Backlog O’Links for March 5, 2011: John Stossel on the regulatory juggernaut; Richard Wolff says weird stuff; Andrew Beitbart, I hardly knew ya; others….

March 14, 2012
  1. This could happen to you. They can take any law that they think you broke and take you to trial. And whether you win or lose, you’re going to lose, because by the time you’re done fighting it, you’re broke.

  2. The web site says “conservative”, but she markets herself as “libertarian” on facebook, hence my click of curiosity.

    I think this girl does pretty much what I do, but it looks like she actually makes a living at it. How cool is that? Unlike me, she actually goes out and talks to real people. That might be her edge.

  3. I wish I had all day to sit around writing blogs. This particular episode of Update is, well … weird. I can’t rightly criticize the guy, because he is a professor of economics and I am not. That is why I listen to him–but what should an economically aware consumer of online media make of a statement such as this?: Read the rest of this entry »

Links for November 7, 2011: Lemonade stand license costs $50 per day; EU “bans” underage balloon inflation; others….

November 5, 2011
  1. I can’t get enough of these “cops bust lemonade stand” videos. This one actually tells you what the kids have to do to stay legal: Acquire a business license, food, and vendors permits at a cost of $50 a day, plus an extra $180 a year. What adult can afford those fees? … And it’s like….gee whiz? Where did all this unemployment come from? Don’t look too hard, people.

    And then…if a grown-up DID set up a lemonade stand, she couldn’t hire those girls. That would violate child labor laws. The girls are hosed!

    And don’t gimme this “We don’t know what’s in it,”crap. If the authorities, or anyone else for that matter, are so worried, then they should make the girls take a sip first before they buy some. If the girls vomit all over their shirts and keel over, then you know it’s no good. Isn’t that how tyrants do it?

  2. Actually not a bad way to look at it. Now consider how much work the government criminalizes through wage regulations and other red tape. …

  3. Official guidance notes: “For latex balloons there must be a warning that children under eight years must be supervised and broken balloons should be discarded.” Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at the University of Kent, warned that toy safety bans were part of a trend to micro-manage children’s lives at the expense of allowing them to explore, learn and have fun through play.

    “I would say that this is crackers but I sure children are banned from using them too. EU party poopers should not be telling families how to blow up balloons,” said the Ukip MEP.

    Omitting the most important fact of all, a citation to the actual legislation so that we may do our own research, is journalistic malpractice, IMO. Especially where the alleged regulation is as preposterous as this.

    The regulation is Directive 2009/48/EC. Quoted text in the article is not from the 37-page directive itself. Rather, it is from the 174 page “TSD Explanatory Guidance Document“. Further reading: European Commission, Enterprise and Industry: Toy Safety Directives; Europa, Summaries of EU Legislation: Toy safety.

    Ted Balaker at Reason made a big deal of the so-called ban in’s most recent “Nanny of the Month”</em installment. As far as I can tell, at least regarding balloons, the regulations require balloons to carry warning labels and to be designed in such a way so as to minimize the risk of choking and/or poisoning. It does not, as far as I can tell, make anyone into a criminal upon the inflation of a balloon by an unsupervised child. It’s still nannyism, but I don’t see the regulation as imposing such a broad and ominous ban.

  4. Kinda harsh, but kinda true. You’ll notice that this article was also the source of the above lemonade stand video.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Links of August 9th, 2011: The Prophet Ron; S&P Debt Downgrade; Fashion Police; a Liter of Light; others…..

August 7, 2011
  1. Ron Paul predicted the fall of the housing market as early as 2003.

    I think I’m leaning toward Gary Johnson this time around because I like him better on social issues, but I will gladly pass this on, as I would be just about as satisfied with a Ron Paul win in 2012.

  2. Who are “Standard & Poor’s” and why do they hate America? Either they are with us or they are with the terrorists.

  3. If the DEA wishes to gain adherents, it really should renounce such a weak representation of its anti-marijuana stance. Long story short, anyone who advocates for the criminalization of medical marijuana patients primarily on the grounds that smoking it is harmful must also address vaporization as an alternative means of delivery. If they do not, then they are either too ignorant to have a valid opinion on the subject or they are deliberately engaging in sophistry. This past January, the DEA put out a position paper of their own, which I’ll have to address next time.  Read the rest of this entry »