From Politico:

Lawmakers are asking the FTC to investigate Facebook following reports that the social network has been collecting data even from users logged out of their profiles.

The concerns from Capitol Hill came Wednesday in a letter by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas), who have repeatedly questioned Facebook’s privacy practices.

The duo expressed deep concern with the findings of one Australian security blogger, who discovered this week Facebook was gathering data even from logged out users whenever they visited Web pages that feature the social network’s signature “Like” button.

(more…)

Republicans are considering ways to trim the federal budget — and the funds that go toward public broadcasting are on the chopping block. Now it appears that certain public radio stations may be violating federal law to convince listeners to lobby Congress to stop these cuts.

Reps. Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) already staged a silly press conference this week with Elmo, Grover and Big Bird dolls, along with someone in an Arthur the Aardvark costume, to try to embarrass Republicans into continuing to pay for public broadcasting. Of course, using these characters was probably not a good marketing idea to begin with, given the money-making powerhouse that Sesame Street represents and the enormous profits that have been earned through merchandising these characters.

Now public radio stations such as KCRW 89.9 in Santa Monica are sending out press releases with detailed information about the recommended spending cuts from the House Appropriations Committee in H.R. 1, the Full Year Continuing Appropriation Act. KCRW’s message comes from Sarah Spitz at kcrw.org and urges listeners to “take action in support of public broadcasting” by visiting another website. That website allows you to “Click Here to Write Congress” and asks visitors to “contact your representatives in Congress now and urge them to stand up for public broadcasting funding.”

What KCRW is doing, however, may violate the federal Anti-Lobbying Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1913 provides that “No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation.”

Under a prior version of the statute as it was interpreted by at least one court decision, this anti-lobbying provision applied only to federal officers and employees. But the law was amended in 2002 and now applies to anyone who receives federally appropriated funds including recipients of federal grants such as NPR. Such grants cannot be used to lobby Congress directly or indirectly, which would include trying to persuade NPR listeners to lobby Congress on NPR’s behalf. So if any of the funds received by KCRW from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were used to pay Sarah Spritz’s salary in writing this lobbying appeal or to fund the facilities used to broadcast her message on behalf of the radio station, then KCRW has violated federal law.   And if any federal funds were used to pay for this website, that is also a violation of the law.

(more…)

When it comes to defining the meaning of the Republican victory last Tuesday, Marco Rubio got it exactly right: “This is our second chance.” Just four years ago, Republicans were turned out of the majority because they had forgotten the spirit of 1994 that brought them there — succumbing to corruption scandals and accepting runaway spending and bailouts of the financial and automotive sectors. John Boehner has smartly echoed this humble tone both in his Election Night speech and post-election interviews.

The first key test of whether Republicans have learned their lesson will come in the decision on whether to weaken a crucial 1994 reform limiting the terms of Republican committee heads by waiving term limits for Rep. Joe Barton so that he can run for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The term limits rule, by the incoming Republican majority in 1994 and enshrined in the Contract with America, was designed to break down the imperial fiefdoms at all important committees built up during 40 years of Democratic rule. When Democrats retook the House, they continued to allow their committee chairmen unlimited rein. The result: unchecked power on committee chairs like Charlie Rangel.

(more…)

The Hill  reports the latest attempt by the Democrats to deflect the outrage of the American people by blame shifting the cause of the Gulf oil spill disaster to former VP Dick Cheney and the Bush administration:

Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee traded partisan blows Tuesday over whether the Obama administration or the former Bush administration deserves more blame for the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Senior Democrats on the panel — Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) — used a hearing on the Interior Department’s role to trace the disaster back to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy policy task force.

Waxman said that task force — which was assembled early in the Bush administration — set the stage for policies that pushed drilling at the expense of tough safety oversight of rigs and review of environmental risks.

“The cop on the beat was off-duty for nearly a decade and this gave rise to a dangerous culture of permissiveness,” Waxman said. “In many ways this history begins with Vice President Cheney’s secretive energy task force.”

Waxman said that under the Bush-era Interior Department, “the priority was more drilling first and safety second,” although he added that the current administration was also too hands-off before the spill.

Seriously?   Waxman and Markey obviously did not have access to this outstanding timeline and writeup by Kevin McCullough, which details the events dating back to February 13, 2010:

(more…)

One way or the other, one of us is going to go down. President Obama, by insisting that he will go to the mat on his “green jobs” agenda, which is simply central planning with a coat of green paint, indicates he will risk his presidency on getting the cap-and-trade, gas tax and windmill mandate through the Senate (with a stranglehold on domestic energy production to boot), then through the House again on a conferenced bill.

If he succeeds he will have doomed us; if he fails, politically the effort will have finally, fully exposed him for what he is: a Power Grabbing Statist whose economics are recklessly dogmatic while at the same time ignoring those societies he claims are his model.

Obama reminded us how as a candidate he set out what he called a set of principles, which he acknowledged were passed by the House, in a vote almost precisely one year ago today.

Here is what he said then about cap-and-trade, which the House passed. This discussion occurred in the apparent context of how to mount his and his team’s big-ticket agenda items:

“The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important, and force their representatives to do the right thing. That requires mobilizing a citizenry…And climate change is a great example.”

You got it: this is the community organizer, refusing to allow a crisis to go to waste, but instead seeking to use it to do what he’s trying to do.

