Planet Colorado

Poor, stupid, little boy.

The tragedy isn’t so much that he ended up dead of a drug overdose (accidental or otherwise), but that he represents a wasted life. He couldn’t grow up enough to take responsibility for his life, he couldn’t be strong enough to stop abusing drugs, and that he threw away the friendship and opportunities that he had in his too short life.

To be honest--although not without a point--the world didn’t lose a hugely talented actor. Neither of the Coreys were great actors, they were great, fun personalities. Where Corey Feldman seems to have grown up and moved on with life, Haim just got stuck. The value of a life isn’t in how good an actor a person is, but in what they do with the years that are given them; the world didn’t lose a great actor, it just saw another person who failed to find a way to give his years any meaning.

I’m sad for the people who cared for him, but I wonder how many of them are actually surprised? I watched a part of the A&E show The Two Corey’s and knew that sooner or later he would end up dead or in jail because no matter how many chances he had, no matter who reached out to him, he had an amazing drive to self-destruction.

Poor, stupid, little boy.

The Colorado legislature and governor recently imposed a new law saddling online retailers and their customers with severe tax liabilities and red tape. But the only way Colorado can try to tax an out-of-state company (such as Amazon) is if that company has a business presence in Colorado. As a consequence, Amazon cut off its Associates program for Colorado residents who advertise for Amazon online. The legislature was warned in advance that the tax policy could cost Colorado businesses and possibly end the Associates program.

Predictably, left-wing advocacy groups -- and their lap-dog media -- have decided to play the game of blame the victim, Amazon. They have utterly ignored the the aspects of the law that compelled Amazon to take defensive action. Such tactics come straight out of the left's playbook: blame business for the problems caused by political controls.

For more information, please contact me (see the contact information at right) and request to join a forthcoming forum on the matter. (Diana Hsieh is putting together the forum.)

Please check back here for extensive evaluation of the "Amazon Tax," its background, and media coverage of it.

Disclosures

As reviewed in my "Disclosures Unjustly Compelled by the FTC," I have a longstanding relationship with Amazon. (In this case offering disclosures is appropriate despite the fact that the FTC requires them.) Not only have I been an Amazon customer, but I have been an Associate and have collected some pittance from the program (less than $100 total). My book, Values of Harry Potter, also sells at Amazon. But obviously I am not taking the stance herein for any direct financial gain (of which there is very little), but because I believe that Amazon and other online retailers are being unjustly targeted by an oppressive tax law.

Denver Post Editorial

I do not mean to imply above that all media coverage of the Amazon Tax has been irresponsible. Today's Denver Post offers an excellent summary of the situation in an editorial:

The move by online retailer Amazon to drop its Colorado affiliates was a predictable result of the legislature's recent efforts to revoke tax exemptions.

We were convinced from the outset that House Bill 1193 was problematic, particularly in light of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are unfavorable to states seeking to compel out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes.

The Amazon situation only reinforces our belief that the issue of online sales tax collection ought to be addressed at the federal level.

The Colorado law requires online retailers to tell their customers how much Colorado sales tax they owe when those customers buy items by clicking through marketing affiliates based in this state. Those retailers are supposed to pass that information along to the state so the government can ensure the taxes are paid.

It's not surprising Amazon decided to just cut Colorado-based marketing affiliates rather than get involved in any aspect of sales tax collection. That's what online retailers have done to thwart so-called "Amazon laws" in other states, such as Rhode Island and North Carolina.

The Post offers additional useful information on the matter (though I disagree with some of its conclusions). It is interesting that the paper's editorial is more fair, objective, and informative than the paper's "news" coverage elsewhere, a matter I'll address soon.

Tax Law Is NOT About Equalizing Tax Standing

Democratic legislators have disingenuously claimed that the tax law is merely about equalizing the tax standing between local retailers and online retailers. Such claims stray far from the truth.

A local retailer is located within a particular set of tax zones (state and county, and possibly city and various special districts). Within that location, the percentage of the tax is exactly the same for each purchase. The retailer calculates the percentage, tacks on the fee to the sale, and the customer pays it. Then the retailer pays the various taxes to the various taxing entities at the alloted times.

That is most certainly NOT what the Amazon Tax requires of online retailers. Here's what the final version of Bill 1193 actually says:

"Each retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax shall notify Colorado purchasers that sales or use tax is due on certain purchases made from the retailer and that the state of Colorado requires the purchaser to file a sales or use tax return."

Failure to do so results in a $5 fee per infraction. Retailers must also submit an annual tax report to customers, stating that they owe the Colorado taxes. "The notification specified... shall be sent separately to all Colorado purchasers by first-class mail and shall not be included with any other shipments."

Furthermore: "Each retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax shall file an annual statement for each purchaser to the Department of Revenue on such forms as are provided or approved by the Department..."

The bill is also quite vicious in its enforcement: "If any retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax refuses voluntarily to furnish any of the information specified in [another part of] this section when requested by the executive director of the Department of Revenue [etc.], the executive director, by subpoena issued under the executive director's hand, may require the attendance of the retailer" at a government hearing. Moreover, the director is authorized by the bill "to apply to any judge of the district court of the State of Colorado to enforce such subpoena by an appropriate order..."

Obviously, this scenario is nothing like what local retailers must endure. Consider: if Amazon makes a $10 sale to somebody in Colorado, under the law Amazon is required to send out tax documents to the customer (via first-class mail) as well as to the state, and the customer is required to pay the sales tax. The postage and time required to comply with this bureaucracy could easily overwhelm any profit that Amazon makes from the sale, and it would add considerably to the total purchasing price (including the value of time spent complying with the controls).

As Amazon recognized in its letter to Associates, the obvious intent of the bill is to make doing business in Colorado living hell unless retailers "voluntarily" collect the sales taxes directly.

In other words, the bill is a vicious combination of blackmail and threat of physical force.

From David Harsanyi:

There seems to be growing optimism among some Republicans that if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finagles the votes to pass Obamacare, the GOP will triumphantly sweep into power and immediately repeal it.

While short-term GOP gains are almost certain, there are numerous problems with this kind of quixotic thinking.

To begin with, there exists almost no historical evidence to suggest Republicans will possess either the fortitude or the power to undo a massive government entitlement program.

[...]

Obama spent last week campaigning for health care reform, at one point getting some college-age fans worked up about all the free stuff — “free” preventive care and “free” checkups, and so forth — they would receive if his version of health care reform passed.

Which brings us to another stumbling block. If health care is now a “right” and “free” to an ever-growing group of Americans — people who believe stuff can be had for “free” — are Republicans really going to snatch it away from them?

You can already picture the hideous debate, as Republicans fold in the face of accusations that they are working for the murderous profit- mongers against the underprivileged victims of a wretched capitalistic system. [...]

Once government infiltrates, it rarely retreats. There are precious few examples of federal programs shirking rather than growing — most often in extraordinary ways.

Democrats know it.

Indeed — which is why we’ve witnessed juice box mafiosi like Ezra Klein unable to hold back the mental jism, their premature ejaculate smeared across the opinion pages of national newspapers like so much boy jam over an old Lara Croft PC Gaming ad.

One of the biggest let downs of the Bush presidency, in my opinion, was his signing of McCain-Feingold. At the time, I rationalized the signing by noting that the law couldn’t withstand judicial scrutiny — and that Bush was betting on this — and so his impulse was to play politics and sign a “reform” bill that polls suggested was fairly popular, even as he surmised that the law would be found unconstitutional when pressured.

This is a dangerous game.

The time to defeat this attempt to nationalize a good portion of our economy is now — not to wait and hope that a Republican revival will roll back the kinds of “progress” that gave us the New Deal and the Great Society — two pillars of progressivism that to this day still act both as economic drains and stumbling blocks to the kinds of equality of opportunity that our sociopolitical compact is based upon.

And if it takes dumping tea into a bunch of private swimming pools to keep the country from taking this next step on the road to European socialism, I’m all for breaking out the swim trunks.

Or, more directly, “How ObamaCare is killing free trade”.

(This latest installment of “I told you so” brought to you by protein wisdom. Who told you so.)

Details here: http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

Long excerpt:

John Hickenlooper is bucking the trends that have Democrats trailing right now in most of the major races across the country, and that makes him the early favorite to be Colorado's next Governor.

Hickenlooper leads Scott McInnis 50-39. He's up 48-34 with independents, making this only the third race we've polled since November where the Democratic candidate had a lead with that group. And he also has Democratic voters more unified around him (85%) than Republican voters are around McInnis (77%). In the vast majority of races we've looked at recently GOP candidates are doing a better job of keeping their party lined up behind them than Democrats are.

