No (raw) milk for you

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
No (raw) milk for you

 Don't worry, mommy government will protect you from those bearded Pennsylvanian terrorists, otherwise known as Amish, from selling you milk.

 

Quote:

 

A yearlong sting operation, including aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, culminated in the federal government announcing this week that it has gone to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling its contraband to willing customers in the Washington area.

The product in question: unpasteurized milk.

It’s a battle that’s been going on behind the scenes for years, with natural foods advocates arguing that raw milk, as it’s also known, is healthier than the pasteurized product, while the Food and Drug Administration says raw milk can carry harmful bacteria such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria.

“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” said Tamara N. Ward, spokeswoman for the FDA, whose investigators have been looking into Rainbow Acres for months, and who finally last week filed a 10-page complaint in federal court in Pennsylvania seeking an order to stop the farm from shipping across state lines any more raw milk or dairy products made from it.

The farm’s owner, Dan Allgyer, didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, but his customers in the District of Columbia and Maryland were furious at what they said was government overreach.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/

 

 

I don't know how any of us can survive without mommy government telling us what we should and shouldn't buy..... 


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Do the buyers know the

Do the buyers know the statistics? If not, then I prefer the government regulating it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I worked on a farm when I

I worked on a farm when I was 15.  I drank milk still warm from the cows/goats and ate eggs that I personally picked from under the chickens all the damned time.  Never once got sick from that.

 

Of course, if we are going to state that specific targeted bacteria is a problem, then we should take steps to deal with those.

 

Salmonella:  You can get it from handling pet reptiles.  I wonder just how organized that lobby could be if they got messed with?

 

E-coli:  Bacteria from the gut.  Not found in milk as such.  Sure it is found in cows but only in the gut.  The major source for that in food is the high speed slaughtering activities where the workers get careless and cut the intestines open when they should be the first thing removed and fully intact.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
it's a local thing

I don't know what Pennsylvania law's are - I don't know why the feds got involved.  I do know there are dairies in the Pacific NW that are licensed to sell raw milk.  They have a few more steps to go through to get the license - such as demonstrating a clean operation.

Yes, you can get e coli from milk, if your dairy is dirty enough that cross contamination is possible.  It's how you get e coli from spinach or tomatoes - neither of which actually shit.

I've seen a recent case about listeria from licensed raw milk dairy locally.  The dairy immediately cleaned up and re-certified.  I'll hunt up the news article if you all insist.  Nasty stuff, listeria.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Ah Pennsylvania laws are

 

Ah Pennsylvania laws are almost nonexistent if matters contact the Amish. I am not sure why but I could guess.

 

One time, I was down there at a party and I was one of a number of people on a deck. When one more walked out it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back as the deck dropped three feet. The next morning, several of us looked over the damage only to find that it had been attached to the house with regular cut wire nails. No bolts what so ever, just nails about as thick as an 18 gauge wire.

 

Around here, even if you build your own deck as an addition to your house, the rule is that you cannot begin to do the flooring until an inspector approves your framing work. If you do not have like a three fourths inch bolt every so many inches (I would have to look up the specifics), he will hit you with a stop work order until you get it right.

 

And yes, I am aware that general cleanliness is an issue on farms. Cross contamination is certainly possible. That was actually kind of my point even if I was not specific. The vector for e-coli is well known and can be controlled. If that is the target of the deal, then there should be little problem.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Here in Georgia you can not

Here in Georgia you can not purchase raw milk for human consumption. So the farmers sell it as milk for your pets. Thus people get around the government big brother is watching you stuff.  I grew up drinking fresh milk at my grandmother's.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
cj wrote:I don't know what

cj wrote:

I don't know what Pennsylvania law's are - I don't know why the feds got involved. 

 

The raw milk is perfectly legal inside Pennsylvania, they are being prosecuted by the federal government because they shipped it to customers in Maryland so it was interstate commerce. 

 

@thunderios, considering the amount of trouble the purchasers went through to get the milk I think it is safe to assume that they should have been aware of the risks. It isn't like they randomly picked it up off of the shelf at the grocery store because they liked the packaging. They specifically were specifically seeking raw milk. If they were somehow unaware of the dangers, I think it is completely their fault.

 

Personally, I don't think there is enough of a difference with raw milk to justify taking the risk but if I really liked the milk from a particular farm in Pennsylvania I ought to be able to purchase it if I want. But for some reason the government thinks they need to protect me from myself. Don't tell them that I don't cook my pork to the government recommended temperature. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is not 'natural' for

It is not 'natural' for adult mammals to drink milk, and many cannot, including some groups of humans who did not develop, or lost, the tradition of drinking animal milk. The most obvious manifestation of this is 'lactose intolerance'.

There is little indication of significant health benefits to raw milk vs pasteurised, to offset whatever risk there is from nasty bacteria.

It seems to be basically a flavour issue.

If government can show a significant risk from consumption of raw milk, or anything else which has no specific benefits, regulation is potentially justified.

BTW, BS, why did you not say "No raw milk for you" in your title?? Very misleading... [EDIT:] Fixed that.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Personally, I don't think there is enough of a difference with raw milk to justify taking the risk but if I really liked the milk from a particular farm in Pennsylvania I ought to be able to purchase it if I want.

I'm almost positive you can, still do that. You just can't have it shipped to your house or local farmer's market.  Is this really the hot button issue of today?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Beyond Saving

Kapkao wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Personally, I don't think there is enough of a difference with raw milk to justify taking the risk but if I really liked the milk from a particular farm in Pennsylvania I ought to be able to purchase it if I want.

I'm almost positive you can, still do that. You just can't have it shipped to your house or local farmer's market.  Is this really the hot button issue of today?

the goddamn ax must be worn down to a nub by now.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:the goddamn ax

iwbiek wrote:

the goddamn ax must be worn down to a nub by now.

What?

 

edit: well, anyways. All rum aside, I don't think the raw vs. pasteurized debate in the US is the best political ammunition against Fed regulators imaginable, but what the hell.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
BobSpence1 wrote:BTW, BS,

BobSpence1 wrote:

BTW, BS, why did you not say "No raw milk for you" in your title?? Very misleading... [EDIT:] Fixed that.

It was a riff on the popular Seinfeld saying "No soup for you"

 

@ Kapkao- driving to Pennsylvania to buy milk when you live in Maryland isn't very practical. If you can purchase a product, it seems absurd imo that you can't legally have it shipped to your house. As I pointed out, I am not personally affected by this particular regulation although have ran into similar problems with wine shipments.

 

If you value your freedom to purchase items you desire, this ought to be important to you. You might not care about raw milk, but what will you think when it is a product you desire? So I thought that in the interest of helping out the people who can no longer have raw milk shipped to them, that I would spread the information in the hopes that some people might be upset enough to join those of us who fight against ridiculous government intervention in our personal lives. If you don't help protect other peoples freedoms, how can you expect them to help protect yours? I find it really sad that so many people readily accept government bans in the name of "safety" and accept the government treating them like helpless children. 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:@

Beyond Saving wrote:
@ Kapkao- driving to Pennsylvania to buy milk when you live in Maryland isn't very practical. If you can purchase a product, it seems absurd imo that you can't legally have it shipped to your house. As I pointed out, I am not personally affected by this particular regulation although have ran into similar problems with wine shipments. 