(more…)

In the wake of the Court of Appeals judgment last week that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacks sufficient authority to regulate broadband services, senior congressional Democrats are reaffirming their support for alternative methods of executing what some critics charge would be a de facto government takeover of the internet.

Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and co-author of the House’s Internet Freedom Preservation Act, said the FCC should “take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the internet,” and offered to “continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to provide the Commission any additional authority it may need to ensure the openness of the Internet for consumers, innovators and investors.”

Markey, like FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, is a backer of net neutrality, a policy that would inadvertently be instituted were the FCC to reclassify broadband services under existing rules relating to telephone services, and directly instituted were his bill passed and signed into law.

Fellow Massachusetts Democrat Sen. John Kerry, meanwhile, insisted that while it is within the authority of the FCC to reclassify broadband he is not advocating such aggressive action.

(more…)

This week (March 3, 2010) was the deadline Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) set for Mark Crisson, President and CEO of the American Public Power Association (APPA), to explain why APPA is urging Senators to support Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution to veto the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The Senate may vote on the Murkowski resolution as soon as next week.

Now, aside from the merits of the issue, which I’ll get into in a moment, Waxman and Markey’s behavior is out of line. Waxman and Markey (W/M) are Members of the House of Representatives. What business is it of theirs if the APPA lobbies Senators about a bill pending in the Senate? Senators can conduct their own inquiries without any assistance from W/M. And why didn’t W/M copy Sen. Murkowski or at least Senate Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) on their Feb. 25 letter to Mr. Crisson? Failure to “cc” any of the principals in the Senate flouts one of the most basic rules of legislative courtesy.

Besides being busybodies, Waxman and Markey are bullies.

(more…)

Today E&E News reports (subscription required) green group faux-rage that industry reps were consulted on drafting an amendment by Sen. Lisa Murkowski to (IMO, rather unwisely) grant the Democrats a one-year reprieve from their looming political nightmare of EPA threatening to actually try and regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources by regulation under a Clean Air Act never designed for such foolishness.

Such unseemly whimpering is about as credible as the greens’ phony “hacked emails!” outrage, over what was from all appearances a whistleblower releasing “ClimateGate” email evidence of dirty green tricks. These are the same crowd whose slimy green tactics include stealing my trash on a weekly basis and working with, e.g., the Guardian to dishonestly cobble together unrelated, out-of-context (unlike ClimateGate) excerpts from emails to paint a false picture. (“Greens involved in journalism process!”; sadly, the Guardian never called me for their “story” about, well, me, so I must confess I wasn’t involved).

Specifically, E&E notes how:

“the Washington Post reported yesterday that [Bracewell & Giuliani's Jeff Holmstead] and another former EPA official, Roger Martella, ‘helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall.’…

Environmentalists pounced on the reports as evidence that coal and oil interests are behind Murkowski’s efforts. ‘We now have proof that lobbyists for Big Oil, dirty coal and other special interests are directly involved in recent attempts to bail out big polluters and gut the Clean Air Act,’ said a Sierra Club press release. ‘What’s more, these big polluter lobbyists are the same former Bush administration officials who completely disregarded the Clean Air Act and even disobeyed the Supreme Court for years.’

(more…)

I am told that, at this morning’s hearing of the House Select Committee on Global Warming, the Ranking Republican Jim Sensenbrenner (WI) requested that the two administration science witnesses — White House science advisor John Holdren, most recently seen in the ClimateGate emails defending the erasing from history the Medieval Warm Period, and NOAA administrator and longtime activist Jane Loubchenco — be sworn in before testifying.

Chairman Ed Markey conferred, then denied the request.

Could lead to all sorts of unpleasant things. Like the truth. Or consequences.

(more…)

The Democratic majority objected to my appearing at a House hearing this morning addressing AstroTurfing in the global warming advocacy industry. The majority were not amused by the prospect of a discordant note being struck. As such, the Republicans will have no witnesses. They have agreed to this after being challenged. In Washington, we call times such as these “weekdays”.

The hearing actually has devolved into something of an effort to rehabilitate certain Members who are now imperiled by their vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, particularly Tom Periello of Central Virginia (my Congressman, who has been hoodwinked by someone into stating, in defense of his vote, that the reason we are losing jobs to India and China is because they’ve already passed Waxman-Markey-type laws. Really. I agree we need to find out who is spreading such scurrilous tales to our lawmakers).

So, Rep. Periello will open the proceedings with a statement. The hearing was already delayed once because he refused to let anyone see what he was going to say in advance. They might ask questions. I don’t think that’s much of a threat.

(more…)

This is pretty pathetic. CNN commissions a poll to assist with a week’s worth of Senate hearings and one in the House all designed to breathe life into the Senate’s counter to Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy rationing legislation. The express point of that scheme is to raise energy prices, which outcome our president has boasted as being to cause electricity (actually, all) energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket”, “bankrupt[ing]” many firms.

The poll, splashed with a pretty clear headline, ran to one question.  Er, wait. They’re only pushing one question and its answer. No drilling down provided, though it may have been pursued. The poll actually appears to be at least 16 questions long, though when linking to the pdf for the “full results”, you get one question and answer.

How much editorializing/cheerleading does CNN do about this apparently selective snapshot? Well, the question-and-answer in their entirety total 68 words, which led to CNN providing, ah, context and texture to the public’s voice– to sell the question-and-answer to the public if not to add any meaning or context to the question itself for those responding to the poll — nearly six times as many (390 words plus headline).

(more…)