The Wall Street Journal reports Saturday that Turkey and Pakistan are blocking, monitoring, and threatening such websites as Google, YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, and Amazon. At least you've got to give them credit for going after the big guys! The Journal notes, "A number of countries in the Islamic world, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, have banned Internet content in the past for being sacrilegious. But those countries have authoritarian governments that closely monitor the Internet and the media." Of course, it's not just Islamic countries that try to protect their citizens -- or subjects -- from dissenting thoughts. China has been involved in well-publicized battles with Google, Rupert Murdoch's Star TV, and other media companies.
But it's hard to make your country a part of the world economy and keep it closed to outside thoughts and images. North Korea may be able to do it -- though recent stories suggest that even the benighted people of the world's most closed society know more about the world than we have previously thought. Countries that don't want to be North Korea have a harder time. The latest example: Thomas Erdbrink reports in the Washington Post that Murdoch's Farsi1 satellite station is
pulling in Iranian viewers with sizzling soaps and sitcoms but has incensed the Islamic republic's clerics and state television executives.
Unlike dozens of other foreign-based satellite channels here, Farsi1 broadcasts popular Korean, Colombian and U.S. shows and also dubs them in Iran's national language, Farsi, rather than using subtitles, making them more broadly accessible. Its popularity has soared since its launch in August....
Satellite receivers are illegal in Iran but widely available. Officials acknowledge that they jam many foreign channels using radio waves, but Farsi1, which operates out of the Hong Kong-based headquarters of Star TV, a subsidiary of Murdoch's News Corp., is still on the air in Tehran.
Viewers are increasingly deserting the six channels operated by Iranian state television, with its political, ideological and religious constraints, for Farsi1's more daring fare, including the U.S. series "Prison Break," "24" and "Dharma and Greg."
Those who want to build a wall around the minds of the Iranian people denounce Murdoch and his temptations:
Some critics here hold Murdoch responsible for what they see as this new infestation of corrupt Western culture. The prominent hard-line magazine Panjereh, or Window, devoted its most recent issue to Farsi1, featuring on the cover a digitally altered version of an evil-looking Murdoch sporting a button in the channel's signature pink and white colors. "Murdoch is a secret Jew trying to control the world's media, and [he] promotes Farsi1," the magazine declared.
"Farsi1's shows might be accepted in Western culture . . . but this is the first time that such things are being shown and offered so directly, completely and with ulterior motives to Iranian society. Does anybody hear alarm bells?" wrote Morteza Najafi, a regular Panjereh contributor.
The Iranian state -- Akbar Ganji calls it a "sultanate" in Weberian terms -- has tried to block access to Farsi1. It jams foreign channels, it sends police out to confiscate satellite dishes, but it can't seem to prevent many citizens from tuning in to officially banned broadcasts.
Way back in 1979, David Ramsay Steele of the Libertarian Alliance in Great Britain wrote about the changes beginning in China. He quoted authors in the official Beijing Review who were explaining that China would adopt the good aspects of the West -- technology, innovation, entrepreneurship -- without adopting its liberal values. “We should do better than the Japanese,” the authors wrote. “They have learnt from the United States not only computer science but also strip-tease. For us it is a matter of acquiring the best of the developed capitalist countries while rejecting their philosophy.” But, Steele replied, countries like China have a choice. “You play the game of catallaxy, or you do not play it. If you do not play it, you remain wretched. But if you play it, you must play it. You want computer science? Then you have to put up with striptease.”
North Korea and Burma choose to "remain wretched." That's not the future Iran's leaders want. But they too will find it difficult to keep their citizens in an information straitjacket while participating in a global economy.
Footnote: In all this discussion of how authoritarian governments try to protect their citizens from offensive images, alternative ideas, and what's going on in the rest of the world, I am for some reason reminded of the "30 Rock" episode in which NBC executive Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) is trying to figure out how to deal with a high-strung performer. Another actress tells him, "You've got to lie to her, coddle her, protect her from the real world." Jack replies,"I get it -- treat her like the New York Times treats its readers."