And Law "is not rapier; it is a cudgel." -Alan Dershowitz

Again, an inconvenience of transportation doesn't convince me that it should "be important to me". Bovine TB and Brucellosis is, however...  a *lot* more important.

Again, you picked the wrong platform to make your argument about "freedom to purchase items I desire." (which I already have.)

Quote:
If you don't help protect other peoples freedoms, how can you expect them to help protect yours?

C'mon Beyond. Even for you, that's a tortured stretch.

Quote:
I find it really sad that so many people readily accept government bans in the name of "safety" and accept the government treating them like helpless children.

Well maybe you should consider becoming a campaign manager for politician with like-minded ideals. They'd love to have some of that beautifully twisted, hyperbolic rhetoric you're using right now.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:Again, an

Kapkao wrote:

Again, an inconvenience of transportation doesn't convince me that it should "be important to me". Bovine TB and Brucellosis is, however...  a *lot* more important.

How are you in any danger from someone in Maryland purchasing and drinking raw milk? No one is forcing you to drink it. It would be different if the farmer was selling raw milk and claiming it was pasteurized. That is not the case here. The farmer is knowingly selling raw milk to people who were knowingly purchasing raw milk. 

 

Kapkao wrote:

Again, you picked the wrong platform to make your argument about "freedom to purchase items I desire." (which I already have.)

Unless you happened to desire to have raw milk shipped to you from another state. Maybe the raw milk from that farm in Pennsylvania was especially good. I'm sure they were paying a premium to have it specially shipped. Some day, something you desire might be banned as well. Your argument of "it doesn't affect me" is exactly why the government gets away with taking away freedoms a little at a time. Granted, this case is relatively minor and affects very few people but to me that is unimportant. As someone who has had my desired freedoms stripped away from me to the point that I now intentionally break the law by an increasingly intrusive government, I think it is important I do my part to protect everyones freedom, even the minor ones. 

 

And while to you this might be minor, remember some dictocrat sitting in an office when through the effort to perform an undercover sting operation that took a year. I hope the US Marshals that showed up at the farm at least had the decency to be embarrassed when they were there to seize milk. It is so ridiculously absurd that our government would give a shit about such a minor thing and that some bureaucrat would go through this much effort to stop a farmer from shipping milk. 

 

Kapkao wrote:

Quote:
If you don't help protect other peoples freedoms, how can you expect them to help protect yours?

C'mon Beyond. Even for you, that's a tortured stretch.

True, those of us who worry about small things like freedom will probably try to protect your sorry ass freedoms anyway even though you sit around and do nothing. 

 

Kapkao wrote:

Quote:
I find it really sad that so many people readily accept government bans in the name of "safety" and accept the government treating them like helpless children.

Well maybe you should consider becoming a campaign manager for politician with like-minded ideals. They'd love to have some of that beautifully twisted, hyperbolic rhetoric you're using right now.

How else would you phrase it when we have governments that seriously discuss banning trans-fats, smoking, limiting salt content and banning toys in happy meals? There are people in the government who obviously believe it is their role to tell us what we should or shouldn't eat. They used to only talk about taxing certain products to control behavior, now some talk about outright bans/limitations. As an adult, I am perfectly capable of deciding what I want to eat. I don't need or want the government telling me whether or not it is healthy enough. 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I can see it now......

I can see it now...... Beyond on a 'Wanted' poster in the Post Office for runnin' "Cowshine"

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I can see it

redneF wrote:

I can see it now...... Beyond on a 'Wanted' poster in the Post Office for runnin' "Cowshine"

Or Moo-juice.... the udder drink, a titillating beverage.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:How are

Beyond Saving wrote:

How are you in any danger from someone in Maryland purchasing and drinking raw milk? No one is forcing you to drink it. It would be different if the farmer was selling raw milk and claiming it was pasteurized. That is not the case here. The farmer is knowingly selling raw milk to people who were knowingly purchasing raw milk.

Ok, close. But I did point out the law is not perfect.  The right to consume raw milk isn't being infringed upon here. The right to transport it, is.

Quote:
(shitload more of rhetoric)

Fluff and hot air. I'll pass...

fixed wrote:
True, those of us who worry about small things like being able to interstate commerce as we please will probably try to protect your sorry ass freedoms anyway even though you sit around and do nothing.

Awww, throwing a hissy fit isn't going to win you many battles. We already saw how well it worked for Trump.

My freedoms are adequately protected, but not by people who want throw the baby out with the bath water. Yourself, for instance. Besides, didn't you say something to the effect of 'I don't participate in politics' a few threads back?

Quote:
How else would you phrase it when we have governments that seriously discuss banning trans-fats, smoking, limiting salt content and banning toys in happy meals? There are people in the government who obviously believe it is their role to tell us what we should or shouldn't eat.

Yes, and is it being passed into codified, national law? No? Got it. States are banning things like that, but that's what states are allowed to do. And of course, sometimes the law comes with it's own workarounds, like feeding one's own pets.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:cj

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

I don't know what Pennsylvania law's are - I don't know why the feds got involved. 

 

The raw milk is perfectly legal inside Pennsylvania, they are being prosecuted by the federal government because they shipped it to customers in Maryland so it was interstate commerce. 

 

Shipping food across state lines is so risky.  This state, that state, and then yeah, the feds.  I was buying sea salt from Canada as at that time it was not available where I lived.  It came to me packaged as "bath salts."  The local stores started carrying various sea salts and I decided to pay a little more and skip any complications.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

@thunderios, considering the amount of trouble the purchasers went through to get the milk I think it is safe to assume that they should have been aware of the risks. It isn't like they randomly picked it up off of the shelf at the grocery store because they liked the packaging. They specifically were specifically seeking raw milk. If they were somehow unaware of the dangers, I think it is completely their fault.

 

Personally, I don't think there is enough of a difference with raw milk to justify taking the risk but if I really liked the milk from a particular farm in Pennsylvania I ought to be able to purchase it if I want. But for some reason the government thinks they need to protect me from myself. Don't tell them that I don't cook my pork to the government recommended temperature. 

 

You can be so silly.  No one cares as long as you don't sell half-cooked pork across state lines.  And you know that.

I have on occasion bought non-USDA inspected meat.  I knew the risks, knew where the meat was from and knew the butcher.  So?  Again, it is all about local state law and not selling it across state lines.  Simple.  Not a big deal.  The people in Maryland could have gone to Pennsylvania and bought the milk and carried it home.  Someone may have cared, but that would not have been illegal.

And, no, it isn't that long of a trip -- 198 miles, roughly 3 1/2 hours.  Shoot, it is a 6 hour trip one way to visit my sons.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I have on occasion

cj wrote:

I have on occasion bought non-USDA inspected meat.  I knew the risks, knew where the meat was from and knew the butcher.

Well of course it's a big deal. Beyond's putting on his  furious white knight act. And dammit, the feds took 'rights' away from these people they never had to begin with...

