SF Dispatch

I just got back from SF and that city is fascinating because it is on the cutting edge of many personal freedoms but it also so Nanny-State. The city recently mandated that every company with more than 20 employees provide health insurance to their workers. This mandate hit restaurants very hard and they have responsded with a 4% charge to diners to cover that cost. It is part of your SF restaurant bill now.

I was hit with that 4% surcharge at every restaurant and applaud it for its honesty and showing the customer how government mandates on small businesses cost customers more.

Reason #2 to Hate Taxes

Reason #1 is that the income tax is a seizure of personal property that the Constitution banned and needed a Constitutional amendment to allow it.

Reason #2 is that politicians use the income and other taxes to promote their own goals or cater to special interests, picking winners and losers every time that they do so. Case in point:

Arlington, VA has enacted a big hybrid tax deduction that makes everyone who does not have a hybrid pay more, to fund the deduction.

The county, which is promoting a wide variety of green initiatives, last year introduced a special tax subsidy for people who bought "special clean fuel vehicles," which include most hybrids.

It gave owners a 100 percent rebate on personal property taxes, up to $20,000 in assessed value, for hybrid cars, giving some residents tax savings of more than $500.

Why this tax break is so ridiculous on its face is that citizens who take public transit or walk to work get zero tax breaks and are subsidizing Prius owners, who might be driving 100 miles or more back and forth every day, hauling down the HOV lane as they are allowed to because they have a tax-subsidized hybrid, and writing the whole thing off, both federally ($3,500)and locally while truly "green" Metro rides are left footing the bill.

Texas Court Overturns Sex Toy Ban

It is hard to believe that sex toys are illegal anywhere in the US but they were in Texas before this ruling and still are in Alabama, Mississippi and somewhat in Virginia.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by up to two years in jail, violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment on the right to privacy.

"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the appeals judges wrote. "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."

Amen and thank you to Lambda Legal for funding, trying and winning Lawrence. Now Texan law enforcement can stop devoting resources to arresting housewives who host alternative Tupperware parties.

How Hillary's Mortgage Plan Is All Wrong

Hillary Clinton is proposing that on "Day One" when she is president she will freeze foreclosures for 90 days and freeze interest rates on mortgages.

Such "freezing" breaks one of the most important assumptions that underlie American prosperity: the enforceability of contracts. Re: the subprime debacle, lenders lent money to lendees at below-market interest rates knowing that they would either: a) get their money back at higher rates in futures years, or 2) the lendee would pay a penalty for getting out of the loan early and make the lender whole. Government mandated re-setting of terms for mortgage contracts would mark a new low for interference, be unconstitutional, and would likely result in higher costs for all home buyers as lenders need to compensate for their loss of contract enforcement.

Slate's take on this here.

Master of His Domain

This guy rocks.

LONDON (Reuters) - A farmer built an entire mock castle behind a screen of hay bales and lived there concealed for four years to evade planning regulations, officials said on Friday -- but it may be torn down anyway.

Robert Fidler hopes to take advantage of a provision of planning law that allows buildings without planning permission to be declared legal if no objections have been made after four years.

But Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in Surrey is not impressed.

"It does not count because the property was hidden behind hay bales," said a spokeswoman. "No one knew it was there."

The council wants the building near Redhill some 30 km south of London to be demolished, along with an associated conservatory, marquee structure, wooden bridge, patio, decking and tarmac racecourse.

I hope he pours hot oil on the regulators trying to destroy his castle. Actually, I hope he pours hot oil on Playboy Bunnies and lets me wrestle around with them in his castle, but that's a different fantasy.

Maryland Bill Seeks to Ban Trans-Fats in the State

Maryland is facing an enormous budget shortfall and just raised taxes by $1.4 billion, Baltimore is the setting for The Wire, and a state leglislator thinks that it is important to ban trans-fats in the state.