There's absolutely no doubt Democrats are better off with Hickenlooper in the race than they would have been if Bill Ritter had tried for reelection. While Hickenlooper's favorability spread is a positive 51/27, Ritter's approval rating continues to be in negative territory as it has been for the last year at 38/50. That's a 36 point net improvement for Democrats by swapping Ritter for Hickenlooper and given that it's no wonder the party's in so much better shape now.

McInnis' favorability spread stands at 28/27, almost identical to his 30/25 standing when PPP last surveyed Colorado in August. McInnis led Ritter by 8 points then but it's clear now that had a whole lot more to do with Ritter than it did with McInnis, given the 19 point shift in the horse race we've seen since Hickenlooper entered.

You can read the full tabs here (PDF): http://www.publicpolicypolling...

The sample size was 580 voters, interviewed 3/5-3/8, with a 4.1% MOR.
I'm not going to get into an argument over what this means (especially given the Razzie poll that also came out this past week, which had McInnis beating Hickenlooper, 48-42). Suffice it to say that one of these models is right, the other is wrong.

With that in mind, at this point in time, I tend more towards the PPP model. It's early in the race, and I think Hick has been more of a political presence in this state recently than McInnis (who left Congress in the early '90s, nearly 20 years ago).

The floor is yours.

.
First, this is Colorado Springs, perhaps the most conservative district in the nation.  
There are a lot of people involved with "Tea Party" type groups.  About 1,000 attended last night.  

Second, while almost everyone there would agree that the GOP is corrupt and beholden to a narrow group of special interests, they also are convinced that they are powerless to change that, and they believe the Democratic Party is even worse.  So they will be voting for the lesser of two evils in November, not for good governance.  

That said, this was pretty much a GOP event.  Libertarians were permitted to set up tables and hand out literature, but not to participate in the debates.  Constitution Party representatives were allowed to hand out literature.  
.
.
There were three debates, which started after what seemed like 45 minutes of introductory remarks.  These featured the GOP candidates for Senator, Treasurer and Governor.  

One candidate, Steve Barton, fell through a hole in the stage.  At one point, Ken Buck introduced himself as Steve Barton.  Sympatico ?

The best debate, the only actual debate where candidates went after each other, was between JJ Ament and Ali Hasan.  
Big picture, JJ said that there had not been a qualified financial professional as State Treasurer for forty years, and that the head of that office needed to be someone with years of experience analyzing financial statements, bond ratings and coupon yields, and suggested that being a filmmaker was not adequate preparation.  
Ali countered by indicating that there are already plenty of qualified professionals doing the nuts and bolts of accounting and treasury management, and what the office was needed was a leader with vision and principles.  
They disagreed over whether the state is currently invested in banks that received bailout funds, apparently including a bank that JJ works for.  Ali had a persuasive visual aid on that point, but JJ had  a counter argument I couldn't follow, but may have had merit.  
Overall, JJ won the text voting, 45 to 25 to 1 for an absent Stapleton.  Ament had a significant cheer section up front, but Ali seemed to get stronger responses from the crowd, if that section up front was excluded.  It was the best show of the night.  
To JJ's credit, he never mentioned Ali's religion.  Classy.  I call it for Ali, though I may be biased.  I hope someone can post the votes collected on paper ballots.  

The Governor contest was more lopsided.  Dan Maes was the clear crowd favorite.  Scott McInnis plaintively pleaded for realism - he lamented that, if the GOP kept paring revenues, he would not be able to govern.  Roads are essential, and education investment necessary for our future.  He argued that we could put ourselves into a death spiral if we kept cutting fees and taxes, even while the state struggled to cope with a $1 Billion deficit.  
Dan had a pretty succinct formulation for solving the deficit, and said that the McInnis "Prosperity Plan" deal was cut in a backroom.  The next time Scott spoke, he was drowned out with shouts of "backroom."  If he ends up Governor, I hope he forgets how he was treated last night.  

The debate among the Senate candidates was pretty much what I've seen before, except Jane Norton was there to speak on behalf of Jane Norton.  If you cheer for underdogs, Steve Barton is still your guy.  Some people thought that Ken Buck was mocking him, but I didn't take it that way.  
Tom Wiens was a little off; I've seen him do better.  Cleve Tidwell toned down the "Georgia country boy" stuff and came across more as the competent international corporate executive.  Can't say if it helped with this particular crowd, but I thought it was a big improvement.  
Barton was as uncomfortable as ever.  If he wasn't LDS I would suggest that he take a drink of whiskey before going onstage.  It may have even helped him take the fall off the stage.  He still puts a lot of emphasis on his educational qualifications, and the GOP in this city is somewhat anti-intellectual.  

The one constant: everyone thought that the Obama Presidency was leading to the decline of the nation.  Some want him impeached, others want him countered and delayed until the GOP sweeps into office in November.  However, most acknowledge that they see little difference between their party and the Democrats.  They are mad about the way things are going, and came last night to vent their frustration, but few believe they can actually do anything about the mess we're in.
Conclusion:  the Tea Party movement has been absorbed into the GOP here in El Paso county, and once the election is over, its back to business as usual.

Final note: almost every notable local Republican was there last night.  Doug Bruce, Dan May, Ed Bircham, Tom Tancredo, Greg Hollister, Gallagher, Clark, and many I couldn't put a name to.
.

You can’t cut that spending — it’s the government’s!

Today’s Trifecta: Senator Jim Bunning steps outside the boundaries of acceptable thought, and dares to ask how to pay for something.

Not a good showing for GOP Senate candidate Jane Norton on FOX 31 News last night, folks--excerpts below, and the video feature after the jump:

There is no issue that riles up today's conservative base like the issue of government spending, perceived to be out of control after last year's $787 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and on the verge of a health care reform bill that, if passed, could cost close to $1 trillion over the next decade.

In such a context, it's no surprise that Republican candidates are talking, on the eve of this fall's midterm elections, about how Democrats have overspent and how they will, if elected, rein in such expenditures.

It's also no surprise that Jane Norton, a Republican running for U.S. Senate in Colorado, is already airing television commercials to that effect...

"It's fashionable right now to talk about being a fiscal conservative and talk about limited government," said Norton, [Pols emphasis] who, under former Gov. Bill Owens, served as director of Colorado's Dept. of Public Health and Environment and later as Lieutenant Governor.

"The fact of the matter is I did cut budgets and my general fund was less. The general fund allotment I had when I left the department of Public Health was less when I left than when I started, about $6.4 million less."

"She didn't say in her ad that her general fund went down," said Bobby Clark, executive director of ProgressNow Action, a Denver-based, liberal organizing group.

"She said she cut spending -- and it's just not true. Spending -- her department budget went up every year."

During Norton's tenure at CDPHE, the department's overall budget did rise from $226.5 million in fiscal year 1999-2000 to a high of $280 million three years later, before the post- 9/11 recession led to across-the-board cuts and slight drop in the department's overall 2002-03 budget, which was $269.5 million.

"A budget going up every year doesn't equate to cutting spending," Clark said. "Jane Norton saying she cut spending is like Sarah Palin saying she could see Russia from her house. It's disingenuous and it's just not true."

But, in Norton's view, she only had control over the money her department received from the state...

"Jane is a wonderful person, but not a fiscal conservative," said former state senator Tom Wiens, who is challenging Norton to be the GOP's U.S. Senate candidate come fall. "We have to have real fiscal conservatives elected to the U.S. Senate," he said. "If you're going to use these numbers from your budget, you have to use the real numbers. You can't make them up. We can't have this kind of thinking where you claim to cut your budget and you don't; and you claim to not raise taxes, and you did."

In Wiens's view, Norton's support for Referendum C in 2006 was, in effect, support for a tax increase...

Particularly interesting here is the fact that Norton is defending herself using a similar approach as Governor Bill Ritter did when then-gubernatorial candidate Josh Penry and others attacked him over budget line items not directly under his control. The biggest difference, of course, is that Democrats don't highlight "spending cuts" in campaign ads as good things.

But if you're to accept Norton's defense, as her campaign no doubt would like you to do, you pretty much have to acknowledge that a whole swath of claims insistently made by Penry and GOP candidates around the state about Democrats in power are meritless. Most likely GOP caucusgoers watching this aren't going to think so, of course, so it just ends up with Norton looking as duplicitous as they've been taught Governor Ritter appears for saying the same thing.

With caucuses just a few days away, this was not the TV news feature Norton was hoping for.

Time to fire up Lucas, The Lost Boys, and License to Drive — if only for closure:

Actor and former teen idol Corey Haim has died at the age of 38, the Los Angeles Police Department has confirmed to KTLA.

Haim died at 3:30 a.m. Wednesday of an apparent accidental overdose, according to the LAPD’s North Hollywood Division.

Coroner’s Lt. Cheryl MacWillie said an autopsy would determine an official cause of death.

Haim was found unresponsive inside an Oakwood apartment, between Burbank and the Hollywood Hills, police said.

He was at home with his mother at the time.