 

I've seen less honest debates. Really, I have...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: How

Beyond Saving wrote:

How else would you phrase it when we have governments that seriously discuss banning trans-fats, smoking, limiting salt content and banning toys in happy meals? There are people in the government who obviously believe it is their role to tell us what we should or shouldn't eat. They used to only talk about taxing certain products to control behavior, now some talk about outright bans/limitations. As an adult, I am perfectly capable of deciding what I want to eat. I don't need or want the government telling me whether or not it is healthy enough. 

 

Aw, let's go back to the good old days.  No labeling requirements on food, no restrictions on ingredients.  You want to know why people bought the original Coca-cola?  You do know where the name came from?  People didn't know they were getting hooked on cocaine because they didn't know it was added to the drink.  I will go along with - if you want to be hooked on cocaine, that is your own damn business.  I will not go along with it is okay to add cocaine to a beverage and then - because you don't have to tell what is in it, you don't.

Or arsenic in canned peas to make them greener.

Or others, if I bothered to go look them up.

These and other examples are some of the reasons why we have labeling laws.

So you are correct, the seller was not misrepresenting the product in this case and we are assuming the buyers are aware of the risks.  Though I wouldn't hold my breath on the second part of that sentence.

Trans-fats.  Trans-fats are not real food.  That is part of the reason they are implicated very strongly with obesity and related stroke, heart attack, .....  I'm not sure if you are one of the ones who want to tax fat people for being fat, but surely banning a non-food substance that is known to increase health risks that cost all of us - you and me, bub - in higher health care costs, higher insurance costs and higher medicaid/medicare costs is not a bad thing.

Same with smoking which carries a high risk of various cancers, all of which are expensive to treat.  Or excessive salt.  I can't eat fast food fries anymore unless I tell them to hold the salt - and I salt it myself.  Toys in happy meals - I'm in two minds about.  If a parent can't be bothered to keep an eye on their children, maybe they shouldn't have children.  But maybe the fast food places should put in toys that aren't choking hazards, either.

Putting crap in food is done because it costs the producers less money.  See melamine and China.  It can't happen here?  It would happen in a heart beat if producers thought they could get away with it.  They wouldn't because of the potential law suits?  You are so naive.

The dairyman should have refused to sell across state lines.  You go check out most web sites for raw milk or grass fed meat, and they will state very up front that they will not ship to other states.  Cause they don't want the feds on their case.  If the people in Maryland are that desperate for raw milk, they could have traveled to where it is available.  It ain't that far.  Or had the dairy ship to Hanover PA to a drop off and pick it up from there - that is only 90 miles from central Maryland. 

More work than it is worth, but it is often possible to get around the laws without breaking them.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3093
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:iwbiek

Kapkao wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

the goddamn ax must be worn down to a nub by now.

What?

as in bs having an ax to grind against the gov't.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3506
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Who doesn't complain about

Who doesn't complain about the goverment ?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Don't

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Don't worry, mommy government will protect you from those bearded Pennsylvanian terrorists, otherwise known as Amish, from selling you milk.

 

Quote:

 

A yearlong sting operation, including aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, culminated in the federal government announcing this week that it has gone to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling its contraband to willing customers in the Washington area.

The product in question: unpasteurized milk.

It’s a battle that’s been going on behind the scenes for years, with natural foods advocates arguing that raw milk, as it’s also known, is healthier than the pasteurized product, while the Food and Drug Administration says raw milk can carry harmful bacteria such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria.

“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” said Tamara N. Ward, spokeswoman for the FDA, whose investigators have been looking into Rainbow Acres for months, and who finally last week filed a 10-page complaint in federal court in Pennsylvania seeking an order to stop the farm from shipping across state lines any more raw milk or dairy products made from it.

The farm’s owner, Dan Allgyer, didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, but his customers in the District of Columbia and Maryland were furious at what they said was government overreach.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/

 

 

I don't know how any of us can survive without mommy government telling us what we should and shouldn't buy..... 

I'm glad mommy government inspects our food supply. If you think that is bad, I'll tell you what. I'll sell you some bleached meat and not tell you it's bleached, and I'll make sure it is a leathal dose. AND I'll make sure some rats have shit on it too.

OR, I'll sell you that same meat knowing it has salmanela(sp) or ecoli, and since you hate government, you wont be able to sue me because that would REQUIRE a government employee JUDGE and tax payers paying a jury to side with you. Since mommy government is so bad. You didn't have to eat that meat.

If you want to see what a lack of regulation looks like, I'd suggest you go to Tijauana and look at the shanty towns of mud and tin huts that surround the city. Don't drink the water.

FUCK SEATBELTS! FUCK SPEED LIMITS.

Once again, you falsely assume because someone owns a business that they are automatically going to care about their customers. Many do, sure. But if it is all about the buck, there are also plenty who will do whatever they think they can get away with and WILL lie to get it.

Life before the age of regulation was far worse. I seriously doubt you would want to really go back to the wild west days.

I have no doubt, as black and white as you think on this issue, that someday someone will take advantage of you and then you will fasely blame yourself stupidly because of your attitude "I'm too smart".

When that does happen, don't come crying to me. Don't call the police and don't sue the person who did this to you.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Well I could whip up some

Well I could whip up some shit to sell if there was no fda regulating.

If you want the milk then go buy it direct or get a cow. The govt is not saying we can't have it only that they can't distribute it for sale though I do question why cigarettes which are proven to cause cancer, birth defects etc are still available.. oh wait they can earn a lot of cashola from taxing cigarettes. They could just tax the shit out of it and put some carp on the label about the various dieases it can have in it. /shrug

I still want my genuine amish heater.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Who

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Who doesn't complain about the goverment ?

I do too. But what I don't do is is go to the absurd extreme that all government is bad. I think libraries, police, and firemen, and courts(rather than tribal executions) are good. I think that the government mandates that sparked the military rush right before WW2 was good, otherwise we would have been unprepared. AND we wouldn't have beaten the Russians to the bomb. And what if Hitler had gotten it first? Without those government mandates you and I would be speaking German right now.

What people ON both sides often do, without realizing, is say "I don't want to pay for this" but hypocritically ask this same government to pay for or do things YOU like.

I thought the two wars we are now stuck in were a waste of money, but that doesn't mean I want to completely get rid of our military merely because some things I didn't like happened.

You can only be pragmatic in arguing less regulation(but that depends on RESPONSIBILITY, not just on the part of the buyer, but the seller as well) Otherwise if you bought a defective car and got injured you shouldn't be able to sue the manufacturer because regulation wouldn't exist for you to sue them over.

You can also argue better regulations. But it is stupid and absurd to make "no regulation" the blanket solution.

EXAMPLE:

In the news today OUR military says it does not need a tank factory. NOW for those arguing cuts, then this should be a no brainer. Funny how that factory is in a republican district. But if cuts are what are needed it should be a no brainer.  BUT these same people argue "JOBS JOBS JOBS"

Instead of keeping it open OR closing it. How about a shift in what they make. Turn it into something the military does need, OR sell it to a private business and shift it to making something else with the promise to retrain those who once made the tanks.

