JayB

Only major surprise there was that Oregon scored so high on the list. Wonder what bits of policy made that happen.

Now selling bonds with a 17.5% yield. That's *after* the bailout. "Yields on 10-year Greek bonds climbed to 17.46 percent today, a record in the 17-nation euro-area’s history, before an emergency session of finance ministers in Brussels." Executive summary for the rest of the aging, infertile western world with entitlements/debts that vastly exceed their capacity to fund them "...never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."

we already know that current Somalia is your golden age society. Yes. Raw milk, with labels => Somalia. Question: Should an adult that can't evaluate the risks and benefits associated with consuming *labeled* raw milk be allowed to vote, drive, etc?

Which do you think does more harm? I'm not a proselytizer, small batch pasteurization is a pain in the ass. Not sure - consenting adults can smoke crack, chug drano, and heave themselves into a chipper for all I care - so the retards that think its got some mystical properties that pasteurized milk lacks should be able chug it to their heart's content and bear whatever consequences come from that decision on their own. If I were given carte blanche to draw up the rules, I'd say as long as it's labeled, go nuts - sell it wherever. And...any adult that feeds the stuff to kids assumes any and all liability associated with any illness or death of the said kid. E.g. as long as it's not actually poisoned at the production facility, and you're one of the retards willing to make yourselves and/or your kids sick for a quaff of raw milk, you don't get to assume it's safe. There's a certain level of decision making that the government can't assume for adults in a functioning civilization. Choosing what kind of milk to drink, deciding whether or not to fornicate with a light-socket, etc just aren't amongst them. IMO any and all efforts beyond enforcing rules that require raw milk to be labeled as such are a massive waste of money.

Not sure which is more insane: the law enforcement effort dedicated to policing raw milk sales or the folks who proselytize on behalf of raw milk.

Probably just packing it into two 50lb bags and paying the fee if you are flying would be the easiest and not too much more expensive than other options that are way less convenient. There are freight forwarding services (Forward Air, Pilot Air, etc)out there that you can use to ship big, heavy items but you normally have to drop off the stuff at their shipping depots (normally near airports) and pick them up yourself. I shipped kayaks (~9ft, 60lbs)to NY (Albany) and back and it was ~$110 per boat each way. I've also heard of people shipping via Greyhound and/or Amtrak but haven't heard any first-hand info on cost/speed/reliability relative to other options.

Yours isn't a summary, it's one sided spin commonly found on regressive think tanks. Among other things, what also makes the USA attractive again for low wage manufacturing is because OUR real wages and ability to defend what we have are decreasing (stagnating is a misnomer). Any which way one looks at it, the transition from a would be high tech service economy to low wage manufacturing heaven cannot be good for most of us. As to the benefits of neoliberal globalization, they have to be balanced by the numerous drawbacks it caused.

If they're not performing calesthenics in unison with matching jumpsuits prior to starting the day's compulsory regimen of revolutionary seminar attendance, then clearly something is terribly amiss... [video:youtube]

"JayB's a civil liberties advocate?LOL" Regressiveneocongooncorprateadhominoshillothugocratockochostoogehatemonger, thank you very much.

So, to summarize: -Hundreds of millions of people in two countries that have been plagued by desperate poverty for centuries, and massively worse off than people in the rich world, are now making considerably more money than they would have been able to as little as ten or twenty years ago. -Their wages are becoming so high that it may make sense for manufacturers to source some production/services in the US that they might have previously sourced overseas. Where is the bad news here?

In a society where health insurance companies could charge the obese higher premiums, there'd be absolutely nothing preventing people who found that unfair from donating their own money to the obese to help offset those costs. They could band together and form charities, hold fundraisers, etc and even form their own insurance companies that didn't factor weight into premium calculations if they wished. Just imagine the list of artists that might coalesce around the cause and hold benefit concerts a la Farm Aid, launch special clothing lines, food lines, sell theme-bracelets, etc to promote the cause...

Again, back to McD's. What about Taco Bell, Burger King, Jack in the Box, Denny's, Red Robin, Shari's, Old Country Buffet, Carl's Jr., Round Table, Dominos, Papa Murphy's... Fuck, do the math - all those franchises with all those restaurants. Americans love fast food, and they want it to be omni-present, 24/7, at convenience. We have made a choice, and it has nothing to do with greed, $$, or big-government neglect. Funny thing is I remember being called alarmist, hysterical, etc when I said that the some of the same state interventions deployed against smoking would be turned against fast/snack food 10 years ago. And Here we are.

