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