Over at Downsizing Government, we focused on the following issues this week:
- Why a taxpayer gift to a wealthy Indian tribe in Connecticut isn't any more egregious than the billions of dollars of other subsidies handed out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- Protectionism at the Department of Commerce is helping 200 workers at an ironing board manufacturing plant in Indiana. However, it's hurting millions of U.S. consumers by forcing them to pay higher prices for ironing boards.
- Pigs still can't fly: More concerns for the Federal Aviation Administration's next-generation air traffic control system.
- The evidence is more than anecdotal: Businesses are reluctant to invest or hire because they’re concerned that the president’s big government agenda will mean higher taxes and more onerous regulations.
Check out this invitation from the United Farm Workers:
There are two issues facing our nation---high unemployment and undocumented people in the workforce---that many Americans believe are related.
Missing from the debate on both issues is an honest recognition that the food we all eat---at home, in restaurants and workplace cafeterias (including those in the Capitol)---comes to us from the labor of undocumented farm workers.
Agriculture in the United States is dependent on an immigrant workforce. Three-quarters of all crop workers working in American agriculture were born outside the United States. According to government statistics, since the late 1990s, at least 50% of the crop workers have not been authorized to work legally in the United States.
We are a nation in denial about our food supply. As a result the UFW has initiated the "Take Our Jobs" campaign.
Farm workers are ready to train citizens and legal residents who wish to replace them in the field, we will use our knowledge and staff to help connect the unemployed with farm employers. Just fill out the form to the right and continue on to the request for job application.
Perhaps some U.S. citizens really will work these jobs. Somehow I doubt there will be very many.
It's too bad I learned about this site only just after my most recent piece at the Washington Examiner Opinion Zone, in which I talked about how so much of the American economy now depends on the benign neglect of our immigration laws.
I almost wish we could see the consequences of having an America free of illegal immigrants. Based on past precedent, it wouldn't make much difference in stopping terrorism. But it would really, really hurt American agriculture and business.
Building on Tim's post about George Will's latest column, and under the category of great minds thinking alike---at least with respect to what we need to see at the Kagan hearings next week---I also have an article proposing lines of questioning for the Supreme Court nominee.
Several of my issue areas overlap with Will's, and then I conclude:
Of course, Kagan will attempt to deflect these queries---or give a law professor's explanation without providing her own views (which caused Sen. Arlen Specter to vote against her nomination to be solicitor general).
But the role of a justice is different from that of the solicitor general, who merely uses existing law to argue the government's case. Moreover, as a leading scholar argued in an influential 1995 article, "the Senate ought to view the hearings as an opportunity to gain knowledge and promote public understanding of what the nominee believes the Court should do and how she would affect its conduct."
That scholar? Elena Kagan.
She continues: "The critical inquiry as to any individual similarly concerns the votes she would cast, the perspective she would add, and the direction in which she would move the institution."
If senators ask tough questions about the scope of government power, and Kagan refuses to answer, Kagan will have failed the Kagan standard.
Josef Joffe famously referred to the U.S. presence in Western Europe as "Europe's pacifier." The idea was that you stick the American pacifier in there and the *cough* recurring problem emanating from Europe goes away.
After the Cold War ended, and the official reason for the NATO alliance blew away as if in the wind, we never considered letting the alliance go with it. That tells you something. Instead of coming home, we pushed NATO "out of area" rather than allowing it to go "out of business." Christopher Layne argues that this was all by design. U.S. policymakers never intended to allow Europe to establish its autonomy and worked diligently to ensure that efforts at autonomous European defense would fail. They succeeded.
In February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was whining about the "demilitarization of Europe" and how the Europeans have grown "averse to military force." I responded by pointing out that this was dumb. Mancur Olson's logic and the history of American policy on the European continent that Layne documents show that we were as much to blame for this state of affairs as the Euros themselves.
And now here's the Wall Street Journal pointing out that the Euros are slashing their defense budgets further still.
There are two schools of thought on this. The first says that European defense spending isn't so low as it's commonly made out to be. This group argues (implicitly at times) that there is no pacifier. War has been "burned out of the system" in Europe, to steal a phrase, so the Euros should just invest in capabilities that can help out with the sorts of overseas noodling-around missions we're doing now in Afghanistan and that NATO/America is likely to create in the future.