POOF, no longer either or. No longer SHUT IT DOWN, or KEEP IT OPEN to keep republicans happy.

Nothing is black and white. Too much government can be a bad thing. I personally think that Homeland Security was needless and we simply should have fixed what we had already.

But no regulation is absurd too. All that is is anarchy.

Which brings me back to what I keep saying and what the founders knew which is WHY we have our First Amenedment and the concept of "checks and balances". The Constitution is an anti-trust law. It was written to prevent monopolies of power OF ANY KIND, including class, not just political or religious.

SINCE nothing is black and white you need drop either/or propositions. ANYTHING left to it's own devices, be it a political party, religion OR business, CAN and do go off the rails.

We all have things about government we bitch about. So what. But his "the sky is falling" is wearing really thin with me.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I don't

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't know how any of us can survive without mommy government telling us what we should and shouldn't buy..... 

I read that article and laughed out loud... I thought it was utterly (no pun intended) ridiculous some of the things the gov't in the USA does.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Wowzers1 wrote:Beyond Saving

Wowzers1 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't know how any of us can survive without mommy government telling us what we should and shouldn't buy..... 

I read that article and laughed out loud... I thought it was utterly (no pun intended) ridiculous some of the things the gov't in the USA does.

Fuck, the only sane person in this thread is a theist......

 

 

@ everyone else

 

We are not talking about safety inspections of the farm. If you read the article it is quite clear that the farm was in compliance with all federal and state standards. The ONLY thing they did was ship milk to customers who had specifically requested it. They went so far as to set up a private club where people had to sign a contract to get the milk to prove that they knew what they were getting. It wasn't something being thrown in a grocery store where someone might accidentally purchase it. All those accusations of "you want no labels" is just a strawman. These people went through a lot of effort to purchase this milk. They knew what they were getting, there was no fraud, there wasn't even any advertising.  

 

Can anyone tell me why it is a good idea for it to be illegal to ship raw milk to a customer who knows what they are purchasing?

 

I can't believe how much this conversation has sparked. I just threw it up as another example of petty government ridiculousness. I didn't think you needed to be as anti-government as me to see that it is ridiculous that someone can't have raw milk shipped to their home.... apparently you do. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
cj wrote:Trans-fats. 

cj wrote:

Trans-fats.  Trans-fats are not real food.  That is part of the reason they are implicated very strongly with obesity and related stroke, heart attack, .....  I'm not sure if you are one of the ones who want to tax fat people for being fat, but surely banning a non-food substance that is known to increase health risks that cost all of us - you and me, bub - in higher health care costs, higher insurance costs and higher medicaid/medicare costs is not a bad thing.

Precisely why I was vehemently against Bamacare. Because as soon as you expect everyone else to pay for your health expenses, they do have a logical argument for controlling what you eat, what you drink and how you live your life. 

 

cj wrote:

The dairyman should have refused to sell across state lines.  You go check out most web sites for raw milk or grass fed meat, and they will state very up front that they will not ship to other states.  Cause they don't want the feds on their case.  If the people in Maryland are that desperate for raw milk, they could have traveled to where it is available.  It ain't that far.  Or had the dairy ship to Hanover PA to a drop off and pick it up from there - that is only 90 miles from central Maryland. 

More work than it is worth, but it is often possible to get around the laws without breaking them.

Yeah, I get that they could have. But why should they have to? What great national interest is being protected by the FDA in this case? I believe if a regulation is stupid we need to get rid of it or change it. This regulation is stupid.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Don't worry, mommy government will protect you from those bearded Pennsylvanian terrorists, otherwise known as Amish, from selling you milk.

 

Quote:

 

A yearlong sting operation, including aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, culminated in the federal government announcing this week that it has gone to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling its contraband to willing customers in the Washington area.

The product in question: unpasteurized milk.

It’s a battle that’s been going on behind the scenes for years, with natural foods advocates arguing that raw milk, as it’s also known, is healthier than the pasteurized product, while the Food and Drug Administration says raw milk can carry harmful bacteria such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria.

“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” said Tamara N. Ward, spokeswoman for the FDA, whose investigators have been looking into Rainbow Acres for months, and who finally last week filed a 10-page complaint in federal court in Pennsylvania seeking an order to stop the farm from shipping across state lines any more raw milk or dairy products made from it.

The farm’s owner, Dan Allgyer, didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, but his customers in the District of Columbia and Maryland were furious at what they said was government overreach.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/

 

 

I don't know how any of us can survive without mommy government telling us what we should and shouldn't buy..... 

I'm glad mommy government inspects our food supply. If you think that is bad, I'll tell you what. I'll sell you some bleached meat and not tell you it's bleached, and I'll make sure it is a leathal dose. AND I'll make sure some rats have shit on it too.

OR, I'll sell you that same meat knowing it has salmanela(sp) or ecoli, and since you hate government, you wont be able to sue me because that would REQUIRE a government employee JUDGE and tax payers paying a jury to side with you. Since mommy government is so bad. You didn't have to eat that meat.

If you want to see what a lack of regulation looks like, I'd suggest you go to Tijauana and look at the shanty towns of mud and tin huts that surround the city. Don't drink the water.

FUCK SEATBELTS! FUCK SPEED LIMITS.

Once again, you falsely assume because someone owns a business that they are automatically going to care about their customers. Many do, sure. But if it is all about the buck, there are also plenty who will do whatever they think they can get away with and WILL lie to get it.

Life before the age of regulation was far worse. I seriously doubt you would want to really go back to the wild west days.

I have no doubt, as black and white as you think on this issue, that someday someone will take advantage of you and then you will fasely blame yourself stupidly because of your attitude "I'm too smart".

When that does happen, don't come crying to me. Don't call the police and don't sue the person who did this to you.

 

 

 

And once again Brian you are on a completely different topic... I am not talking about the myriad of safety inspections the farmer received from both state and federal authorities. The farmer was not found in violation of any of those regulations. The ONLY regulation he is accused of breaking is shipping the milk to Maryland. If he shipped it to Harrisburg which as CJ pointed out only 90 miles away from Maryland, it would have been perfectly legal. What difference does that make to the public health? Would people die if that milk was shipped an additional 90 miles?

 

Why is it whenever I point out a SPECIFIC regulation that I think is stupid, you radicalize my position to be against ALL government regulation? I never said that. I did suggest that all food inspection could be done at the state level in another thread. So we can ditch the FDA and simply have state inspectors do the work instead of having two times the inspectors as we have now. But even that isn't a suggestion that we allow unsanitary farm practices...just a suggestion on how we can shrink the bureaucracy and make the system more efficient. I agree that any person who sells a product and is intentionally dishonest about what that product is or that product becomes dangerous due to negligence they should face legal consequences, I have never suggested otherwise.

 

And what is your obsession with seat belts? 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3506
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Why is

Beyond Saving wrote:


 

Why is it whenever I point out a SPECIFIC regulation that I think is stupid, you radicalize my position to be against ALL government regulation?

 

  Why does Brian exaggerate so much  ?    

    A)   Force of habit ?

    B )  Meds need to be adjusted ?

