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.

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.)

[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.

Copyright Andrew Oh-Willeke (2009)

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.

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…?”

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)

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!!!

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.

...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