The Canadian-born actor, who has struggled with drug addiction, was pronounced dead Providence St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Burbank, police said.

Rest in piece, Corey.

And just so you know, yes, I forgive you for Prayer of the Rollerboys and Dream a Little Dream. At long last.

(h/t A fine scotch)

via Michelle Malkin, a great suggestion on how to handle the “race” part of the Census form.

So far Obama has demonized people working in specific private sectors of the economy or who hold specific positions:

Doctors
Bankers
Wall Street
Insurance
CEOs
Pharmacueticals

He has never expressed any criticism about people in the public sector, even as federal employees earn more. Nor chastised unionized teachers behaving badly, or any union at all.

Obama’s claims to “believe” in free markets are as credible as any promise he has ever made.

I suppose that can be expected from a man that has gotten well into his fourth decade of life never having worked in the private sector, nor worked hard for just about anything.*

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it."

--Blaise Pascal

Yesterday I received a strange mailing from a group called Taxpayers for Liberty. (Many of my fellow conservative, politically-active Colorado friends likely received the same.) It’s a self-described 501c4 organization with a Denver P.O. Box and an executive director named Andrew O’Neill — I’m almost positive it’s not this Andrew O’Neill.

I will take time later today to scan and post the four-page letter, along with the attached questionnaire and reply form, so you can see the mailing for yourself. It looks a lot like your standard political fundraising letter, with short paragraphs and heavy on underlined text and bullet points. Suffice it to say, the group Taxpayers for Liberty is very fond of Ken Buck, while railing on Jane Norton for not returning the questionnaire and Tom Wiens for filling out the questionnaire identically but having a voting record, or something like that.

Let me add here that the Taxpayers for Liberty questionnaire leaves a lot to be desired in its ability (or lack thereof) to meaningfully distinguish candidates from one another. For the most part, the 12 statements are largely factual in nature and focus on perspectives of existing problems without proposing or suggesting what type of solutions are needed. So at best, the answers might tell us all the candidates agree on the nature of the problem. Okay … then what?

So who is Taxpayers for Liberty? A search on the Colorado Secretary of State website finds the group originally was registered last November to one Sue Rehg of Loveland, a Republican activist and currently listed as a Larimer County co-chair of Ken Buck’s campaign. Last month the group switched registered agents to Denver attorney Adam Kehrli, no doubt to help make sure the language of the letter complies with electioneering regulations on 501c4 groups.

But this information only leaves many other questions unanswered — such as how large the group’s list or expenditure is. I’ve contacted representatives of the three leading Republican U.S. Senate campaigns to see if they have any insights or reactions to offer. But if anyone else out there has valuable information to add, please feel free to add to the intrigue.

I’m watching American Idol. I’m working. I’m helping my wife with a computer project. I’m reading the news.

That is what should commonly be known as “stupid-tasking.” Where the hell did my ability to focus go? I kind of miss it.

Nonetheless, those of you who might have missed the

Katie Stevens is cute for a ten year old. Okay, that’s not fair. She must be at least thirteen. She sounds moderately okay in a bland and boring kind of way, but inspires a hearty eh, whatever, from me and not much else.

Randy didn’t like it much and pulled out the dreaded karaoke critique. Ouch. Ellen is nicer, but still thinks that the li’l girl couldn’t pull off the emotional aspect of the song. Kara damns with faint praise. I personally prefer to damn with harsh language. Like “damn.” Simon says: “You kind of sucked (long pause) the energy out of the room.” Or something to that effect, which was unintentionally ouchie.

Siobahn who is cute, apparently of age, quirky, and potentially not particularly bright. Or, perhaps, constantly stoned. Dunno. She’s also consistently interesting even though I didn’t find her “House of the Rising Sun” to be quite convincing tonight. I would chalk it up to trying too hard, but that’s just me.

Randy butters her up with kindness and admires her risk-taking behavior and then proclaims it “hot.” Ellen calls her spectacular. Kara digs, too. Simon says: “I wasn’t quite such a fan of that.”

Once again, Simon is the voice of reason. He is, however, extra bitchy this year.

When darling girl sees Lacey Brown , she asks, “She’s still here?” Funny moment and not a bad point: Brown hasn’t been so good to this point in the competition and certainly hasn’t lived up to her auditions. Tonight, she does pretty well--emphasis on the pretty--until a bum note at the end of the song.

Randy calls it her best performance in a long time. Ellen agrees and says it was a great song choice (I agree). Kara liked it, too. Simon says: “I didn’t love love the song, but you sang it really well.”

Nicely done.

It’s almost unfair for me to critique Katelyn Epperly performance of “I Feel the Earth Move.” ‘Cause I hate this song and even if she’s doing it well, I’m going to hate the song. So, regardless of artistic merit, sitting through it was painful for me.

Randy says it felt put on--"a little sleepy, a little boring.” Ellen doesn’t feel like being very nice, either. Kara’s not feeling the love. Simon says: “I like your hair.” But it goes down hill from there.

When Didi Benami is singing well, I absolutely love her voice. I also love her doing Stevie Nicks, who was one of my earliest and naughtiest crushes because conservative boys do so love their hippy chicks.  That said, the audience seemed a little confused…

...And so did Randy, although he liked it better than the previous week. Ellen gives her credit for bouncing back from the previous week and gives a mildly positive review. Kara says it was one of her favorite moments of the year so far--which seems a bit much to me, but I did enjoy it. Simon says: “I have to agree with Kara.”

Good for Didi.

Paige Miles goes for a subdued and ridiculously boring “Smile.” Wobbly and uninvolving, unfortunately.

Randy goes for the smack down. Ellen continues the downward smack. Kara adds in a sideways slap or two. Simon says: “Such a shame because you had so much potential...but the problem is you have no idea who you are.”

I wouldn’t be surprised to see her going home, although she’s playing the rarely played “Michael Jackson is dead” card. Which, that’s a surprise move.

I do like Crystal Bowersox in spite of her white girl dreads, which are wrong wrong wrong. Tracy Chapman’s “Give Me One Reason” is a good fit and lets her stretch her voice a bit. Not only is it fun, but it’s the first lively song of the night and she looked like she enjoyed it. Love her.

Randy gives it lots of love. Ellen and Kara, too. Simon says: “Uh, you are one million billion percent going to be in the top 12 next week.”

The world loves Bowersox.

Stupid Traitor Bitch Aside: Stupid traitor bitch. What the hell goes so wrong in her head that she decides to undertake terrorist training and commit herself to murdering a fucking cartoonist? Hate isn’t a big enough word for how I feel about Colleen “JihadJane” LaRose.

You can never go wrong with Patsy Cline. Well, almost never. “I Fall to Pieces” as sung by Lilly Scott, who had previously been one of my favorites, was surprisingly bad. Her vocals were unsteady, although the audience seemed to enjoy it.

Randy liked the mandolin and called it “hot.” Ellen, too. Which makes me wonder just how different it sounded in the theater because, no. Kara was nice about it. Simon says: “It didn’t have the wow factor.” But he doesn’t much criticize the performance, so who knows…

Lots of news, although written before the McDonald oral argument

Coffee-fueled car:

The team calculates the Carpuccino will do three miles per kilo of ground coffee -- the equivalent of about 56 espressos per mile.

"The Big Red Word vs. the Little Green Man: The international war over exit signs." (Via @BBspot.)

"Amazon Is Building a Better Browser for Kindle"

"What if everyone in Canada flushed at once?"

Downrange TV with Michael Bane. 34 minutes.

George Mason University Economics Professor Don Boudreaux wrote an open letter to the President on Monday, and it's a doozy. Enjoy: CBS radio news this morning ran a clip of one of your recent speeches. In it, you criticize insurance companies...

These people are way cooler than I could ever be.  At least I have something to aspire to.

Dan Riehl reports that the GOP is going to the mattresses to stop reconciliation.

Despite the best efforts of Colorado statehouse Democrats to turn around and point the fingers at the e-e-e-eeevil Amazon.com, they (with the exception of Sen. Gail Schwarz) are all responsible for paying no heed to the warnings and ultimately killing many small Colorado Internet businesses.

Speaking of difficulty in taking responsibility, WhoSaidYouSaid has posted a YouTube video of Democrat state senate leader John Morse going ballistic at Amazon. Sadly, for the overwhelming majority of people whose businesses have been affected, this just doesn’t ring true.

Turning in his Kindle for an iPad is John Morse’s prerogative. But venting at a business for following through on a rational decision caused by his own vote won’t ease the pain of Colorado’s Amazon affiliates. Although it might inspire a few to volunteer on behalf of John Morse’s Republican opponent Owen Hill.

While lame duck Governor Bill Ritter similarly has professed his indignation, more attention properly has been given to gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper — who, as the Denver Post’s Chuck Plunkett points out, seized the moment to show a lack of leadership. As fellow RMA blogger Don Johnson points out, though, it’s this entry yesterday by the Post’s Jessica Fender that is carrying the brunt of reader outrage.