    C )  His irrational fear of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: cj

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

Trans-fats.  Trans-fats are not real food.  That is part of the reason they are implicated very strongly with obesity and related stroke, heart attack, .....  I'm not sure if you are one of the ones who want to tax fat people for being fat, but surely banning a non-food substance that is known to increase health risks that cost all of us - you and me, bub - in higher health care costs, higher insurance costs and higher medicaid/medicare costs is not a bad thing.

Precisely why I was vehemently against Bamacare. Because as soon as you expect everyone else to pay for your health expenses, they do have a logical argument for controlling what you eat, what you drink and how you live your life. 

 

You still don't get it.  You are already paying for other people's health care.  We don't have to have universal health care to have costs in our personal lives influenced by other people's health care choices.  The idea behind universal health care is to reduce costs by ensuring everyone gets at least basic health care.  All you have to do is compare overall health and health care costs with any country that has universal care with the US.  US health care costs more and more people are very ill.  Very straight forward.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

The dairyman should have refused to sell across state lines.  You go check out most web sites for raw milk or grass fed meat, and they will state very up front that they will not ship to other states.  Cause they don't want the feds on their case.  If the people in Maryland are that desperate for raw milk, they could have traveled to where it is available.  It ain't that far.  Or had the dairy ship to Hanover PA to a drop off and pick it up from there - that is only 90 miles from central Maryland. 

More work than it is worth, but it is often possible to get around the laws without breaking them.

Yeah, I get that they could have. But why should they have to? What great national interest is being protected by the FDA in this case? I believe if a regulation is stupid we need to get rid of it or change it. This regulation is stupid.

 

The US has regulated interstate commerce almost forever.  The original reason was every municipality minting their own money and the adverse effects that had on business.  The interstate commerce laws are still about commerce - and the maximization of profit.  It means people like this farmer get way too much attention some times and get in trouble.  But the laws are the laws - if you want to not get involved with the law, don't break it.  If you want to change the law, lobby your congress people.  Get a petition going.

I happen to agree this is over kill for an issue that is appears to be about accepting risks for yourself.  But it is possible to make the argument that consuming raw milk could (and has) affected other people.  Part of the reason for banning raw milk was stamping out tuberculosis.  One person with TB can infect many others.  And so many of the laws around raw milk date back to this particular public health issue.  Again, it was/is about saving everyone health care costs and saving lives.

Yes, TB is not the public health problem it used to be - because of laws like this one.  And many health professionals believe the other diseases that are a concern now justify this law.  <shrug>  It is not likely anyone could get this law repealed any time soon given the strong feelings of most health care professionals on the subject.  Ask your personal physician and see what answer you get.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
I bet you are breaking at least one

cj wrote:
 But the laws are the laws - if you want to not get involved with the law, don't break it.  

 

 

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I bet

Beyond Saving wrote:

I bet you are breaking at least one

 

Most likely, a couple of dozen.  I try to keep it under their radar.

Seriously, BS, anyone who goes into business without researching applicable laws, is asking for trouble.  You can search for raw milk or grass fed meat and see what lots of other business owners in your area and across the nation are doing.  And if you can't figure out why they are doing business the way they are, maybe you should consult a lawyer.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Does this mean the

Does this mean the government is going to stop breast feeding?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I guess it would kind of

beyond saving wrote:

 

 

 

 

I guess it would kind of suck to be in every possible business imaginable, legally speaking. Three of those bookshelves apply only to business, so I suppose everyone now has a good idea where most of the money for business legal defense comes from (and why so many businesses prefer to settle out of court, even if their case is solid.) I imagine the energy law books are pretty damn thick. Some of it is simply red tape. Yeah, red tape sucks. Unless you want to lobby for repealing said red tape, deal with it.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:Yeah, red tape

Kapkao wrote:

Yeah, red tape sucks. Unless you want to lobby for repealing said red tape, deal with it.

 

I do. Although, when I was heavily involved in insider politics I discovered that virtually every person in the supposedly "small government" party had no interest whatsoever in reducing any red tape. You can donate tens of thousands or even millions of dollars and your not going to get politicians to reduce red tape. Why? Because red tape gives politicians power. They use their power to make exceptions for certain businesses such as all the health care waivers that have been issued exempting certain businesses from the new requirements. I tried my damnedest to change things and the bottom line is that nothing is going to change without a huge change in voter attitude. 

 

That is why I posted this story here, and why I told everyone about the shutdown of internet poker sites. Unless the voters themselves start demanding that the politicians change things, I don't see any incentive for them to change. All the incentives are to regulate more. Now I know that most of you on here are fairly left-wing, but even a left winger ought to be able to see the absurdness and abuses of many government regulations. There is a real farmer who is going to face real legal consequences for shipping raw milk to customers that wanted it. I believe that is wrong and should be changed.

 

Only CJ has offered a plausible explanation for why shipping raw milk should be illegal. Cj's response about the dangers of TB is a good point, except that raw milk is legal within state borders, so I don't see how shipping it increases the dangers of TB. If TB is such a large danger to public health that might be a reason to ban raw milk everywhere. I don't really know if it is, I am not an expert on raw milk but I haven't heard of any tb outbreaks caused by raw milk. 


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Kapkao

Beyond Saving wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Yeah, red tape sucks. Unless you want to lobby for repealing said red tape, deal with it.

 

I do. Although, when I was heavily involved in insider politics I discovered that virtually every person in the supposedly "small government" party had no interest whatsoever in reducing any red tape. You can donate tens of thousands or even millions of dollars and your not going to get politicians to reduce red tape. Why? Because red tape gives politicians power. They use their power to make exceptions for certain businesses such as all the health care waivers that have been issued exempting certain businesses from the new requirements. I tried my damnedest to change things and the bottom line is that nothing is going to change without a huge change in voter attitude. 

 

That is why I posted this story here, and why I told everyone about the shutdown of internet poker sites. Unless the voters themselves start demanding that the politicians change things, I don't see any incentive for them to change. All the incentives are to regulate more. Now I know that most of you on here are fairly left-wing, but even a left winger ought to be able to see the absurdness and abuses of many government regulations. There is a real farmer who is going to face real legal consequences for shipping raw milk to customers that wanted it. I believe that is wrong and should be changed.

 

Only CJ has offered a plausible explanation for why shipping raw milk should be illegal. Cj's response about the dangers of TB is a good point, except that raw milk is legal within state borders, so I don't see how shipping it increases the dangers of TB. If TB is such a large danger to public health that might be a reason to ban raw milk everywhere. I don't really know if it is, I am not an expert on raw milk but I haven't heard of any tb outbreaks caused by raw milk. 

I've been reading your last few threads.  I don't know what the government should regulate and what it shouldn't regulate.  I can think of specific regulations that I approve of, and I can think of specific regulations I don't approve of.  What I can't seem to do is draw clear logical line between what the Federal government should do, and what it shouldn't do.  I want to know were you draw the line.  What should the Federal government be allowed to regulate?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:


 

 

Why is it whenever I point out a SPECIFIC regulation that I think is stupid, you radicalize my position to be against ALL government regulation?

 

  Why does Brian exaggerate so much  ?    

    A)   Force of habit ?