1) Easy and realistic: Allow health insurance companies to charge more for health risks that people have the capacity to control. 2) Out there and utopian: reform the way we pay for healthcare so that whatever path I chose to take to the grave - smack, crack, six-pack, or heart-attack isn't something that the government has to pick up the tab for, and consequently has no business in or basis for supervising as long as I'm not directly harming anyone else while I'm doing whatever it is that's deemed unhealthy anyone else.

After the roaring success with zero downsides or unintended consequences that has characterized the governments efforts to curb people's appetites for drugs - your confidence in the government's capacity to curb people's appetites for fats and sugars is certainly well founded. Makes the "abstinence only" people look like flinty-eyed realists.

A society in which people can't govern their own appetites can't be governed. Repeating all of this retarded nonsense about obesity being anything other than a consequence of choosing to consume more calories than you expend will result in a massive and costly raft of regulations that have absolutely zero effect on obesity - because it will do absolutely nothing to alter the fundamental problem, which is people choosing to consume more calories than they expend. Which they will continue to do - irrespective of any idiotic labeling campaigns or bureaucratic programs to try to make them stop. It will cost a ton of money and provide a jobs program for people with useless degrees to sit around and run statistical regressions, etc - which may be the point. Ditto for any other centrally planned experiment against reality. Start with a national chastity campaign, see how that works, then move on to efforts to circumvent other fundamental drives that are hard wired into every mammal.

"it is not for society or the gov acting on their behalf to tell me what to do w/ my body beyond no-shit basics like don't kill people - it is also not for those same folks to de facto force me by excessive taxes or regulations." Amen. The above should be carved into all four sides of a 200x200x500 obelisk and sited in front of every capitol building in the land. Not a terribly long leap from this quote from Macaulay: "The most probable conjecture is that he was actuated by an inordinate, an unscrupulous, a remorseless zeal for what seemed to him to be the interest of the state. This explanation may startle those who have not considered how large a proportion of the blackest crimes recorded in history is to be ascribed to ill regulated public spirit. We daily see men do for their party, for their sect, for their country, for their favourite schemes of political and social reform, what they would not do to enrich or to avenge themselves. At a temptation directly addressed to our private cupidity or to our private animosity, whatever virtue we have takes the alarm. But virtue itself may contribute to the fall of him who imagines that it is in his power, by violating some general rule of morality, to confer an important benefit on a church, on a commonwealth, on mankind. He silences the remonstrances of conscience, and hardens his heart against the most touching spectacles of misery, by repeating to himself that his interventions are pure, that his objects are noble, that he is doing a little evil for the sake of a great good. By degrees he comes altogether to forget the turpitude of the means in the excellence of the end, and at length perpetrates without one internal twinge acts which would shock a buccaneer." To this: "Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people. Although mostly forgotten today, the "chemist's war of Prohibition" remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was "our national experiment in extermination." http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/

tl;dnr. However, regarding your comment on the war on drugs: I think drugs should be legal, and should also come with a warning label. Sounds pretty consistent to me. I'm not talking about prohibition, so I don't know what relevance that long-ass ramble had. You're talking about using the state as a coercive mechanism to (try to) supervise what people eat - based on the notion that people who have the right to choose who they vote for, who they marry, where they live, what career to pursue, etc, etc, are too dumb to be entrusted with choosing what to eat. The passage above simply asks - if you're for granting the state the power to prevent people from drinking "for their own good," - why stop there? If you're convinced that a significant fraction of the lesser beings that you share the country with are too stupid to be entrusted with choosing their own food - "for their own good" - why stop there? If you really believe that - how can you argue that they shouldn't have their driving, voting, mating, etc subject to some kind of state supervision to insure that they make the right choices? BTW - what's the normative framework you'd like to use as a basis for establishing the correct way to eat, live, etc? Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth, as in Redmond....?

One of the many reasons why I oppose single payer is lever it gives ideologues to turn your lungs, liver, etc into a de facto ward of the state. Anyone who wants to keep abortion safe and legal, and has been using the "Keep the state out of my uterus" as an argument should bear that in mind.

But as long as we're on the topic - what kind of restrictions, constraints, and enforcement apparatus would you like to see put in place to keep a Kentucky Bucket, snickers bar, or tin of cream cheese out of the wrong hands?