The legislation comes from Democrat James W. Hubbard, whose recent bill in Maryland’s House of Delegates would ban restaurants from serving foods with more than a half-gram of trans fat per serving. [Who would regulate that for Maryland, a new band of trans-fat experts?]

"Legislation efforts to ban trans fats are sweeping our nation, and that's a good thing for public health," said consumer health advocate Mike Adams, author of "Poison In the Food," a book about hydrogenated oils. "The more cities and states enact these bans, the more pressure it places on corporations like McDonald's to clean up their act and stop harming their customers' health with artificial ingredients known to be damaging to human health."

The trans fats ban would affect fast food restaurants and mom-and-pop eateries alike: it bans the use of margarine, shortening or anything with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils as part of the preparation of the food.

P.S. I am old enough to remember that margarine was supposed to be better than butter in terms of health. And I remember the 1980's outcry over McDonald's frying their fries in beef fat, which at that point was the devil and led them and other fast food outlets to fry with trans-fat.

Cuomo: Attorney General Out of Control

In a wild overreach of government regulatory authority, New York State's attorney general Andrew Cuomo is investigating the study-abroad programs of elite colleges.

Investigators for Andrew M. Cuomo, the attorney general, are asking about who at each college is responsible for approving contracts related to study abroad, how each institution selects the programs it approves and whether it has received anything of value from a study abroad provider, among other issues, said the lawyer and representatives of some of the colleges that received the subpoenas and requests.

Former New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer re-wrote the rule book about the role of a state attorney general and not in a good way, if you are a libertarian. But he rode that populist creed to the governor's office and it looks like Cuomo is trying to do the same thing.

In the Name of Tax Revenue Saving Small Businesses; City May Allow Low-Wager Gambling

1) Ban smoking in bars and restaurants. 2) Allow state-sanctioned gambling in non-proft venues, i.e -- American Legions, but not in for-profit businesses, i.e. -- bars. 3) Watch as small, neighborhood bars collapse from a dwindling customer base.

In response, Indianapolis tries to fix #2:

INDIANAPOLIS – Lawmakers in both the House and Senate have filed legislation to allow bars and taverns to offer paper pull tabs and other small-stakes gambling opportunities.

“I think there’s a realization that bars and taverns, particularly in smaller communities, are struggling,” said Rep. Matt Bell, R-Avilla, a co-author of the bill.[...]

House Bill 1153, authored by Rep. Dennis Tyler, D-Muncie, specifically authorizes bars and taverns to conduct Type II gambling, which is highlighted by pull tabs.

This game is similar to one offered by the Hoosier Lottery and something already allowed in charitable fraternal organizations or clubs.

Pull-tab distributors describe them as small paper games of chance used for profit-making or fundraising. The front side of the pull tab shows winning combinations of symbols and prizes a player can win. The back side of the pull tab has windows to open. If the symbols underneath the pull-tab windows match the winning combinations on the front of the pull tab, the player wins.

Generally, the tickets cost $1 each, and the game pays back about 70 percent of the money with 30 percent retained by the owner or group running the game.

Full article here.

Yeah, Without Federal Regulations Companies Have No Incentives to Not Kill Their Customers

Nope, none at all. I'm sure McDonalds would be putting glass and tacks in their hamburgers if it wasn't for federal regulators.

Edward Markey has been waiting for decades to close what he might call a loop-de-“loophole” in roller-coaster regulation. The Massachusetts Democrat started down the track Thursday with a proposal to restore ’coaster regulatory powers to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

"You put your kid on a ride that goes 80 mph, and you’re assuming there’s some regulation,” Markey said, citing “staggering” roller-coaster injury rates.

Republican Cliff Stearns of Florida played carny’s advocate. Injuries from fixed-site amusement rides rank just above harm by darts, he said. And, he noted, ’coaster numbers are way below basketball injuries — a point with special relevance for Markey, who was hurt playing basketball a few months ago.

“Following [Markey’s] line of reasoning, we would want to put federal regulators first and foremost in charge of basketball regulation . . . and work it on down to racquetball and fishing,” Stearns joked.

Markey ended up withdrawing his amendment in good humor, but he promised to come back for another ride when the full committee considers the bill.

Awesome.

Via Congressional Quarterly (sorry, subscription required).

I Want My DDT

DDT, the most effective killer of mosquitoes, was banned in the US in 1972, largely because of the outcry that resulted from Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. The wholesale spraying of huge tracts of land with DDT did indeed hurt the bird population and was unnecessary. But the complete ban on DDT, even for home use, needs to be revisited.

From the mosquito trenches: In my ten years in DC I have not experienced a summer anywhere near so buggy as this one. This year is off the charts, or off the hook if you are a mosquito. In the summer of 2007 mosquitoes broke through all established mosquito barriers, such as they don't come out until evening, on cool dry evenings they stay at bay and they keep to the outdoors.

I have started spraying myself with Off every day to keep them from getting me while I am inside. A new low occurred today when I resorted to spraying area Off in my office.

They also seem more wiley this year and adept at avoiding the swatter. Perhaps they are evolving.

The DDT ban hits Africa really hard. Malaria should be a disease of the past like polio. But the hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid do not fund DDT.

P.S. Due to major mosquito disruption I moved my birthday party from August to October 7th. TtP posters and commenters are welcome to come. Let me know if you are interested.

Pick Your Poison

How did we ever get to this?

After years of favoring the hands-off doctrine of the Bush administration, some of the nation’s biggest industries are pushing for something they have long resisted: new federal regulations.

For toys and cars, antifreeze and fireworks, popcorn and produce and cigarettes and light bulbs, among other products, industry groups or major manufacturers are calling for federal health, safety and environmental mandates. Some of those industries are abandoning years of efforts to block such measures, often in alliance with the Bush administration, which pledged to ease what it views as costly, unnecessary rules.

The reason that industry is seeking more government regulation is to fend off the trial lawyers.

Industry officials, consumer groups and regulatory experts all agree there has been a recent surge of requests for new regulations, and one reason they give is the Bush administration’s willingness to include provisions that would block consumer lawsuits in state and federal courts.

More from the NYT article here.

Feds To Air Travellers: FAA-ck You!

Not satisfied with the extent to which the feds have already fucked up air transportation, outgoing FAA administrator Marion C. Blakey has announced:

"Passengers are growing weary of schedules that aren't worth the electrons they're printed on," Marion C. Blakey told a group of aviation executives at the Aero Club.

"Airline schedules have got to stop being the fodder for late-night monologues. And if the airlines don't address this voluntarily, don't be surprised when the government steps in."

Right... when the government "steps in." Because so far they've done so well at keeping their noses out of the industry.

Word choice aside, what makes Blakey think that the FAA is able to schedule flights better than the airlines? I can't claim that the major airlines don't have problems, but they have decades of experience at scheduling flights, even if they've done a sub par job at times. The FAA, on the other hand, has no experience scheduling flights. Where will they find the people necessary to handle this task for every US airline and airport? Not to mention, what gives the federal government the authority to intervene, anyway?

Ok, so I'll give Blakey the benefit of the doubt and assume that the FAA doesn't intend to directly schedule the flights, but only to set ground rules for the airlines. First off the rules probably would be ineffective, but more importantly open to corruption and favoritism.

Without going into individual regulations and their side effects, I will guarantee that deregulation of the industry and privatization of air traffic control would do far more good for air travellers than anything the feds could ever dream up.

Bonus: Cato's Chris Edwards succinctly makes the case for ATC privatization here.

Is There Anything Tobacco Taxes CAN'T Do?

I suppose not..

BALTIMORE (Map, News) - Two-thirds of Maryland voters favor doubling the $1-a-pack cigarette tax to expand health insurance coverage, according to a new state poll.

Really? Wow...In a related study they found that two-thirds of Marylanders also support finding homeless people a home. Yeah, no shit most people would respond yes when asked that poll question. The sad fact is that tobacco taxes are most often very popular with the public in general. The problem of course -- even ignoring the moral issue of making a buck off of people who are "killing" themselves -- is that you can't rely on tobacco taxes as a continued source of revenue over any significant amount of time.

Governments get addicted to the tax revenue and are forced to continue to raise the tax as the revenue drops from people quitting smoking and going elsewhere to buy their smokes. As the rates raise, more people exponentially stop buying the cigarettes from the state...and so on and so on....And these groups who advocate increase tobacco taxes to help pay for education or health initiatives have to understand this, as they say these taxes will both reduce the number of smokers and provide increased revenue. They just seem not to mind the inherent contradiction.

The poll is part of a renewed push by a coalition of groups called the Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative to raise tobacco taxes to both reduce smoking and cut the number of people without health insurance. The coalition, with AARP in the lead, is beginning a $100,000 statewide campaign of print and radio ads to drum up support for the plan.

Maryland AARP Executive Director Joe DeMattos, said the increase in the cigarette tax represents “a health care policy trifecta”: It helps cure the general budget deficit and can be used to help the uninsured; it reduces the number of teens and children who might start smoking; and it stops several thousand smokers from smoking.

The Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative. The same folks who helped bring the "Wal-Mart Bill" to the Free State a few years back. Full article here.

If Only the Ordinance Applied to Biggest Chain -- Government Buildings

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing the distinction...But isn't this just protecting already established businesses who might wilt away under new competition; rather than being some method to preserve the "character" of San Francisco?

Starbucks' effort to flood San Francisco with coffee shops ground to a halt Tuesday when the Board of Supervisors blocked a new outlet in the Richmond District under chain store regulations passed by voters last fall.

[...]

Jesse Fink, who has owned a nearby cafe for 25 years, filed the appeal on behalf of the Clement Street Merchants Association, which represents approximately 30 merchants in the area.

"I don't want San Francisco to lose its character and become a city of strip malls. ... That's what Starbucks is all about," Fink said in a hearing before the board.

I'm sure Starbucks -- and the folks who enjoy going to Starbucks -- appreciate that a guy named Fink, who would be a competitor to Starbucks, now gets to make business decisions for the coffee giant...like where they can and can't open new stores. Perfectly sane. Almost as sane as the retail regulations in the city:

Prop. G obligates the Planning Commission to conduct a hearing for any chain store (also known as "formula retail") proposed in neighborhood commercial districts.

Formula retail is defined as any retail sales establishment with 11 or more stores in the United States that maintains two or more standardized features, including decor, facade, color scheme, uniforms, signage or a trademark.

For the record, I'm all for this type of thing on the local level. Not the irrational fear of strip malls, or of the homogenization of America. No that's just stupid and counter-productive. Potentially even harmful to the people most in need, such as in the case of preventing Wal-Marts from opening new stores in a particular area. But that's the beauty of America and our supposed federalist system. People can match up with communities that best fit their desires and or priorities for what they want to get out of life. Me? Two words. Trannys and bukkake. And lots of both.

Full article here.

Virginia Fees For "Abusive Drivers" Go Into Effect, and Cause Lawsuits and Uproar

Virginia set into law driver fines that charge "abusive drivers" up to thousands of dollars per violation.

The law is getting hit left and right with lawsuits. But I think a better place to start this debate is exactly what Virginia thinks is "abusive." Any citizen could support laws against nightmare repeat DUI's. But this law is so broad. E.g.,Reckless driving causes a $1,050 fee, but reckless driving is caused only by driving more than 20 MPH over the limit.

Regulations Kill

I think by now everyone is aware that hundreds of babies have been directly killed because of U.S. regulations mandating passenger-side airbags. Less known are the hundreds of additional babies indirectly killed by the regulation.

A 5-month-old baby died after his mother forgot to drop him off at day care and left him in her hot car all day while she worked. Lynn Brol, 32, of Franklinville arrived at her job around 8 a.m. Thursday and did not realize she had left her son, Brayden, in the car until she left work at 5 p.m., police in the rural Wyoming County village of Arcade said.
[...]
Brayden was the 19th child to die in a hot car this summer in the U.S. and the first in New York state, Null said.

The number of such deaths has risen dramatically since the mid-1990s, totaling around 340 in the past 10 years. Experts said the increase coincides with the practice of putting children in the back seat, where they are more easily forgotten. That change was intended to protect kids after juvenile air-bag deaths peaked in 1995.

The "Yellow Pages" Test

Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) has put forth simple criteria for determining whether or not Congress should pass new regulations or not.

The Laffer Curve, game theory and the classic supply-and-demand diagram are all well established in the economics lexicon.

Less well-known, but arguably more valuable to some House Republicans, is a new economics theory dubbed the “Yellow Pages test.” House Financial Services member Tom Feeney, R-Fla., says he uses the test to determine whether the federal government needs to regulate or be involved in a certain business.

If he can find at least two businesses listed in the Yellow Pages that offer a similar service, Feeney says, then the federal government should steer clear. Fellow conservative and Financial Services member Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who actually coined the term “Yellow Pages test” at a hearing last week, agrees.

The government has no business messing around in the private market, Hensarling argued, suggesting that the test ought to be used often.

This advance in economic theory was offered during a committee debate over federal regulation of wind insurance coverage. If it can be applied to wind insurance brokers, one can easily see its extension to other facets of the business world.

As evidenced by the now notorious “D.C. Madam” case, local governments might want to reconsider, for example, whether to interfere with the escort business since there are plenty of those listed in the phone book — all providing, one presumes, a similar service.

Zing! I would also note that many of California's medical marijuana dispensaries are listed in the phone book, but that didn't stop Rep. Feeney or Rep. Hensarling from voting against an amendment last week that would have stopped the federal government from messing around in that private market.

Via Congressional Quarterly (sorry, subscription required).

New Wisconsin Motto: "Don't You Be Lowering Your Gas Prices, You Hear"

I respectfully suggest that the folks at [pick your lefty think tank or magazine] stick this in their regulatory pipe and smoke it.

A service station that offered discounted gas to senior citizens and people supporting youth sports has been ordered by the state to raise its prices. Center City BP owner Raj Bhandari has been offering senior citizens a 2 cent per gallon price break and discount cards that let sports boosters pay 3 cents less per gallon.

But the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection says those deals are too good: They violate Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act, which requires stations to sell gas for about 9.2 percent more than the wholesale price.

Ah, the regulatory state. Protecting business interests since 1920.

On a related note, if cutting retail gas prices by just a few cents translates into charging less than 9.2% over the wholesale price then gas stations really are not making that much money. Someone should tell all the Democrats who want to throw gas station owners in jail for "price gouging".

Incandescent Bulb Ban Seems Inevitable, Start Hoarding Now

When environmental activists and industry are in bed together on an issue two truisms generally apply: coercive legislation will result and consumers will be screwed by fewer choices and higher prices. Sadly, this is happening to my lonely crusade to preserve a person's right to use incandescent light bulbs. From the WSJ [subscription only]:

Manufacturers and environmentalists are hammering out a nationwide energy-saving lighting standard that, if enacted by Congress, would effectively phase out the common household light bulb in about 10 years. That in turn could produce major cuts in the nation's electricity costs and greenhouse-gas emissions.

The new standard is expected to compel a huge shift by American consumers and businesses away from incandescent bulbs to more efficient -- but also more expensive -- fluorescent models, by requiring more light per energy unit than is yielded by most incandescents in use. The winner, at least in the near term, likely would be the compact fluorescent light bulb, or CFL [and, of course, CFL manufacturers].

I posted on this subject two months ago, as did Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason in more detail.

A carbon tax is a superior way to tackle energy use as it allows consumer choice (thereby granting Hayek a rest from rolling in his grave) and charges for usage versus vehicle of usage. If I only want one hour per night of a real light bulb as I read in bed why could I not have this option while John Edwards could light his 28,000 square foot mansion 24/7 with CFL's?

CVS Seeks to Open Health Clinics In Mass., Health Officials There "Cautious"

Considering the fact that almost 50 million Americans lack health insurance and are busting the budgets of hospitals as they seek routine care in emergency rooms, one would think that CVS' plan to open primary care clinics in its stores would be welcomed by the health establishment. But in Massachusetts, health officials and doctors are "cautious" and might not approve CVS' plan to open MinuteClinics in their commonwealth.

The health care market is a mess, neglecting to serve reliably a quarter of the population while racking up costs that total 16% of GDP, and that share is rapidly climbing. Doctors' offices are very expensive to maintain and inefficient, as a few doctors need to employ a large staff to handle daunting administrative tasks and paperwork. The insured don't balk at the resulting high cost of an ordinary office visit, as they typically pay nothing or a small co-pay, but the uninsured do, and instead go to emergency rooms that have to accept them whether they can pay or not, and they often cannot or do not. The potential for large corporations such as CVS and Wal-Mart, which has its own clinic initiative, to operate low-cost clinics could be a powerful and welcome assist in lowering medical costs through scale efficiencies that small practices can never achieve and increasing access to affordable care for the uninsured.

So why would Massachusetts oppose such a seemingly positive development? From the Boston Globe article,

Massachusetts public health officials, who license clinics and must determine if they can operate safely, said they are moving cautiously on the proposal. There has been no organized opposition, but some Massachusetts doctors are concerned about the possible negative impact on patient care. They worry that serious problems will be missed when patients are treated outside their regular physicians' offices, or when they are treated by nurse practitioners and physician assistants without on site supervision from a doctor.

Dr. Allan Goroll, an internist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said the opening of clinics in CVS stores and in Walmarts in other states reflects "the sorry state of primary care in America." He said insurers underpay primary care doctors, leading to a physician shortage.

One answer, he said, is more investment by payers in primary care practices.

So Dr. Goroll, who I am sure is well-intentioned, is saying that the problem is that more money needs to be spent on office visits, and that by spending less money and thus giving more people access to health care, somehow the public will be hurt.

Ethanol Poised to Destroy World Economy

The US government's embrace of ethanol as a solution to reducing fossil fuel dependence will likely go down as one of the biggest economic policy blunders of the modern age. The reason is so obvious that only the government could fail to grasp it: ethanol will cause wide-spread inflation. Ethanol is corn-based and as demand for ethanol rises, so do corn prices. As corn prices rise, so do the prices of anything that contains corn or high fructose corn syrup, which is ubiquitous. The price of corn-fed meat also rises. Finally, as corn fetches high prices farmers stop growing other crops to replace them with corn, and so those prices rise as well. So while next year's corn crop is expected to be the biggest in 60 years, the cotton crop in the South will be the smallest in 30 years and soy and other crops will also be greatly reduced.

Welcome back to the 1970s. Ethanol-induced inflation is already rearing its ugly head, according to this article in today's WSJ [subscription only].

The U.S., too, is seeing some stirrings, with food costs rising 3.1% in February from the year before -- a rate one percentage point higher than in mid-2005. Economists say U.S. food prices are expected to rise faster than the general rate of inflation this year. Wholesale prices of meat, poultry and eggs have already increased.

If the trend continues, U.S. consumers are likely to see higher prices at the supermarket for everything from milk to cereal to soda pop, since corn is used to feed livestock and make high-fructose corn syrup, a key ingredient in many soft drinks. A spokesman for the National Chicken Council, a poultry-industry group, recently testified to a congressional subcommittee that Americans should expect higher chicken prices because of what the group described as "the ethanol crisis."

More here. Competitive Enterprise Institute has a great paper here that points out the massive land costs of ethanol. A NY Times article here reports on environmentalists' concerns about the fuel. When CEI and Earth Policy Institute agree on something, you know it has to be indisputable. Yet the government fails to see the glaring fluorescent light and Bush continues to push ethanol, even talking about it in the SOTU.

The Cost of a Call

The ruling against Vonage could be a nightmare for US business and residential customers. I use Vonage for my work number, as I can access it anywhere, they send me emails when I get a message and it costs $25 per month.

I respect IP, but think this is another case of out of control patents that inhibits new, cheaper technologies.

Tourism? In Alabama?

Good news for beer lovers in Alabama.

Bill would benefit city brewery with gourmet brew.

The hops have been freed - at least by the Alabama House Travel and Tourism Committee
The panel voted unanimously on a voice vote Wednesday to send a bill to the House floor that would permit the sale of beer with more than double the alcohol content that state law now allows.

[...]

The bill would also eliminate a law that limits the size of beer containers to 16 ounces.

Humm, what's this missing here?

The only opposition came from the Rev. Dan Ireland, executive director of Alabama Citizens Action Program.

Ireland said introducing the higher alcohol-content beers would only add to the problem of alcoholism.

"I'm talking about a very real problem and I hope you recognize it as a very real problem," he said. "I'm concerned about saving the kids. In this country, there is a problem with drinking and driving."

The children, of course...Think of the Alabamian kids who have avoided drinking up to this point, because the selection of the beer offered at their local Food Lion didn't meet their high standards. They have been demanding, "I want MY Belgian Beer!!!!"

I also found this snippet amusing: [emphasis mine]

Danner Kline, who operates the "Free the Hops" Web site, said the state is losing thousands of dollars in tax money because its residents are driving to Florida, Georgia and Tennessee to buy the specialty beers. He said it's also losing out on tourism trade.

Thousands of dollars? Wow, that's a lot of money. It's like a million dollars or something. Full article here. Free the Hops website here.

Bye-Bye Beloved Light Bulb

The incandescent bulb, which emits a warm, natural and pleasing light, might soon be only a memory, as environmentalists seek to ban the beloved bulbs entirely. Their replacement would be fluorescent lights which, as you know, give one's home the atmospheric feel of a supermarket and make everyone look ugly.

The idea of banning the incandescent bulb has gained significant traction lately. Both the Australian and Canadian governments are seeking to ban the bulbs over the next few years. Now US producers of florescent lighting have joined up with environmentalists to force a ban in the US:

A coalition of industrialists, environmentalists and energy specialists is banding together to try to eliminate the incandescent light bulb in about 10 years.

In an agreement to be announced Wednesday, the coalition members, including Philips Lighting, the largest manufacturer; the Natural Resources Defense Council; and two efficiency organizations, are pledging to press for efficiency standards at the local, state and federal levels.

The article notes that only 9% of electricity is consumed by incandescent bulbs and therefore a switch to fluorescent would make only a tiny dent in overall energy consumption. Yet it would have a huge effect on people and the quality of their environs. Why not raise the cost of electricity and allow those who favor incandescent bulbs to pay more for using them? I personally would lose my mind if I had to live in a fluorescently-lit house and would start smuggling incandescents from China.

US Regs vs. US Competitiveness

On Sunday the Wa Post had an article about the new super-rich in London. While most readers might have been outraged at their excesses I thought, my god, that insane money used to be in New York.

And it isn't anymore, thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley and US prosecutors who turn private enterprise into a highly litigated and risky proposition.

Hank Paulson is trying to turn the boat around, but he does not have an easy task as the Dems in control are focusing on things like "excessive" executive pay instead of the real issues that make companies list on the London Exchange versus the NASDAQ or Big Board.

How did the Republicans pass Sox to begin with? It was another betrayal of conservative principles.