    B )  Meds need to be adjusted ?

    C )  His irrational fear of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ?

You forgot:

D) A good offense is a good defense ?*

E) All of the above.*

*If the answer is C then also see E**

*If the answer is D then also see A and B***

 

**Possibly linked to more than one Answer from A-D excluding E***

 

***Or possibly something that has not yet been suggested.

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
RatDog wrote:I've been

RatDog wrote:

I've been reading your last few threads.  I don't know what the government should regulate and what it shouldn't regulate.  I can think of specific regulations that I approve of, and I can think of specific regulations I don't approve of.  What I can't seem to do is draw clear logical line between what the Federal government should do, and what it shouldn't do.  I want to know were you draw the line.  What should the Federal government be allowed to regulate?

 

For the federal government it is easy- they ought to focus on article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. Anything that they are not specifically given the power to regulate is something that ought to be left to the states. The commerce clause has been skewed to the point that it now holds little meaning. It has been used to justify federal regulation in pretty much everything. I think a far stricter interpretation ought to be adopted. The clause was initially included to ensure that states did not get into economic trade wars.

 

In my ideal world federal regulation would fall under strict scrutiny. IOW it is the governments obligation to demonstrate that there is a compelling government interest, the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest and the law is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. So in the case of shipping raw milk, for example, if the government could demonstrate that there is significant danger to the public in the form of TB outbreaks than an regulation of raw milk would be permissible. Because protecting against a tb outbreak is a compelling government interest. So a law that effectively protected from that threat without stopping raw milk shipments that posed no risk of tb (shipping to a pasteurization plant across a border for example).

 

Of course, there will always be room for debate of exactly what constitutes a compelling government interest, but the conversation would be much different. Rather than someone like me attempting to prove that a certain regulation infringes on a freedom I should have, the government has the burden of proving that it has a good reason to regulate at all.

 

Now as far as the states are concerned, that is a different story. Clearly, in a Constitutional sense, they have a lot more authority. And I believe for things like the FDA, USDA, Dept. of Education etc. the states should be doing all of the regulating. I would still choose to live in a state that had relatively few regulations and continue to push for more rational and less restrictive regulations, but it is easier to change a state than the whole country.  


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3506
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: You

robj101 wrote:


 You forgot:

D) A good offense is a good defense ?*

E) All of the above.*

*If the answer is C then also see E**

*If the answer is D then also see A and B***

 

**Possibly linked to more than one Answer from A-D excluding E***

 

***Or possibly something that has not yet been suggested.

 

 

  

 

                     Rob, your extensive dealings with Brian have given you considerable insight into the inner workings of his mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 ( Brian, just messing with you a bit.... don't get angry )


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

robj101 wrote:


 You forgot:

D) A good offense is a good defense ?*

E) All of the above.*

*If the answer is C then also see E**

*If the answer is D then also see A and B***

 

**Possibly linked to more than one Answer from A-D excluding E***

 

***Or possibly something that has not yet been suggested.

 

 

  

 

                     Rob, your extensive dealings with Brian have given you considerable insight into the inner workings of his mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 ( Brian, just messing with you a bit.... don't get angry )

Yea well I'm going to keep most of it in the closet.

We are fairly used to Bryan and at least we know what to expect. I'm not really down on him I just hope he will sit around and ponder his own thinking process a bit..I do it often myself. I constantly second guess myself and think on things a lot especially after someone like Bryan tries to poke holes in my arguments and I wonder if he really does the same or if he is just set in his way and unwilling or unable to view things from a different perspective.

One could write a list of "do and do not" based on his posts with little to no grey area even given reference to timeframe and progression as a society. I like grey area, it's in good part how we move forward.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3506
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:  Yea well

robj101 wrote:

 


 Yea well I'm going to keep most of it in the closet.

We are fairly used to Bryan and at least we know what to expect. I'm not really down on him I just hope he will sit around and ponder his own thinking process a bit..I do it often myself. I constantly second guess myself and think on things a lot especially after someone like Bryan tries to poke holes in my arguments and I wonder if he really does the same or if he is just set in his way and unwilling or unable to view things from a different perspective.

One could write a list of "do and do not" based on his posts with little to no grey area even given reference to timeframe and progression as a society. I like grey area, it's in good part how we move forward.

 

  Brian is an absolutist in his political thinking.  He couldn't accept that you could actually consider being friends with a gay guy ( disc golf ) so he had to accuse you of simply making that person your "token" gay guy.  He sees you as a villain and anything that softens that perception apparently disturbs him.  He refuses to see you as you actually are if it goes against his stereotypes.

  But I will try not to actually ridicule him ( tease him, yes ) even though I will continue to express myself for who I actually am and yet I will inevitably draw his righteous wrath upon myself for being politically incorrect.  Too bad for me, I guess.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

robj101 wrote:

 


 

 Yea well I'm going to keep most of it in the closet.

We are fairly used to Bryan and at least we know what to expect. I'm not really down on him I just hope he will sit around and ponder his own thinking process a bit..I do it often myself. I constantly second guess myself and think on things a lot especially after someone like Bryan tries to poke holes in my arguments and I wonder if he really does the same or if he is just set in his way and unwilling or unable to view things from a different perspective.

One could write a list of "do and do not" based on his posts with little to no grey area even given reference to timeframe and progression as a society. I like grey area, it's in good part how we move forward.

 

  Brian is an absolutist in his political thinking.  He couldn't accept that you could actually consider being friends with a gay guy ( disc golf ) so he had to accuse you of simply making that person your "token" gay guy.  He sees you as a villain and anything that softens that perception apparently disturbs him.  He refuses to see you as you actually are if it goes against his stereotypes.

  But I will try not to actually ridicule him ( tease him, yes ) even though I will continue to express myself for who I actually am and yet I will inevitably draw his righteous wrath upon myself for being politically incorrect.  Too bad for me, I guess.

"He sees you as a villain and anything that softens that perception apparently disturbs him" : (especially if you are a jock most likely. (the statement of fear and hatred towards physically imposing people is open to interpretation))

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, I guess you're kinda

Well, I guess you're kinda fucked if you're going to limit your shock troops to two parties that are displaying symptoms of a "midlife" crisis... and have such a wonderfully shining record for limiting gov't beforehand on everything past the Eisenhower administration. 

Beyond wrote:
That is why I posted this story here, and why I told everyone about the shutdown of internet poker sites. Unless the voters themselves start demanding that the politicians change things, I don't see any incentive for them to change.

Ok, this I can agree with.

Quote:
I believe that is wrong and should be changed.

Of course it's wrong, but it's also a law or set of laws that have been in effect since before the Spanish American war- another words, after the 14th amendment, but still old enough for everyone plus a dead generation or two to be completely used to and unperturbed by it's function. Let me put it another way: it's very easy to fuck up even a significant reversal on this law. Civil dissent is helpful but it's nowhere near enough. You'll need politicians themselves to unintentionally drop the ball -to pass a series of future laws that ends up being constitutional, and yet unpopular like Obamacare. The constitution's Commerce Clause allows Washington to try Interstate Commerce Law(s) again at a later date.

