EXECUTIVE WATCH

Shepard Fairey has admitted that he lied about which photo he used to make his “Hope” poster of then-candidate Barack Obama.  Both photographs in question were taken by the same photographer and both were covered by AP copyright.  However, Fairey’s  work was more transformative of the first photograph than of the one that, well, looks exactly like his poster.  That added transformation would aid him in his fair use claim.  Fairey’s lawyers have filed notice that they intend to withdraw from his suit as a result of his misleading them.

The Obama administration may scrap the pre-emptive war part of the “Bush Doctrine.”  Hat tip to Julian Ku.  Meanwhile, Russia and the U.S. both continue to claim the right to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike capability.

Peter J. Wallison penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he points a finger at the federal government for the mortgage crisis.  Wallison points out that the predatory lending theory only tells half the story: Someone had to buy all these toxic assets; often as not, the buyers were government-backed agencies.  Ilya Somin concurs and extends: Not only did government back the purchase of these bad mortgages, they also encouraged excessive risk-taking by the private sector.  Kevin Drum is angered not because of this, but rather because the banks are recovering faster than the rest of the economy because of further government intervention.  And Matthew Yglesias says that we are repeating the pattern.

The Justice Department issued guidelines (.pdf) to prosecutors instructing them to deprioritize the investigation and prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries.  Jonathan Adler explains that this is a valid exercise of power and thus, like, totally legit, man.

The military is currently meeting all of its recruiting goals.  The Pentagon credits the recession, along with marketing, for the success.  Fred Kaplan, however, says that the Pentagon is fudging.

(more…)

Alfred Nobel

This happened.  Michael Russnow, a general Obama supporter, is irritated by the “cheapening” of the award.  Jonathan Adler argues that this event is not terribly extraordinary; the Prize has often been awarded to people prospectively.  John Miller explains the differences between Obama and other American presidents who have received a Nobel.  Jacob Heilbrunn runs through the list of reasons that Obama deserved the award.  Eugene Volokh questions whether Obama can accept the $1.4 million prize personally or whether the Emoluments Clause requires that he donate it to the country.  As it turns out, he will donate it to charity.  Jonah Goldberg explains why Obama should not decline the award.  And Anne Applebaum finds it bemusing that we care so much about what five Norwegians think (see also John Podhoretz).  On a more abstract level, I agree with Julian Sanchez that the initial reaction was agreement between right and left that this was an odd choice.  However, it quickly turned into a partisan litmus test, aided by the DNC’s claim that questioning the award means that you support the terrorists.

President Obama ruled out any reduction in the number of troops in Afghanistan.  Fellow Nobel laureate Henry Kissinger approves, but says that the U.S. still needs to pursue more engagement with Afghanistan’s neighbors.

James Joyner takes a break from his vacation to give a nice roundup of the tensions developing between President Obama and his top generals.  Obama was reportedly furious at Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley’ McChrystal’s comments last week in which he called for more troops; now Gen. David Petraeus is becoming more involved in the White House decision-making process.  David Greenberg, however, cautions that we should not read too much into the situation.

The Federal Trade Commission issued a set of guidelines for bloggers and users of social media.  The guidelines are ostensibly directed at viral marketers who try to ensure that blogs and social media sites give positive press; the rules, however, are written so broadly that any blog could run afoul of the regulations if they do not include an “adequate” notice that they are being compensated.  An Arnold & Porter blog gives a summary of the regulations.  Walter Olson notes the overbreadth.  Slate’s Jack Shafer calls it a “mad power grab.”  And Ken at Popehat warns that trying to pump up your page views could land you in the FTC’s crosshairs.

(more…)

Analysis of President Obama’s speech to the United Nations continues.  Kenneth Anderson has one of the most well-developed critiques, arguing that the administration is more concerned with multilateralism than with peace.  Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Lugar offered his thoughts on the future of NATO, the senator called for more troops to be deployed to Eastern Europe.

The Senate Judiciary Committee met to mark up proposed amendments to the PATRIOT Act.  The original matchup was between a moderate bill sponsored by Patrick Leahy and one with significantly heightened privacy protections sponsored by Russell Feingold.  However, the first act in the hearing was the replacement of Leahy’s bill with one sponsored by Diane Feinstein that might increase the ability of the FBI to gather intelligence without warrants.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Kevin Bankston liveblogged the hearing here.  Meanwhile, the Justice Department released guidelines that confirm that the FBI is still allowed to conduct “assessments” of groups or individuals without any individualized belief that the target has committed a crime.

Iran’s nuclear facility at Qum continues to perplex some analysts.  Gary Milhollin wrote in the New York Times that the facility must be evidence of an as-yet undiscovered network of nuclear sites.  The Economist says that this ignores how irrationally governments sometimes act.  IOZ is even unkinder as he points out that Milhollin may have already decided Iran is guilty of making nuclear weapons and is taking all evidence to point that way.  The Economist also points out that this marks the third time that Iran has been caught playing fast and loose with the rules of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Nathan Hodge says that we may never know the exact capabilities of the Qum reactor.  Christopher Beam has more information on how nuclear inspections work.  The Express (UK) reports that Saudi Arabia has greenlighted an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities; I have not been able to find a confirming source for that story, however.

Last week, we reported that Vice President Joe Biden had suggested that we move from a counter-insurgency strategy to a counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan.  This Thursday, Gen. Stanley McChrystal told the Institute for Strategic Studies that such a strategy would lead to chaos (video and .pdf at the link).  Bruce Ackerman wonders whether the general’s intervention in a policy matter violates the principle of civilian control of the military.  Jonathan Adler thinks that Ackerman (and Michael Cohen) worry too much; this is not disagreement with announced policy, but rather an attempt to influence the formation of a policy that McChrystal, presumably, has valuable experience with.  James Joyner concurs.  Peter Baker points out that President Obama speaks with his theater commanders less than Bush did.  Mark Grimsley says that, historically, Obama’s policy is the more common.  And an attempt by GOP senators to force McChrystal to testify before congress failed on a party-line vote.

(more…)