Unfortunately, according to the Tribune series, the supposedly flameproof furnishings 1) aren’t necessarily very good at reducing fire risk and 2) are doused with chemicals that one might not want rubbing off on one’s family and pets. That’s aside from the regulations’ obvious cost in making furnishings more expensive and narrowing consumer choice by excluding producers unable or unwilling to use the chemical treatments. Whether or not you accept the series’ interpretation in all respects — the authors tend to taken an alarmist line, for example, on the chemicals’ environmental dangers — it’s useful as reminder #83,951 that government regulation often is driven by motives quite different from those advertised, and in particular by business lobbies whose interest is frequently squarely opposed to laissez-faire.

On Sunday, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, criticized lately in this space for his views on supposed Big Beer responsibility for Indian reservation alcoholism, addressed the flameproofing story in his column. After reciting the controversy — laying a particular emphasis on chemical alarmism, long a specialty of his — Kristof concludes as follows:

This campaign season, you’ll hear fervent denunciations of “burdensome government regulation.” When you do, think of the other side of the story: your home is filled with toxic flame retardants that serve no higher purpose than enriching three companies. The lesson is that we need not only safer couches but also a political system less distorted by toxic money.

Which affords James Taranto of the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” this response:

The guy is so blinded by ideology that he fails to notice he has just given an example of burdensome government regulation.

The trouble with Nicholas Kristof, cont’d is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

You or your cat… is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

P.S. Thanks to commenter wfjag for directing our attention to this December AP dispatch with its truly wince-making example of Lead Plaintiff Fail:

The lead plaintiff in a class-action discrimination lawsuit filed by black workers against the state of Iowa is expected to plead guilty Wednesday to using her position at Iowa Workforce Development to carry out a fraud scheme in which she embezzled $43,000 in benefits meant for jobless Iowans. … Her claims have been front and center during the lengthy litigation….

“Iowa judge rejects theory of ‘implicit bias’” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Follow-up from the Post on the Justice Department’s lack of transparency; and see my colleague Tim Lynch’s post at Cato.

Hair-raising is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“Shaken-baby” horror is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Iowa sued on charge of subconscious bias is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

• Judges criticize law reviews: “The high bench vs. the ivory tower” [Richard Brust, ABA Journal]
• “The fervor of the sixties penetrated law schools quite passionately” [Ann Althouse quoting an introduction to clinical legal education]
• More on forthcoming Brian Tamanaha book, Failing Law Schools [ABA Journal]
• “The Coming Crash in Legal Education: How We Got Here, and Where We Go Now” [Richard W. Bourne, SSRN via Kenneth Anderson/Volokh] How law, medicine and architectural schools joined the academy [Richard Neumann, Jr./SSRN via Caron]
• How lucrative are the sidelines a lawprof can develop, such as expert witness work? It varies greatly, but one star’s NYC condo is for sale for $15.9M [Julie Zeveloff, Business Insider]
• “Lawsuits against law schools weak: experts” [Reuters]
• “Obama hugging Derrick Bell” video: neither newsy nor likely to damage the President’s image, and why again is Prof. Bell supposed to be a more alarming connection than Prof. Ogletree himself? [Breitbart, Hinderaker, Cooke/NRO, and an HLS reminiscence from David French at NRO]

Law school roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

February 8 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong…

The amendment — intended satirically, one should hasten to add –”passed with a unanimous Senate vote” but was removed from its bill before consideration by the state house and never became law. (& Coyote, Above the Law)

“Dressing psychiatrists like wizards on the witness stand” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Who was that court-appointed expert again? is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system