Again, good luck.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
 Beyond Saving wrote:RatDog

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

RatDog wrote:

 

I've been reading your last few threads.  I don't know what the government should regulate and what it shouldn't regulate.  I can think of specific regulations that I approve of, and I can think of specific regulations I don't approve of.  What I can't seem to do is draw clear logical line between what the Federal government should do, and what it shouldn't do.  I want to know where you draw the line.  What should the Federal government be allowed to regulate?

 

 

For the federal government it is easy- they ought to focus on article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. Anything that they are not specifically given the power to regulate is something that ought to be left to the states. The commerce clause has been skewed to the point that it now holds little meaning. It has been used to justify federal regulation in pretty much everything. I think a far stricter interpretation ought to be adopted. The clause was initially included to ensure that states did not get into economic trade wars.

 

In my ideal world federal regulation would fall under strict scrutiny. IOW it is the governments obligation to demonstrate that there is a compelling government interest, the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest and the law is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. So in the case of shipping raw milk, for example, if the government could demonstrate that there is significant danger to the public in the form of TB outbreaks than an regulation of raw milk would be permissible. Because protecting against a tb outbreak is a compelling government interest. So a law that effectively protected from that threat without stopping raw milk shipments that posed no risk of tb (shipping to a pasteurization plant across a border for example).

 

Of course, there will always be room for debate of exactly what constitutes a compelling government interest, but the conversation would be much different. Rather than someone like me attempting to prove that a certain regulation infringes on a freedom I should have, the government has the burden of proving that it has a good reason to regulate at all.

 

Now as far as the states are concerned, that is a different story. Clearly, in a Constitutional sense, they have a lot more authority. And I believe for things like the FDA, USDA, Dept. of Education etc. the states should be doing all of the regulating. I would still choose to live in a state that had relatively few regulations and continue to push for more rational and less restrictive regulations, but it is easier to change a state than the whole country.  

I've gone back and forth a lot on where I think the government should fit into people’s lives.  Often times when I hear merit in both sides of the arguments so I end up stuck between both sides without a clear and defined side that I can call my own.  Recognizing this I’m going to try and condense what I agree with from various arguments into some kind of single organized consistent view of things.  I am of course not going to do that all in this one post, but it is something I’m going to start working on. 

With that goal in mind I’m going to describe, to the best of my ability, what role I currently thing government should have in people’s lives.   

 

The fed’s role in controlling the economy:

When I first learned about economics I thought that the government should try and control the interest rate in order to stimulate the economy during recession.  I also believed in stimulus spending.  Now I am not so sure about either of these ideas.  The recent low interest rate that the fed maintained for an extended period didn't seem to stimulate all that much investment.  Also I'm not so sure about stimulus spending anymore either.  The recent stimulus spending didn't seem to help much.  I think that some of the economic assumptions that I was taught might be oversimplified.  Just because someone Fed Funds Rate is low doesn’t mean that investors will be able or willing to borrow money.  If the people who control the money don’t feel that they will benefit from loaning money they won’t loan money regardless of how low the Fed Funds Rate is, or if they do lone money they might loan it at a high rate of interest.  The Fed Funds Rate alone doesn’t control the availability of capital.  It also matters what people think of the current market, and what they think will happen in the future.  Also, just because the government spends money doesn’t mean that everyone else will spend money as well.  People will act in what they consider their best interest.  I think that the economy might be too large for any single entity to control effectively.  Based on this reasoning I would like evidence that the Fed’s actions are beneficial to the economy.  Without such evidence I don’t think that the government should try and mettle with it. 

 

Federal verses state power:

The think that the federal government has become too powerful and more power should be returned to the states.  I think that any time power becomes to concentrate it increases the risk of corruption. 

Social Issues:

I think that as long as they aren’t causing harm people should be able to do what they want.   I think the government should stay out of people personal lives, and I also think that people personal lives shouldn’t have an effect on government. 

The only acceptation I make to this rule is Planned Parenthood, and sexual education.  I think that the government has vested interest in discouraging people from having children they don’t really need or want. 

Government regulation of business:

I think they government should create a level playing field for business, and consumers.  I think it is the government’s job to keep things basically fair with things like anti-trust laws.    That said, I think there is way too much red tap right now, and it need to be cut back a lot.  It isn’t the government’s job to nitpick every little detail.  I think it is their job to create an environment where the strong don’t abuse the weak, and where there are stable rules including the enforcement of contracts.

Government and Environment: 

I think it is the government’s job to insure that the environment is sustained for future generations.  I don’t think the government has to keep everything pristine, and untouched.  They just need to keep things from falling apart. 

 I also like national parks, and whish for them to continue to exist.   I think that the beauty of nature has its own value, and that society is better off if at least some of it is preserved. 

Government and spending:

I think that the government should maintain, and develop needed infrastructure for the present and for the future. 

In regards to social security, and other government funded social safety nets.  I don’t know.  My thinking is that anything that maximizes utility for society as a whole is good, and I think that helping the poor can go a long way towards that end.  My main problem is that I’m not sure the way the government spends money is sustainable.  Taxes vary by GDP, but government spending just keeps going up. 

The government needs to reevaluate how it does things.  I like some of the things EXC has said about this issue.  If all government services have cost people are less likely to abuse them.  If people receive something from society they should also have to give something back.  

Government and war:

We are engaged in way to much conflict right now.  Something needs to be done about it, but I don’t know what exactly.

That all I’ve got at the moment.  I’ll keep working on it.  

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
RatDog wrote: The

RatDog wrote:

 The fed’s role in controlling the economy

I agree with your assessment. The fed lowering the interest rate does have a positive effect on lending but ultimately it is limited. When you borrow money, you have to pay it back sooner or later. Eventually, you reach the point where you can't borrow more no matter how low the interest rate is until you pay back what you borrowed in the first place. Every time you borrow money, you are spending your anticipated future production so it only makes logical sense that if you borrow a lot today, you will be poorer in the future. Right now we are paying that cost as a country.

 

The free market isn't perfect and supply and demand are rarely perfectly in sync, that is why we have recessions and booms. In theory, a controlled economy that was able to perfectly predict supply and demand could exist without recessions. In practice, you can't predict things that perfectly anymore than you can perfectly predict what the lottery numbers are going to be every day. Stimulus might work, if the government could somehow be more efficient than the free market at distributing money but since stimulus is generally distributed based on political connections any kind of efficiency is impossible in the real world imo. 

 

RatDog wrote:

Federal verses state power:

The think that the federal government has become too powerful and more power should be returned to the states.  I think that any time power becomes to concentrate it increases the risk of corruption. 

Ditto

 

RatDog wrote:

Social Issues:

I think that as long as they aren’t causing harm people should be able to do what they want.   I think the government should stay out of people personal lives, and I also think that people personal lives shouldn’t have an effect on government. 

The only acceptation I make to this rule is Planned Parenthood, and sexual education.  I think that the government has vested interest in discouraging people from having children they don’t really need or want. 

Meh, planned parenthood could get more than sufficient funding as a private charity. There are plenty of people who believe in its cause. Hardly my biggest concern when it comes to federal spending though.