But I don't think you have to be John Mearsheimer [.pdf] to belong to the second group. This group buys pacifier logic but worries about both the prudence and the sustainability of Washington playing the pacifier role indefinitely. It worries about the larger role the United States appropriates for itself in the world as it promotes the infantilization of Europe. And it worries, ultimately, about how this all ends.
The question for the first group, it seems to me, is how little European defense spending is too little, and why. Further, if we approach or cross the "too little" line, what should we do to promote more European defense spending? Would this include promoting a larger European role in the world, which has historically been the main reason America has opposed EU defense efforts?
Regardless, the perennial American lament about European defense spending is likely to wind up again, particularly in the shadow of the dubious Afghanistan campaign.
Well, at least of the dairy kind:
New Environmental Protection Agency regulations treat spilled milk like oil, requiring farmers to build extra storage tanks and form emergency spill plans....
The EPA regulations state that “milk typically contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil. Thus, containers storing milk are subject to the Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Program rule when they meet the applicability criteria.”
Peter Daining of the Holland Sentinel (Holland, MI) has a report, including predictions that smaller dairy producers could be driven out of business by the cost of the containment rules.
Barack Obama and Angela Merkel are the two main characters in what is being portrayed as a fight between American "stimulus" and European "austerity" at the G-20 summit meeting in Canada. My immediate instinct is to cheer for the Europeans. After all, "austerity" presumably means cutting back on wasteful government spending. Obama's definition of "stimulus," by contrast, is borrowing money from China and distributing it to various Democratic-leaning special-interest groups.
But appearances can be deceiving. Austerity, in the European context, means budget balance rather than spending reduction. As such, David Cameron's proposal to boost the U.K.'s value-added tax from 17.5 percent to 20 percent is supposedly a sign of austerity even though his Chancellor of the Exchequer said a higher tax burden would generate “13 billion pounds we don’t have to find from extra spending cuts.”
Raising taxes to finance a bloated government, to be sure, is not the same as Obama's strategy of borrowing money to finance a bloated government. But proponents of limited government and economic freedom understandably are underwhelmed by the choice of two big-government approaches.
What matters most, from a fiscal policy perspective, is shrinking the burden of government spending relative to economic output. Europe needs smaller government, not budget balance. According to OECD data, government spending in eurozone nations consumes nearly 51 percent of gross domestic product, almost 10 percentage points higher than the burden of government spending in the United States.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the "austerity" plans of Merkel, Cameron, Sarkozy, et al, will leave the overall burden of government relatively unchanged. That may be good news if the alternative is for government budgets to consume even-larger shares of economic output, but it is far from what is needed.
Unfortunately, the United States no longer offers a competing vision to the European welfare state. Under the big-government policies of Bush and Obama, the share of GDP consumed by government spending has jumped by nearly 8-percentage points in the past 10 years. And with Obama proposing and/or implementing higher income taxes, higher death taxes, higher capital gains taxes, higher payroll taxes, higher dividend taxes, and higher business taxes, it appears that American-style big-government "stimulus" will soon be matched by European-style big-government "austerity."
Here's a blurb from the Christian Science Monitor about the Potemkin Village fiscal fight in Canada:
This weekend's G-20 summit is shaping up as an economic clash of civilizations – or at least a clash of EU and US economic views. EU officials led by German chancellor Angela Merkel are on a national “austerity” budget cutting offensive as the wisest policy for economic health, ahead of the Toronto summit of 20 large-economy nations. Ms. Merkel Thursday said Germany will continue with $100 billion in cuts that will join similar giant ax strokes in the UK, Italy, France, Spain, and Greece. EU officials say budget austerity promotes the stability and market confidence that are prerequisites for their role in overall recovery. Yet EU pro-austerity statements in the past 48 hours are also defensive – a reaction to public statements from US President Barack Obama and G-20 chairman Lee Myung-bak, South Korea's president, that the overall effect of national austerity in the EU will harm recovery. They are joined by US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, investor George Soros, and Nobel laureate and columnist Paul Krugman, among others, arguing that austerity works against growth, and may lead to a recessionary spiral.