Nine more weeks for the legislative session to end can’t come fast enough. Statehouse Democrats not only are causing havoc and harm with their bad policies, they are doing Republican strategists’ work for them — ticking off more easy talking points to be lobbed back against the majority throughout the fall campaign season.

Property tax … car tax … fees, fees, fees … clamping down on families and small businesses … killing job growth …. In light of this, I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: State-level races are where the Tea Party groups can have the greatest impact.

Update: T.L. James of the Peoples Press Collective has a more eloquent and entertaining take on the Amazon.com tax and the John Morse video … yes, he’s really in the comment trenches of his YouTube video arguing with everyone over the finer points of the tax and the state constitution.

Update II, 3/10: Don Johnson has more on the Amazon Tax, says it’s designed in part to enrich union leaders. Meanwhile, Joshua Sharf has a somewhat different take on Amazon’s actions to repeal its Colorado affiliates program.

On this date in 1776, Adam Smith’s On The Wealth Of Nations was published. Back during the days of the free market in our nation, it was a very influential book. If it’s too forbidding a tome for you, you may enjoy P.J. O’Rourke’s introduction to it, from a few years ago. (Buy it through Jeff’s Amazon banner, while it lasts.) Here are some fair-use quotes:

Leftist critics of free markets assume that there is a fraudulent aspect to capitalism. They’re right. We tricked the feudal powers into setting us free, and we remained free by continuing to bamboozle them. We used chicanery and sharp dealing to found our cities, become rich bourgeoisie, and supply ourselves with creature comforts. We left the barbarian aristocrats in their drafty castles throwing chicken bones on the floor.
———-
Later economists, such as, in the early nineteenth century, J. B. Say, felt that Smith undervalued the economic contributions of service. And he did. The eighteenth century had servants, not a service economy. It was hard for a man of that era to believe that the semi-inebriated footman and the blowsy scullery maid would evolve into, well, the stoned pizza delivery boy and the girl behind the checkout counter with an earring in her tongue.
———–
Smith emphasized the “private frugality and good conduct of individuals” and “their universal, continual, and uninterrupted effort to better their own condition.” He argued that it was “this effort, protected by law and allowed by liberty…which has maintained the progress of England towards opulence and improvement.” But since England “has never been blessed with a very parsimonious government…[it] is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people.”
————–
Before totalitarianism had ever been tried, Adam Smith was prescient in his scorn for it:
“The man of system [...] is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.[...] He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.”

Barbed wire always seems to be needed to keep the chessmen on their squares.
————
Adam Smith did a lot of thinking about taxes, eighty-odd pages
worth. He began with four sensible maxims of taxation: taxes ought to
be inexpensive to collect, be levied when taxpayers are best able to
pay them, be proportionate to the revenue that taxpayers “enjoy under
the protection of the state,” and be “certain, and not arbitrary.”
The last maxim is the most sensible and therefore the least
observed. The boggling complexity of tax law and the ceaseless
fiddling with taxes, even by legislators who would lower them, violate
Smith’s principle that “a very considerable degree of inequality…is
not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.”
It’s a principle that applies to practically everything, as anyone who
is in love or waiting for a check in the mail knows.

No, really.

 That's all I have to say.

There is an article in Pop-Sci that is breathlessly announcing the first commercial wireless human brain-computer interface. At the same time, Bayou Man notes that DARPA has developed a pretty fancy prosthesis with an eye toward control by implanted neural cortical control.

Put the two together, and what you have is the latest unmanned combat device for the battlefield of the future: An infantryman, teleoperated by someone at some remove from the actual battlefield. The first Terminators will not be completely autonomous.

Now think about the level of inspiration you would need to take up arms against such an enemy, and exchange fire with him, knowing that you are the only warm meat on the battlefield.

State Rep. Cory Gardner, the Republican frontrunner for the 4th Congressional District, missed a vote on a water bill critical to his district Tuesday because he was on a campaign-related trip to Washington, D.C., according to Jessica Fender at the Denver Post.

"Senate Bill 52 nearly died in the House this morning, only to be resurrected at the last minute on a narrow 33-30 vote. It would protect boundaries of a designated groundwater basin that's home to the Republican River and Gardner's Eastern Colorado district," Fender wrote.

Full story here: http://blogs.denverpost.com/th...

The Yuma lawmaker came close to accusing the Democratic leadership of deliberately bringing up the bill -- which he described as "an issue that really does mean life or death on the eastern plains" -- while he was absent, a charge denied by House Speaker Terrance Carroll.

Gardner, who was excused from the Legislature Monday and Tuesday, said he was in Washington for campaign-related meetings, but declined to be more specific. His campaign didn't respond to a question from the Coloradoan Monday on why he was absent from the Legislature.
His absence drew a sharp condemnation from Andy Stone, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: "Today Cory Gardner made his priority abundantly clear: advancing his own self interest rather than the interests of his constituents."

Gardner also was criticized in January when he was absent on Military Appreciation Day at the Capitol because he was in Washington on campaign business.

He is one of four Republicans seeking to challenge Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo. The others are Tom Lucero, Diggs Brown and Dean Madere.

Anyone who has ever watched one of those Discovery or National Geo shows knows how the African Savanna works. The Zebras in great numbers go about their business, eating and making more Zebras, and the lions hang out on the edges of the herd, occasionally taking one down for food.

The municipal savanna works the same way. The Zebras, in large numbers, travels as a herd to and from work, and the lions, in black and white vehicles, randomly pull a few of us down, to satisfy the municipal hunger.

Following the person in front of you, turning left, across an otherwise busy roadway, through an otherwise large gap in the oncoming traffic, the lead person steps on the brakes as soon as he clears the intersection, slowing to about 5 mph, and leaving yours truly sitting across an oncoming lane of traffic. Pulling up close behind him to avoid being hit is not "following too closely" regardless of what the uniformed kid with the gun and nun-chucks (when did they start issuing those?) says.

Fortunately, the DA will always solicit a bribe in the form of "gimmie some extra money, and I'll knock the charges down to almost nothing". This implying that while following too close is a 4 point offense, worthy of $88, having a defective headlamp is, while only 1 point, worth $105.

You don't suppose it's really about just money, do you?

Dr Helen has a post on the topic as well, and the comments there are worth reading, too.

Mike R offers the following suggestion in is quest to save the world:

An Impassioned Plea

 

By: MikeR

My friends, I generally refrain from asking for donations to any cause because I believe we all have our own various charities and activities which move us to act financially, physically and politically but in this case I feel strongly enough to make an exception.

It has come to my attention that the world, particularly the third world, is on the edge of a grave crisis. Because it has been much maligned lately, due to the insidious acts of a few hackers stealing documents from respected scientists with a solid consensus view, the climate change movement has been dealt a serious blow. This has set back efforts by well intentioned politicians around the globe to do what needs to be done.

With the failure of Copenhagen, in large part due to American Republicans blocking the much needed Cap & Trade Bill, many nations feeling the loss of Obama’s and America’s leadership, balked at meaningful reforms that would not just curb Greenhouse gasses but also more equitably distribute the capital and resources of wealthy nations to those most in need around the world.

For far too long many of these nations have lived in the carbon footprint of large and successful industrialized nations leaving them with the mess of floods, cyclones, droughts, snowstorms, famines, pestilence, disease, earthquakes, lack of universal healthcare, lack of broadband access, warm beer and yes, even locust swarms and wars caused by climate change. Few people living in these wealthy industrialized nations even realize that somewhere in the world at least one of these horrific events is taking place right now as a direct consequence of their hyper-wealth and industrialization.

Without the Copenhagen agreement and the well conceived Cap & Tax bill in the U.S., the wealth of the industrialized nations will continue to grow unbounded by conscience. This of course will leave no reasonable capital available to equitably distribute and make amends and create remedies in the third world which is languishing in our carbon footprint.

I think we can all agree the IMF is a laudable organization whose goal of stabilizing the global economy and making sure that the poorest nations have access to the wealth and resources of the wealthiest nations is of paramount importance. I am sure most would also agree that few organizations are as pure in purpose and free from corruption, with the possible exception of The Catholic Church and the Democratic Party, as the IMF. They, the IMF, are now attempting to get in front of this critical problem with a unique set of proposals.

The IMF Managing Director, Dominique Strauss-Khan, has come forward with an important point and an excellent proposal for a solution:

“We all know that (carbon taxes and other fundraising methods) will take time and we don’t have this time. So we need something which looks like an interim solution, which will bridge the gap between now and the time when those carbon taxes will be big enough to solve the problem,” Strauss-Kahn said. “And that is exactly what the IMF proposal is dealing with.”