 

RatDog wrote:

Government regulation of business:

I think they government should create a level playing field for business, and consumers.  I think it is the government’s job to keep things basically fair with things like anti-trust laws.    That said, I think there is way too much red tap right now, and it need to be cut back a lot.  It isn’t the government’s job to nitpick every little detail.  I think it is their job to create an environment where the strong don’t abuse the weak, and where there are stable rules including the enforcement of contracts.

And the devil is in the details 

 

RatDog wrote:

Government and Environment: 

I think it is the government’s job to insure that the environment is sustained for future generations.  I don’t think the government has to keep everything pristine, and untouched.  They just need to keep things from falling apart. 

 I also like national parks, and whish for them to continue to exist.   I think that the beauty of nature has its own value, and that society is better off if at least some of it is preserved.

This gets complicated because it is clear that certain practices need to be outright banned such as dumping sewage in a river which directly harms everyone else. It gets a little more complicated when it comes to things like air pollution, noise pollution etc. Simply by producing anything we are creating pollution to some extent, so while we need to do something to prevent complete devastation, environmental issues often get out of hand.

National parks should pay for themselves. There is no reason national parks/forests shouldn't be able to make a profit.  

 

RatDog wrote:

Government and spending:

I think that the government should maintain, and develop needed infrastructure for the present and for the future. 

In regards to social security, and other government funded social safety nets.  I don’t know.  My thinking is that anything that maximizes utility for society as a whole is good, and I think that helping the poor can go a long way towards that end.  My main problem is that I’m not sure the way the government spends money is sustainable.  Taxes vary by GDP, but government spending just keeps going up. 

The government needs to reevaluate how it does things.  I like some of the things EXC has said about this issue.  If all government services have cost people are less likely to abuse them.  If people receive something from society they should also have to give something back.  

I think a good first step is to localize it. It is much easier to keep an eye on state spending than it is to keep an eye on federal. 

 

RatDog wrote:

Government and war:

We are engaged in way to much conflict right now.  Something needs to be done about it, but I don’t know what exactly.

I like the idea of ending wars quickly by using excessive force. Our military has the capability of completely devastating a country in weeks if we let them off their leash. Stop worrying about a few civilian casualties and trying to transform backward countries into modern democracies. If you fuck with us, you will be fucked up. If you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. And bring the troops home from Germany, Japan, South Korea and every other country we are protecting unless they want to pay us for it.

 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Quoted from the OP

Quoted from the OP link:

“I look at this as the FDA is in cahoots with the large milk producers,” said Karin Edgett, a D.C. resident who buys directly from Rainbow Acres.

... and that was exactly my I thought so, I did some digging. My first google search was for 'Maryland Dairy Association' and the name 'Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association' came up repeatedly. So, I dug further and found these two articles: http://amishinternet.com/?cat=9 a testimonial from the actual owner of the accused dairy farm and this from the Organic Consumers Association: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3266.cfm

Here is a bit about Md & Va:

2002 campaign contributions

this article is a real gem.

 

Anyone here who thinks this issue is about the public health is, imo, just plain naive... to put it nicely.

It's all about the money.

I'm sure if anyone cared to dig deeper, you'd find out that the dairy co-op members are behind this.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Quoted from

Sandycane wrote:

Quoted from the OP link:

“I look at this as the FDA is in cahoots with the large milk producers,” said Karin Edgett, a D.C. resident who buys directly from Rainbow Acres.

... and that was exactly my I thought so, I did some digging. My first google search was for 'Maryland Dairy Association' and the name 'Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association' came up repeatedly. So, I dug further and found these two articles: http://amishinternet.com/?cat=9 a testimonial from the actual owner of the accused dairy farm and this from the Organic Consumers Association: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3266.cfm

Here is a bit about Md & Va:

2002 campaign contributions

this article is a real gem.

 

Anyone here who thinks this issue is about the public health is, imo, just plain naive... to put it nicely.

It's all about the money.

I'm sure if anyone cared to dig deeper, you'd find out that the dairy co-op members are behind this.

 

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Just how much competition is this milk giving the industry..lol. I have never seen nor actually even heard of this milk till I saw the article. I really doubt the major milk producers are worried about these people selling non pasteurized milk by the pickup bed load. Reminds me of the people around here who grow watermelons then haul them around in a pickup peddling them door to door. They are not a real threat in the greater scheme of things where "money" is concerned. As they say "small potatoes".

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Sounds like a

robj101 wrote:

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Just how much competition is this milk giving the industry..lol. I have never seen nor actually even heard of this milk till I saw the article. I really doubt the major milk producers are worried about these people selling non pasteurized milk by the pickup bed load. Reminds me of the people around here who grow watermelons then haul them around in a pickup peddling them door to door. They are not a real threat in the greater scheme of things where "money" is concerned. As they say "small potatoes".

No, it's not a 'conspiracy theory' because it is happening right out in the open.

How much of a threat? Pretty big. The organics industry is growing by leaps and bounds and the major industrial competetors are following close behind to squash them.

Beyond, I think you'll like this page. A blog about fighting for consumer rights.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:robj101

Sandycane wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Just how much competition is this milk giving the industry..lol. I have never seen nor actually even heard of this milk till I saw the article. I really doubt the major milk producers are worried about these people selling non pasteurized milk by the pickup bed load. Reminds me of the people around here who grow watermelons then haul them around in a pickup peddling them door to door. They are not a real threat in the greater scheme of things where "money" is concerned. As they say "small potatoes".

No, it's not a 'conspiracy theory' because it is happening right out in the open.

How much of a threat? Pretty big. The organics industry is growing by leaps and bounds and the major industrial competetors are following close behind to squash them.

Beyond, I think you'll like this page. A blog about fighting for consumer rights.

Based on absolutely nothing I refuse to believe the "amish" are serious competition for anyone for anything other than .. Their wonderful heat surge fireplace heaters.

I'm at work and this computer wont allow me to paste links or open links from this site, I'll look at your link this evening.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Sandycane

robj101 wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Just how much competition is this milk giving the industry..lol. I have never seen nor actually even heard of this milk till I saw the article. I really doubt the major milk producers are worried about these people selling non pasteurized milk by the pickup bed load. Reminds me of the people around here who grow watermelons then haul them around in a pickup peddling them door to door. They are not a real threat in the greater scheme of things where "money" is concerned. As they say "small potatoes".

No, it's not a 'conspiracy theory' because it is happening right out in the open.

How much of a threat? Pretty big. The organics industry is growing by leaps and bounds and the major industrial competetors are following close behind to squash them.

Beyond, I think you'll like this page. A blog about fighting for consumer rights.

Based on absolutely nothing I refuse to believe the "amish" are serious competition for anyone for anything other than .. Their wonderful heat surge fireplace heaters.

I'm at work and this computer wont allow me to paste links or open links from this site, I'll look at your link this evening.

 

Okay, you really need to read the links to see what is going on. I thought the same as you do about it before I did some digging.

Now, I see it is not much different than when Monsanto drops it's heavy legal boot on small farmers who refuse to use their GM seed.

This is all about the money folks.

The big boys can't afford to let even one small fry put a crack in their monopoly.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein