If you live in Colorado you should watch out for the wildlife.

 When you're losing the argument, shout "RACISM!" Distract, distract...

Pretty soon, @andrewbreitbart is going to run out of black orgs to hate.

 - Eric Boehlert is just vile.

 Update - related stuff from Rand Simberg.

 Ah, work. My absence hasn't been intentional, and in this economy I'm grateful to be busy. But the perniciousness of government continues apace, and I still take time to read.

 On a bright note, Carla Howell continues as one of the finest activists in the land.

Health care reform may require businesses to issue 1099's for every transaction over $600. This could get ugly.

 The Colorado Springs Gazette editorial:

 " (T)his will show us once again how the Internet interprets taxes as damage, and routes around them."

 If you live in Colorado you've likely been following the story. I'll recap briefly -

1. The Colorado lege passes new regulations crippling Amazon's ability to do business here.

2. Amazon shuts down its affiliates in Colorado.

3. The Democrats responsible for this and their media partners blame Amazon for withdrawing from Colorado.

 Ari Armstrong has been all over this story and details how the tax proponents have been peddling a load of bs. You can read his lengthy analysis here. Diana Hsieh adds more here, and created this website to cover the issue.

 Topic for discussion: (Certain) Colorado legislators, evil or just stupid?

 No, really.

 That's all I have to say.

Update, 8:15 PM. Bill fails in committee on a 7-4 vote.  

The bill's sponsor, State Rep. Dianne Primavera, has an op-ed in the Denver Post today. Let's take a look.

 

Twenty-one years ago, when I was diagnosed with breast cancer, I racked my brain trying to figure out why. Neither my mother nor grandmother had cancer. I never smoked or drank. I was not overweight. My doctors had no explanation for why an otherwise healthy 38-year-old would have cancer.

Years later, I discovered a possible contributor: my daily use of personal care products.

I have the same morning routine as most women: I shampoo my hair and wash my face. I brush my teeth, put on moisturizer, deodorant, and finish with makeup.

It was the same routine for 40 years. But my daily regimen could be lethal.

Many products sold in the U.S. contain ingredients (such as formaldehyde, phthalates, and coal tar) that are linked to cancer and birth defects, even many of the "natural" ones. Men and women use an average of 10 products a day, including sunscreen, deodorant and aftershave.

Note here, Rep Primavera offers zero evidence that her cancer was caused by anything at all. Sorry about your cancer ordeal, but please don't use it as an excuse to foist this bill on us. Didn't she get the message from Obama about using sound science in government?

I was surprised to learn that neither the FDA nor the state of Colorado reviews the safety or regulates what goes into products before they are placed on the shelves. In fact, only 11 percent of the chemicals have been tested for safety. How are consumers to know which of these ingredients are safe and which are dangerous? We shouldn't have to be chemists to shop for shampoo.

 Some ideas are too dumb to see the light of day - unless you're a state legislator here in Colorado. In that case anything goes. HB 1248 will be up for discussion at a committee meeting this Monday March 1st. The purpose of the thing is to regulate personal products containing "a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity."

 As usual when looking at proposed legislation the devil is in the details. Who gets to decide which chemicals will be banned? From the bill:

(a) THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY;
(b) THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, OR ITS
SUCCESSOR ENTITY;
(c) THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HEALTH, OR ITS SUCCESSOR ENTITY;
(d) THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, OR ITS SUCCESSOR
13 PROGRAM; AND
(e) THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, OR
ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY.
 
 Let's note that these organizations aren't exactly equal in stature. The last group, the IARC, is part of the WHO, and is headquartered in France. Their science standards, to put it delicately, may not be the same as those in our country. As I read the bill, the IARC pronouncements would carry the weight of law here in Colorado.

 It get's better-

ANY PERSON ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 25-5-1204 MAY
BRING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER IN A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE VIOLATION
OCCURRED. UPON FINDING A VIOLATION, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER
RELIEF AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE
MANUFACTURER TO CEASE AND DESIST CONDUCT VIOLATING SECTION
25-5-1204 AND SHALL ORDER THE MANUFACTURER TO PAY THE
PREVAILING PARTY REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

 So one group of people will surely benefit from this - lawyers!

 Here's what one manufacturer from Maine has to say:

Why this bill at this time? The bill is the effort of the Women's Lobby of Colorado, sponsored in the CO State Legislature by Rep. Dianne Primavera. The Women's Lobby of Colorado is an endorsing organization of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, founded in part by The Environmental Working Group (did you get all that?!) The EWG has been collecting "evidence" to support its belief that cosmetics are unsafe (see the Campaign's database at Skin Deep for more details). While the campaign's goals were initially aligned with many small personal care products manufacturers, more recently their tactics have included misrepresenting overall risks and singling out manufacturers whose ingredient lists they didn't approve of--pressure akin to blackmail. Some of the companies who had signed with the group early on requested to be removed--and were initially ignored. (Read about Bella Lucce's experience.) The EWG's misinformation has spread to the general public, who are understandably nervous after recent public health scares involving contaminants in food, toys, and other products. The EWG is promoting the perception that personal care products are unregulated and are encouraging consumers to demand legislation to "rein in" the cosmetics companies. Though the EWG's work is pressuring legislators into taking action, they are tilting at windmills.

I guess I can add The Women's Lobby of Colorado to the list of suspect lobbying organizations.

 The bill would create the most onerous regulations in the nation here in Colorado. Thousands of small business owners, especially women, might be put out of business. The only good thing I can say about it is the bill's Senate sponsor herself talks like it won't pass:

This bill was just introduced to the House, and Senator Boyd says even if it doesn't pass this year, it's a good step to get the word out about these harmful ingredients.

But writing a bill like this is plenty of reason to get voted out of office.

[revisited here]

 David Kopel;  How the right to arms saved the non-violent civil rights protesters.

 That sort of history is well known in libertarian circles but I don't know how many others have read about it.

 This BBC piece,

Why do people vote against their own interests?

Is it a subtle (and brilliant) satire of elitists who are condescending while being utterly clueless, or is it the work of elitists who are condescending while being utterly clueless?

Update: More here.

 I try to understand American Leftists' arguments, and assume they are on balance reasonable people. Sometimes it's tough, as when the Supreme Court makes a reasonable common sense ruling on free speech. Will W. reasonably says -

The anguished cries of left-leaning folk over the Citizens United ruling seem to me to be emanating from an alternate universe, so bizarre are they. This was a case about whether the state can suppress the distribution of an unflattering documentary about a powerful political candidate produced by a small group of private citizens. The crazy thing to me is that anyone ever thought that such a rule was not in blatant violation of the First Amendment. The extra-crazy thing is that four Supreme Court justices evidently think this kind of state censorship of political speech is hunky dory.

Matt Welch distills it:

Citizens United, a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit that has funded a dozen political documentaries over the years, produced a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton in 2008 entitled "Hillary: The Movie." By a decision of the federal government, which was enforcing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known more broadly as McCain-Feingold), this piece of political speech was banned from television.

Let's boil it down to the essential words: Political documentary, banned, government. (emphasis by me, -W.)

I agree, the scary part is that four Supreme Court justices disagreed.

 

 You probably heard Pat Robertson blaming the Haiti earthquake on a pact the Haitians struck with the Devil.

 Nonsense, of course. Satan would never roll that way, as he explains here:

 Dear Pat Robertson, I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll. You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract. Best, Satan

Everyone knows Satan is busy working in Congress these days.
 

 Read here, then vote.

 I've been watching this story from the Denver Post this morning-
Curious, as the story itself contains no hint as to how the murder was connected to medical marijuana, a legal business in Colorado. All we have so far is the assertion from the cops. So who wants to emphasize the medical pot aspect, the Post or the police?

 I see Joel Warner at Westword has similar thoughts -

Was last night's "medical marijuana murder" really a medical marijuana murder?

But the question remains: Was the murder last night really related to medical marijuana?

In news stories, police indicate the shooting was tied to a medical marijuana sale. And Denver Police Department spokesman Sonny Jackson, in a recent phone conversation, said the same thing: "I think the detectives are confident that the location [of the shooting] is involved in some capacity with medical marijuana."

But since the investigation is ongoing, Jackson can't relate the details as to why detectives believe such a thing -- and in an attention-grabbing situation like this, those details are key.

 

We're left to contemplate the sensationalism. It's a politically charged subject, and some people have political motives. Naturally.