And further:

“Strauss-Kahn proposed that countries adopt a quota system similar to the one the Fund uses to raise its own money, which could bring in money faster than proposals to increase carbon taxes or other fundraising methods. He only provided a broad outline of the plan, as the organization will release a paper later this week with full details.”

(Both quotes from an AP article printed March 8^th, 2010 by Tom Maliti)

While many may think that such actions are outside the traditional role of the IMF, I think that it is not such a leap to see how this fits neatly into their mission of equitably distributing the wealth and resources of wealthy nations to poor nations. It is easy for anyone to see that it is in fact the obligation of the wealthy nations to remedy the consequences of their carbon footprint on those nations who, through no fault of their own, have not shared in the prosperity and growth of first world nations. The IMF estimates that it will take at least $100 billion a year to mitigate the effects of climate change on poor nations in order to prevent large scale suffering, human displacement, earthquakes, warm beer and yes, even locust swarms and wars. Most of us understand that this is not even close to enough to redeem us for centuries of greed and exploitation. Whether we want to admit it or not wealth is violence both against our fellow man and our Mother Earth.

Here’s where you and I come in my friends.

Owing to the distractions and misdirection away from the ironclad consensus on the climate change problem by a handful of unruly dissenters and lawless data stealing hackers, the political process of remediation and equitable wealth distribution has been stalled. This stall is something that poor nations living in the carbon footprint of rich nations can ill afford at this perilous crossroads. While the politicians of the world are arguing, people are indeed suffering because of the unprecedented events caused by climate change brought on by callous, wealthy industrialized societies. The droughts, the floods, earthquakes and the scarcity of food are happening right now. We, as responsible people, need to get behind this action by the IMF whole-heartedly and demonstrate our enlightened compassion and responsibility to those bearing the burden of living in our carbon footprint.

Dig down deep into your hearts and pockets my friends, donate to green causes, call and write your representatives and the White House and let them know you are behind the IMF getting in front of this problem without delay. Demand that the wealth and resources you enjoy be equitably distributed before it is too late. Get this IMF fund set up now and help prevent tomorrow’s catastrophe TODAY. In solidarity with the plight of the suffering masses I have even decided that I will only drink warm beer until this problem is resolved globally. I don’t expect others to go to such extremes but I personally felt compelled to go the extra mile in this case.

Of course this is not enough in the longer term but it will help for now. Looking forward, we all, as citizens of the wealthy industrialized world need to demand higher taxes and caps on the use of our resources at home and abroad so that our wealth and resources can be equitably distributed to those who, through no fault of their own, have not had the chances we have had to develop.

Give today my friends and demand that others give as well until the force of law can remedy and redeem us for this our human condition.

Finally; I am reminded of a letter I received this week from a dear friend, Cthulhu, who lives in the third world, in it he writes:

My Dear Friend Mike,

This year has been hotter than any I can remember in my three long years of living here in the third world. I perspired more than I can ever remember perspiring. And then there were the insects, hundreds, if not thousands of them every night. What with the food shortages, warm beer and the cyclones it has been just dreadful. Even when food was available it would sometimes take days to get my turn with the village dentures so I could chew my food instead of just swallowing it whole with gulps of warm beer. I’m sorry if this letter took too long to find you my dear friend Mike, if we just had broadband access I wouldn’t have to choose between using two squares of toilet paper and saving one for my letter to you. I wish from the bottom of my soul that the world would see fit to more equitably distribute wealth and resources and end these problems.

Yours Eternally,

Dreaming,

Waiting,

Cthulhu

 

Today’s live Trifecta broadcast was loads of fun, and featured hardly any shirtless pictures of Rahm Emanuel at all.

The funniest news of the morning comes to us from AdFreak:

This is awesome. The New York Post reports that Lindsay Lohan is suing E*Trade for $100 million, claiming that the boyfriend-stealing “milkaholic” named Lindsay in the company’s Super Bowl commercial...from Grey Advertising was clearly modeled after her. “Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E*Trade is using that knowledge to profit,” Lohan’s lawyer says. “They’re using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn’t they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message. Everybody’s talking about it and saying it’s Lindsay Lohan.”

I had been wondering where the insane little starlet had gone; it’s good to know that she hasn’t lost all her crazy.

(Okay, no, I wasn’t really wondering where the insane little starlet had gone. It just fit the flow of the narrative.)

Some people are aggressive mean drunks. Overwhelmingly, these people are not women. These people are also disproportionately men who weight 215 pounds. (FWIW, the study used screwdrivers to get the subjects drunk.)

There is even more good news for women who drink alcohol from a study of the drinking habits and weight of 19,220 women over age 38 who started the study at a normal weight:

[A]fter almost 13 years about 41 percent of the women were overweight or obese. Women who reported drinking no alcohol — 38 percent of the entire sample — gained the most weight. A statistical analysis showed that women who did not drink could expect to gain 3.45 to 3.80 kg during the 13-year study. In contrast, women who drank moderately — about one to two glasses of wine a day — could expect to gain between 2.13 and 2.99 kg.

The trend held true up through moderate drinking levels, but researchers didn’t have enough heavy drinkers in their sample group to analyze. Only 3 percent of their sample group reported drinking two to three drinks per day or more.

The type of alcohol didn’t much matter. . . . Red wine, white wine, beer and liquor all showed the same trend.

This could be because drinking often leads to dancing in women: "Women of normal weight . . . tend to burn more calories after drinking alcohol than the alcohol itself provides."

You would think that a year and half after the US taxpayer saved the world by propping up the banking system, the financial sector would have humbly submitted to regulations to prevent another disaster.  Nope.

As Congress this week inches toward a new set of rules to avert another global financial collapse, it is focused on two conflicting goals: reforming the banking system to protect consumers while still giving lenders the freedom to take risks.

So far the score looks like: Bankers 1, Consumers 0.

More than a year after a wave of risky mortgage bets brought Wall Street to its knees, banks and other financial institutions are still playing by the same rules that got them into the mess.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35...
While President Obama has spent his first year in office battling on the hard front of health care reform, the multi national financial firms have marshaled their forces and incomprehensibly out maneuvered reform despite overwhelming consumer anger on the right and the left.

How has this come to pass?  Anger with the banks is so pervasive amongst the people of the United States that maintaining status quo is incomprehensible.  The problem of "too big to fail" has become the problem of "too big to be subject to regulation."  We are losing the battle to regulate banks, because they are too politically powerful as well as too important to the economy.

The banks have the power to preserve this arrangement. While the U.S. financial system has a long tradition of functioning well with a relatively large number of banks and other intermediaries, in recent years, it has been transformed into a highly concentrated system for key products. The big four have half of the market for mortgages and two-thirds of the market for credit cards. Five banks have over 95 percent of the market for over-the-counter derivatives. Three U.S. banks have over 40 percent of the global market for stock underwriting. This degree of market power brings with it not just antitrust concerns, which this administration has declined to act on, and a huge amount of economic risk--but great political influence as well.

The banks are going to use that power to block legislation containing any meaningful financial reform. And they are likely to succeed. Their current political donations surpass those given by most other interest groups, and the limit on their future donations has just been lifted by the Supreme Court. These banks and their allies are already targeting at least one member of Congress who supported the 2009 credit card bill. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and long-standing champion of the financial sector, recently railed against the big banks for not cooperating with financial reform; but he is freer to speak out now that he is no longer seeking reelection. Senator Richard Shelby, the committee's ranking minority member, is steadfastly opposed to reform; he and other top Republicans eagerly await the arrival of largesse from big banks. Hill staffers remark that the financial Godfathers' message is quite clear: If you cross us, we will bury you at the polls. Nothing in the Volcker Rules would change this relationship between Wall Street and Washington.

http://www.tnr.com/article/pol...

What is particularly galling about this is they are using our money, the bailout money, to lobby against reregulation.  Bonuses are up 17% on Wall Street while folks across America struggle to put their lives back together after those same bankers took the world to the brink of collapse.

This is not the first time this has happened.  Teddy Roosevelt's was the first to use the Sherman anti trust law against a corporation and it wasn't by accident that it was J.P. Morgan's Northern Securities Corporation (Before this Sherman anti trust was used to bust unions).  The critical problem 100 years ago that TR was trying to address was that big banks were more powerful than the government and this threatened the sovereignty of the United States.

In his autobiography, Roosevelt told the story of how the great J. P. Morgan had come to him after news of the suit broke and in avuncular fashion suggested that the whole scandal could have been avoided if the president's man (the attorney general) had met with Morgan's man to arrange matters. It had become habit for the country's business elite to view the federal government as merely a rival power, even as a lesser power that should consult with its betters before acting. T. R. implied that he had put Morgan in his proper place.

http://www.presidentprofiles.c...

In all fairness, JP Morgan was a great man who saved this country before we had a Fed by organizing a bailout in the Panic of 1907.  However, the issue is not whether mega banks are good or bad, or run by moral people, the issue is sovereignty: is a single corporation, (or a collection of 6) more important than our elected government.  Does a cabal of a few powerful players neither elected, appointed by elected officials, nor hired by elected officials, get to determine the shape of our future?

This most recent deregulation problem only culminated under Bush as pure jungle capitalism, you can go back 30 years to Garn-St, Germain (which I wrote about, somewhat presciently in the spring of  '08 http://coloradopols.com/showDi...  months before the Lehman-AIG collapse) and every President since has had some hand in the deregulation.

So what is my point?  We cannot afford to lose this battle.  I am not looking for compromise; I am not looking for bipartisanship; I am looking to lay it on a line.  Are you for the American people or the multinational banks (Citizens United not withstanding--I do not accept that banks are people).

Thanks for listening to my tirade.

It's time to cast those votes on the caucus process. Click below to vote, and remember: As always, we want to know your best educated guess.

Since the caucus process will last for a few months, predicting a winner will be tough to do. How much does it hurt Jane Norton if she doesn't do well at the caucus? Does a poor performance basically end Ken Buck's campaign? What about Tom Wiens?

So vote below, and then offer your comments on what the caucus process means for the candidates. We'll offer our opinion later in the week.

It's time to cast those votes on the caucus process. Click below to vote, and remember: As always, we want to know your best educated guess.

For example, can Sen. Michael Bennet still be considered a "winner" after Tuesday even if it looks like Andrew Romanoff got more pledged support? You could say yes, considering that the caucus is supposed to be Romanoff's real base; but you could also say no, arguing that an incumbent Senator should not lose in a caucus process.

So vote below, and then offer your comments on what the caucus process means for the candidates. We'll offer our opinion later in the week.

Sucks to be Buck.

Ken Buck's campaign was dealt a huge blow today by Attorney General John Suthers' endorsement of Jane Norton for Senate. Aaron Blake of The Hill reports that Suthers issued a statement saying:

"She has a proven track record of experience in tackling and solving big issues, and I believe she is the right person to stand up for Colorado's law enforcement community in our nation's capitol."

Ouch.

As the Weld County District Attorney, one would suppose Buck would be the person to "stand up for Colorado's law enforcement community" in the eyes of, you know, the chief legal officer for the state. If a District Attorney doesn't have the legal community on his side, exactly who's in his corner?

Suthers' endorsement of Norton is another drop in the overflowing bucket of problems the Buck campaign has faced in the past couple of months. With embarrassingly low fundraising figures in the fourth quarter of 2009, and now a ringing legal-expert endorsement of a rival candidate, the question remains: Why is Buck still running?

The standard mindset of economics is to see the point of everything to be maximizing productivity (as measured by the inputs to Gross Domestic Product), and the maximize GDP itself.

As a first order goal, it isn't a bad approach.

But, productivity fails to capture important measures relevant to quality of life (e.g. the benefits of having diverse products produced on a small scale rather than homogeneous mass produced products) and economic resilience (e.g. the benefits to technology growth and economic ability to deal with hard times that comes from having lots of businesses capable of making sophisticated things).

GDP also has its faults beyond those associated with problems with productivity itself as a measure of quality of life. A good example of that is the role that inventory plays in the measure.

The U.S. had GDP growth at a 5.9% annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2009, which was better than the 5% annual rate of growth experienced by the Candians in the fourth quarter of 2009. This sounds great until you learn that most of the American GDP growth came from building up inventories that weren't sold in the quarter. In contrast, the Canadians actually reduced their inventory levels.

Without considering changes in inventories, U.S. GDP growth in the 4th quarter of 2009 had a much more modest 2.0% annual growth rate, while the Canadian's GDP annual growth rate was more than 5.0% and included health growth in all other sectors of GDP.

In this context, GDP inclines one to the same mistake about economics that the Soviets made in their regime. Productivity is good, but it is actually only good when you are making something that people want to buy.

Tomorrow is a big day in the land of liberty. We’ve got two events going on, back to back.

The first is Taxpayer Day at the Capitol. The Independence Institute is proud to join forces with Americans for Prosperity and other liberty minded organizations including The 9-12 Project Colorado Coalition, The Gadsen Society, Liberty on the Rocks, Peoples Press Collective, and the Western Slope Conservative Alliance. Aren’t you tired of special interests sending their lobbyists to the Capitol to promote their own pet projects and pet issues? Well, tomorrow is our chance to unite as taxpayers and represent our interests to those inside the Colorado State Capitol. After all, taxpayers are the largest “special interest” group in Colorado — it’s about time we use our large numbers. Besides, ignoring us taxpayers makes you look as silly as Austin Powers. (Even the Denver Post has written about it!)

Please join us on the west steps of the State Capitol at noon!

The second event is a health care policy roundtable co-sponsored by the Heartland Institute. This event will be taking place at the Denver Public Library from 2 to 5pm. Click here for the agenda including speakers and topics. If you’d like to join us for the health care roundtable, please call Mary MacFarlane at 303.279.6536 or RSVP online here.

A new deal worked out between Governor Bill Ritter and Xcel Energy is sure to complicate some GOP election-related talking points, and at the same time be a really great move economically and environmentally. The Grand Junction Sentinel reported over the weekend:

Gov. Bill Ritter announced a major piece of legislation Friday that would boost the use of natural gas in the state.

In an agreement worked out between Xcel Energy, environmentalists and lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle, the governor's plan would be to convert by 2017 several coal-fired power plants on the Front Range to natural gas.

The measure, the details of which are being worked out, not only would create a new market for natural gas in the state, but it also would help clear the air around Front Range cities.

"This proposal will keep Colorado at the forefront of America's energy revolution," Ritter said. "It will protect consumers, clean our air and protect public health and create new jobs by increasing demand for Colorado-produced natural gas."

Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, said he has been involved in discussions about the proposal, but he hasn't decided if his name will appear on the bill.

If the measure is drafted as he thinks it should be, he said it potentially could be a "game changer" for the Western Slope's natural gas market...

Of course, Josh Penry being Josh Penry, he couldn't resist the chance to take a gratuitous swipe, even while saying perhaps his most favorable things ever about a Bill Ritter energy plan:

"This is a real opportunity for the governor to restore some of what he's done to natural gas," the senator said, referring to stricter new state rules regulating the industry that Ritter pushed last year.

We, along with a growing number of reputable news sources, have deconstructed this tired canard enough times that we really don't feel the need to do so again. And besides, Penry is actually making reasonable, conciliatory noises overall here--a practice that should be encouraged.

According to the Denver Post, coal producers in the state are upset about this deal, but the Sentinel correctly notes that the majority of coal mined in Colorado is already exported.

The overall effect of this deal, if successful, could be a considerably reduced opportunity to score cheap and duplicitous points off the ups and downs of the Western Slope's natural gas industry like Penry's above--by converting coal plants along the Front Range to natural gas, a major air pollution source is mitigated, and a large, stable market for natural gas is simultaneously created.

Sounds like a win-win, doesn't it? As much as we hate to admit it, giving politics a rest and doing the right thing can really be useful once in awhile.

Worth a look if you haven't already, the Denver Post reports:

A new website that will provide taxpayers estimates of how their taxes are spent and allow them to vote on whether that amount is appropriate was unveiled Sunday.

The Tax Tracks program is the first of its kind in the country, said state Treasurer Cary Kennedy. Users enter their income and can see, for example, how many of their dollars went to education.

The program estimates income, property, sales, gas and other taxes using information from a 2000 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey.

Everybody we've talked to thinks it's quite cool, and a nicely simplified breakdown of where tax revenue goes. Demystifying the process makes prevaricating about it tougher, which is good for (almost) everybody.

Politically, this is the latest in a string of 'open government' promises Treasurer Cary Kennedy can hang her hat on going into her re-election bid this year. If you recall her campaign spots from 2006 (YouTube makes it easy), her foremost pledge as a candidate was to "show you where your money goes." Part of that pledge was covered when she put the state's checking register online, and published comprehensive annual reports--"Tax Tracks" would be the other half.

Just another reason why Kennedy arguably has more to run on than any statewide incumbent this year, despite the pack of well-funded Republican challengers nipping at her heels. Were it not for the lavish amounts of money at least two of those GOP candidates are ready to dump into this race, we'd call it as sewn up as Attorney General John Suthers' impending cakewalk.

Me: “Heya, deadbeat neighbor! Long time! How’s tricks?”

Deadbeat neighbor: “Beg pardon?”

Me: “– Oh, shit, that’s right. I moved a while back, didn’t I? Which means you wouldn’t have the slightest idea what I’m talking about.”

Deadbeat neighbor New-ish neighbor: “No, I wouldn’t.”

New-ish neighbor: ” — And say, is that my newspaper you’ve got in your hand…?”

