role into Question," by Scott Esposito (PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, 11/25/00), at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-9.html. "Assessing the FDA via the Anomaly of Off-Label Drug Prescribing," by Alexander Tabarrok (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, Summer 2000), at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-10.html. For more information on the FDA, see the Independent Institute's new micro-site, at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-11.html. ------------------------------------------------------------- THE LIGHTHOUSE, edited by Carl P. Close, is made possible by the generous contributions of supporters of The Independent Institute. If you enjoy THE LIGHTHOUSE, please consider making a donation to The Independent Institute. For details on the Independent Associate Membership program, see http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-12.html or contact Mr. Rod Martin by phone at 510-632-1366 x114, fax to 510-568-6040, email to <RMartin@independent.org<, or snail mail to The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428. All contributions are tax-deductible. Thank you! ------------------------------------------------------------- For previous issues of THE LIGHTHOUSE, see http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-13.html. ------------------------------------------------------------- For information on books and other publications from The Independent Institute, see http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-44-14.html. ------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to The Lighthouse, please go to http://www.independent.org/subscribe.html, choose "subscribe" (or "unsubscribe"), enter your e-mail address and select "Go." ------------------------------------------------------------- THE LIGHTHOUSE ISSN 1526-173X Copyright ? 2001 The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 (510) 632-1366 phone (510) 568-6040 fax
|