UPDATE: Sources say unequivocally that the amendment yesterday to remove the referred measure component of the bill has the full support of proponents, and Rep. Lois Court is now a "yes" vote on payday lending reform. More to come.

--

We're a little less jubilant this morning about yesterday's passage by the House Judiciary Committee of House Bill 1351, the bill to cap interest rates charged by the usurious payday lending industry at the same percentage other lenders doing business in Colorado are allowed, as amended. The Denver Post reports:

In a hearing room at the Capitol packed with hundreds of payday lenders and their employees - along with a smaller contingent of bill supporters that included clergy and advocates for the poor - the House Judiciary Committee heard passionate arguments from both sides.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, said payday loans are not helping borrowers, whom he said too frequently fall into a spiral of loan rollovers and endless debt.

"It isn't access to credit, it's access to debt," Ferrandino said.

Proponents of the bill included a number of borrowers, who said they started out with small loans to help pay bills and then found they could never repay the principal and fees charged.

Kasie Oliver, a woman from Lakewood caring for three grandchildren, said she took out a payday loan and could not pay it back, finding herself turning to food banks to feed her family.

"I thought I would take this loan and get caught up but I didn't," Oliver said. "I just got more and more in debt."

...Republicans said the bill would throw thousands of payday loan store employees out of work.

The committee eliminated a section of the bill that would have sent the issue to voters, [Pols emphasis] and then passed it to the full House on a 7-4 party-line vote.

As years of payday lending spam has vested a personal interest in reform with your hosts, we're somewhat concerned to see that the referred measure component of the bill was stripped out--as we've discussed before, the decision was made to refer payday lending reform to the voters in the hope that removing the finality from wavering legislators' votes would make it possible for more to vote yes. Moreover the amendment in question was moved by Rep. Lois Court, who has been previously flagged as an opponent of payday lending reform--which invites suspicion. On the other hand, Rep. Court has longstanding and well known objections to the fault-ridden ballot measure process in Colorado (an opinion widely shared), so it's certainly possible that she was simply making the bill more palatable to herself and others who may agree.

Or, it could be that much easier to kill now. We sincerely hope that was not the intention here, but we'll be watching closely as the bill moves to the House floor. And our highly reliable gut instinct strongly recommends amending it back--a poll follows.

From “How to Deconstruct Anything — My Postmodern Adventure”:

Looking at the field of contemporary literary criticism as a whole also yields some valuable insights. It is a cautionary lesson about the consequences of allowing a branch of academia that has been entrusted with the study of important problems to become isolated and inbred. The Pseudo Politically Correct term that I would use to describe the mind set of postmodernism is “epistemologically challenged”: a constitutional inability to adopt a reasonable way to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff. The language and idea space of the field have become so convoluted that they have confused even themselves. But the tangle offers a safe refuge for the academics. It erects a wall between them and the rest of the world. It immunizes them against having to confront their own failings, since any genuine criticism can simply be absorbed into the morass and made indistinguishable from all the other verbiage. Intellectual tools that might help prune the thicket are systematically ignored or discredited. This is why, for example, science, psychology and economics are represented in the literary world by theories that were abandoned by practicing scientists, psychologists and economists fifty or a hundred years ago. The field is absorbed in triviality. Deconstruction is an idea that would make a worthy topic for some bright graduate student’s Ph.D. dissertation but has instead spawned an entire subfield. Ideas that would merit a good solid evening or afternoon of argument and debate and perhaps a paper or two instead become the focus of entire careers.

It has of late become fashionable to sneer at literary criticism in general (and the rather trite use of “deconstruction” in particular) — and this piece does an admirable job on both accounts — but the tendency to sneer, while it can certainly feel liberating, is also something of a dodge these days, a kind of reflexive reaction to the “post modern” as it is generally (mis)used and (mis)understood, an affect adopted by conservatives that is not all too different from the kinds of affectations trafficked in by those on the left who, say, might almost reflexively “adore” a “film” simply because it has subtitles.

If anything should be clear from many of my attempts to tackle the way language is regularly misused it is that the faulty ideas about how language functions have become so institutionalized that they reinforce the epistemology they are ostensibly there to describe. And the fact of the matter is, many of those who happen to hold policy positions that track with conservatism nevertheless think in a way that can’t help but to bolster progressivism, because the linguistic assumptions that undergird that thinking are demonstrably leftist inasmuch as their uncritical acceptance can only lead to — dare I say it? — a deconstruction of the principles of classical liberalism, be it the subversion of individual freedom or the inversion of what “tolerance” means in the context of free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

So while it is easy to sit back and take shots at literary critics (many of whom, it’s true, don’t much understand what it is they’re doing or why), it is far more difficult — and yet far more important — that we take a closer look at what it is we believe when it comes to how language functions and how interpretation works.

Otherwise, the joke is on us.

(h/t Lazarus Long)

On Sunday, Republican Don Beezley kicked off his campaign to attempt to unseat popular incumbent State Representative Dianne Primavera in Colorado's House District 33.  Unfortunately, he kicked off is campaign in the wrong district.  The event was held in Jefferson County (House District 29) not Broomfield County (House District 33).

Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post takes over from there over at The Spot:

Matt Gray, chair of the Broomfield County Democrats, couldn't resist and sent out a news release about the kickoff location.

"We look forward to a spirited debate about the best road forward for the citizens of House District 33, and we invite Mr. Beezley to come on over whenever he's ready.

"We have lots of great restaurants, parks and neighborhoods in House District 33, and we'd be happy to show him around."

. . . .

House District 29, by the way, is represented by Rep. Debbie Benefield, D-Arvada.

"I'd like to thank Mr. Beezley for supporting our local businesses here in Jefferson County," she said. "In these tough economic times, I'm glad to know Don Beezley is putting the needs of Jefferson County first."

On his website, Mr. Beezley says "It's the people's government-and the people want it back!"  Apparently he isn't talking about "the people" he's asking to represent.

I'm traveling all this week and can't make the show. We'll be back next week.

See? I told you this week's show would be a surprise!

Here's a charmer of a quote from the comments section of the article I linked the other day about how a new catalyst enables highly efficient production of hydrogen from water:

Ok why do under developed nations even need power honestly? Can't they just stay under-developed forever?

I'd like to think this is a joke. Unfortunately, even if it is a joke, it reflects a belief that is held in all seriousness by far too many people: to wit, that there is a case to be made for depriving less developed societies of economic and technological development. The argument begins with the assumption that such development is inherently harmful to the planet. We can't even afford for the developed world to continue to be developed, the thinking goes. We certainly don't need any more societies joining our matricidal ranks, toxifying the planet, contributing to mass extinctions, and paving the way for some final, cataclysmic end.

A supporting set of assumptions derive from a highly romanticized view of primitive cultures. Some 18th-century romantic primitivists touted the idea of the Noble Savage, which held that people living in a "state of nature" are not only happier than, but morally superior to, their civilized brethren. And this idea is with us even today. While the phrase "Noble Savage" doesn't get too much play these days, there are apparently no shortage of individuals who do not doubt for a second the veracity of the scenes depicted on their souvenir Avatar beverage cups from Burger King.

This Noble Savage argument is a sop to the first argument. Since we know that economic and technological development represent nothing but bad news for the planet, and since we know that primitive peoples are healthier, happier, more attractive, and nicer than we are, it woud be wrong even to think about subjecting primitive people to our way of life -- even if they think they want it. After all, we know better than they do -- they're a bunch of primitives! (Conveniently, the certitude that they are wiser than we are extends to virtually every subject except this one.)

All right, so let's deal with these arguments.

1. Economic and technological development cause massive damage to the planet and their proliferation will only cause more damage.

Well, yes and no. There is no question that, historically, human success has come at the expense of many other members of the ecosystem. We've done a lot of damage. But that isn't the whole story. Dirty technologies have enbabled the development of cleaner technologies. Unsustainable practices have set the stage for sustainable ones. In a very real sense, it is human success which has empowered the environmental movement.For the first time in the history of the planet, members of one species are taking steps to prevent the extinction of other species, looking for ways to mitigate and repair damage to the environment, and even talking about one day bringing other species back from extinction.

These astounding trends are the result of economic and technological development. Non-developed cultures may "live in harmony" with nature, but they don't attempt any of this proactive stuff.

2. Primitive cultures are better off staying primitive.

We'll leave the assumed moral superiority of primitive cutlures alone. I don't believe that it is a given (far from it), but let's take it as a given that primitive cultures are as nice as (or maybe even a liitle nicer than) developed ones. The part of the argument I want to deal with is the part that says that the material well being of people who live in such cultures is as good as or better than what we enjoy.

Anyone who truly believes this to be the case ought to put on a loincloth and move into a grass hut on a riverbank somewhere. Live the rest of your life -- or even a few months -- without the benefits of modern food production, sanitation, health care, shelter, clothing, communications, and entertainnment...and then come back and tell the rest of us how much better it is. If you really believe it is better, good for you. Back to the hut with you, and thanks for doing your part to help fix the planet.

But if you don't think it's better, and in fact you find such a life to be harsh beyond description and not something you want to endure yourself, then please refrain from glibly subjecting other people to it.

Fair?

Dear Ezra,

Thank you for being so honest on what ObamaCare is

And those exchanges, regulations and subsidies will also create the core structure of a universal health-care system in this country, which should be comforting to progressives who look to the improvements in Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and CHIP and the EITC and know that the history of American social policy is that, in general, we build on our imperfect foundations and make them stronger and fairer over time.

I don’t want to suggest this bill is all progressive victories. It isn’t. It isn’t single-payer and there’s no public option, and though I think the excise tax is a progressive tax, I grant that reasonable people disagree on this matter. But the fact of it is that this bill represents an enormous leftward shift for American social policy. It is not, in my view, a sufficient leftward shift, but it is unmatched by anything that has passed into law in recent decades.

Now, we both know whole point of ObamaCare is that healthcare is “too important” to be left to individual choice. For Progressives, liberty and medicine just don’t mix. So current anti-market, government restrictions and regulations still leave too much freedom and market forces in such an important social quarter.

In addition, you argue that even such a centralized, top-down, Federal imposed structure of how doctors will be allowed to practice, how and where insurance companies will be allowed to offer their policies and how those policies will have to be written, how the pharmaceutical and medical device industries will be allowed to practice and how much profit, if any, they will be allowed to keep, the rationing of medical care to seniors … is “not really” a takeover because:

The Senate health-care reform bill — which maintains private insurers, private doctors, private hospitals, private medical device companies, private pharmaceutical manufacturers, private nurses, and doesn’t even have anything to say about the insurance that medium and large employers provide — doesn’t “annex” anything, and calling it centralized planning suggests that Steyn doesn’t know what the words “centralized” or “planning” mean. But this is what people on the right are reading. No wonder they’re scared.

Somehow, because you are a journalist, you cheer this classic fascist economic paradigm for “healthcare”, perhaps believing you are immune because you had the great foresight not to become a doctor or nurse, pharmacist or even a scientist working in drug research and development.

But I would propose, based on both the ObamaCare you champion and the calls for Government assistance to news media accompanied by the sobs that newpapers cannot be allowed to fail and the column inches devoted to explaining what saps individual Americans are for “falling” for obvious journalistic malpractice by listening to “Hate radio” or watching FoxNews, that the time has come to propose ObamaPress based on the same assumptions behind ObamaCare.

Obviously, the media is too important to be left to individual choice. Market forces only lead to a “race to the bottom”, so Federal Press and Media standards need to be put in law and enforced.

Oh, this is not a take over of media. It’s only a secure core structure in which it can operate and people who currently are under informed can get the news they are entitled to. The Press serves an essential public service that must be protected and supported by tax money as needed. It must be protected from crass capitalism. Millions of people go every day without proper information! Millions, I say!

I’m sure you, Ezra, will happily support the licensing of journalists by Federally credentialed organizations in order to comply with new Federal Standards. And I’m sure you will be happy to write your columns according to Federal Fairness Guidelines. Of course, standardized salary rates, including caps, will be part of the mix. I mean, it might be less than you think you deserve, but we must fund the new Federal Media Department and its employees who will be monitoring your compliance and the compliance of your employer. And who are you to judge how your talents and abilities should be compensated? Ability and merit are so overrated.

Just keep telling yourself it won’t be a real take-over of the press. Perish the thought. It will just be a leftward shift. You’ll still be “free” to write what you want. You’ll still be a “private” journalist.

You’ll just have to do it according to the standards in the new 3000 page Federal law and under the supervision of Federal monitors.

Do it for the children, Ezra.

Yours in fairness,

Darleen

(h/t The Corner )

Obama is on the road again, yesterday at Arcadia University, Glenside, PA tossing off his jacket, pointing his finger, sneering like a teenager who blames his parents for not curing all the perceived wrongs of the world before his anointed arrival and, in great snakeoil salesman tradition, promising to make insurance companies offer FREE! FREE, I tell you! preventive care.

Yeah, right.

Let us remember way back to 2008 when the candidates were touting preventive care as the cost-cutting miracle cure.

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. [...]

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical. Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs; this analysis could also identify treatments that are cost-saving or highly efficient (i.e., cost-effective).

This hasn’t been just a “chicken in every pot” blather, but an outright promise of theft of someone else’s labor.
IF a person wants to purchase an insurance policy that would cover all doctor’s well-visits without a co-pay, then the person should pay more for that policy then the person who wants to pay for such visits out-of-pocket, possibly via a HSA.

A side note: an overlooked nugget in this video of George Will nailing Robert Reich is a snort-worthy bit from Donna Brazile about how unfair it is to charge women more for medical insurance just because women use more medical services due to “certain biological needs that need tending to from time to time. That’s unfair.”

Barry doesn’t believe in liberty. What other “vital” areas of the economy will he next declare “too important” to be left to mere individual choice? Certainly food is much more important to a person’s well being. Maybe a national “exchange” for groceries, farmers and ranchers? How unfair that one family’s grocery bill is higher than another just because one wants to eat steak every night?

FREE ARUGULA!!!

Future neuro-cognitive warfare. (Via Ryan Sager.)

"In times like these, it is difficult not to write satire."

--Juvenal

Yesterday’s Rasmussen poll is the best news GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis has had in awhile, and well timed to land a week before caucuses. Fellow RMA blogger Don Johnson notes that McInnis’ six-point lead over Denver mayor John Hickenlooper comes in spite of a distinct popularity advantage by the Democrat. Johnson says: “That’s not so good for McInnis.”

I disagree with that assessment. Everyone knows Hick is more popular, flashier. The fact McInnis leads in spite of the disparity says a good thing not only about the former Congressman’s chances to claim the governor’s mansion next year, but also about the heavy baggage that comes with being a Democrat in Colorado in 2010.

Of course, plenty hinges on whether this latest poll is an outlier or the sign of a trend. A similar result in April may be dispiriting to the majority Dems.

But let’s bring it home. Does the new Rasmussen poll affect your view on which Republican candidate is the stronger general election selection to take down Hickenlooper: McInnis or Dan Maes? Have your say on the March survey of Colorado’s political temperature by Friday. Who knows? You could be the deciding vote.

It's not just the President's attempted government takeover of the health care industry that the American public rejects by ever-increasing margins. According to a new poll (sponsored by leftist organizations who no doubt hoped for an ...

Divorce rates for mixed-race marriages. (Via MR.)

Bed Jumping Photos.

Awesome mathematical art.

...I exhibit the desire to defend actor Sean Penn from, well, I guess from anything, remind me of the little jerk’s deep sea dive into dumb.

Penn, appearing on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday, defended Chavez during a segment in which he detailed his work with the JP Haitian Relief Organization, which he co-founded.

“Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it” said Penn, winner of two Best Actor Academy Awards. “And this is mainstream media, who should—truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

Moron.

Read the rest.

Please check out my short note for the National Review Institute pointing out the fallacy of the claim by climate alarmist scientists that they are at some sort of competitive disadvantage versus “skeptical” scientists because of funding by energy companies:

http://nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice/?p=718

Well, that may be stretching the case just a bit, but...

Some years back, D'wife bought an iTouchless 13 gallon trashcan, which, oddly enough, is not an Apple product.
Very mundane looking, but it has in the lid, sensors that react to anything getting close to it by opening the lid with a small motor. It was kind of pricey, MSRP being about $100, but with some shopping around, it can be had for around $75. Still sounds pricey? This thing has become my second favorite piece of kitchen automatia behind only the coffee pot. I liked it so well I fitted ours with teeth:
And named it Offler, after Terry Pratchett's crocodile god. If you set it too close to a walk path, the maw gapes open every time you pass. When the machines come after us, this thing will be at the forefront. Those teeth should be a factory option. On second thought, they should be standard. You should have to remove them yourself if they make you nervous.

Last week, Offler died. The little plastic gear, cast into the lid, snapped off, and while the sensor and motor still work fine, the lid remains shut. Replacement lids are available, and I got one, and I still have the old lid. That old lid is destined to become Something. What I'm not sure. A flag-raising B.S. alarm perhaps. D'wife is afraid it will become a rising pair of luminescent eyes, awaiting a trip to the loo in the dark. The mind races frantically, evincing the sound of stripped gears and dry bearings from inside the skull.

And best yet...Offler lives!

Disclaimer: No one ever gave me anything except my little dog Checkers.... No, wait, people have given me free stuff, including dogs, but never a carnivorous trashcan. If you get one, tell them I sent you. Maybe they'll give me one of their other widgets to test.