For real? If you were the kind of guy that supported the "War on Drugs" then I'd be able to detect a thread of logic connecting the desire to have the state supervise what sane adults can ingest - whether it's hashish or hash-browns. Drinking too much, having sex with too many people, travel to regions with endemic disease, participation in risky activities in the outdoors, eating rare meat, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc - basically every sphere of activity that functioning societies have both entrusted sane adults with, and *required* of them since the beginning of civilization carries with it certain risks and responsibilities. Any society in which adults require an bureaucratic apparatus to supervise *eating* is a society that is already circling the drain. It's over. Good time to invoke one of the better passages on the hazards of another kind of prohibition: "In the United States, the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages are prohibited. Other countries do not go so far, but nearly everywhere some restrictions are imposed on the sale of opium, cocaine, and similar narcotics. It is universally deemed one of the tasks of legislation and government to protect the individual from himself. Even those who otherwise generally have misgivings about extending the area of governmental activity consider it quite proper that the freedom of the individual should be curtailed in this respect, and they think that only a benighted doctrinairism could oppose such prohibitions. Indeed, so general is the acceptance of this kind of interference by the authorities in the life of the individual that those who, are opposed to liberalism on principle are prone to base their argument on the ostensibly undisputed acknowledgment of the necessity of such prohibitions and to draw from it the conclusion that complete freedom is an evil and that some measure of restriction must be imposed upon the freedom of the individual by the governmental authorities in their capacity as guardians of his welfare. The question cannot be whether the authorities ought to impose restrictions upon the freedom of the individual, but only how far they ought to go in this respect. No words need be wasted over the fact that all these narcotics are harmful. The question whether even a small quantity of alcohol is harmful or whether the harm results only from the abuse of alcoholic beverages is not at issue here. It is an established fact that alcoholism, cocainism, and morphinism are deadly enemies of life, of health, and of the capacity for work and enjoyment; and a utilitarian must therefore consider them as vices. But this is far from demonstrating that the authorities must interpose to suppress these vices by commercial prohibitions, nor is it by any means evident that such intervention on the part of the government is really capable of suppressing them or that, even if this end could be attained, it might not therewith open up a Pandora’s box of other dangers, no less mischievous than alcoholism and morphinism. Whoever is convinced that indulgence or excessive indulgence in these poisons is pernicious is not hindered from living abstemiously or temperately. This question cannot be treated exclusively in reference to alcoholism, morphinism, cocainism, etc., which all reasonable men acknowledge to be evils. For if the majority of citizens is, in principle, conceded the right to impose its way of life upon a minority, it is impossible to stop at prohibitions against indulgence in alcohol, morphine, cocaine, and similar poisons. Why should not what is valid for these poisons be valid also for nicotine, caffeine, and the like? Why should not the state generally prescribe which foods may be indulged in and which must be avoided because they are injurious? In sports too, many people are prone to carry their indulgence further than their strength will allow. Why should not the state interfere here as well? Few men know how to be temperate in their sexual life, and it seems especially difficult for aging persons to understand that they should cease entirely to indulge in such pleasures or, at least, do so in moderation. Should not the state intervene here too? More harmful still than all these pleasures, many will say, is the reading of evil literature. Should a press pandering to the lowest instincts of man be allowed to corrupt the soul? Should not the exhibition of pornographic pictures, of obscene plays, in short, of all allurements to immorality, be prohibited? And is not the dissemination of false sociological doctrines just as injurious to men and nations? Should men be permitted to incite others to civil war and to wars against foreign countries? And should scurrilous lampoons and blasphemous diatribes be allowed to undermine respect for God and the Church? We see that as soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail. The personal freedom of the individual is abrogated. He becomes a slave of the community, bound to obey the dictates of the majority. It is hardly necessary to expatiate on the ways in which such powers could be abused by malevolent persons in authority. The wielding, of powers of this kind even by men imbued with the best of intentions must needs reduce the world to a graveyard of the spirit. All mankind’s progress has been achieved as a result of the initiative of a small minority that began to deviate from the ideas and customs of the majority until their example finally moved the others to accept the innovation themselves. To give the majority the right to dictate to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once and for all. Let no one object that the struggle against morphinism and the struggle against “evil” literature are two quite different things. The only difference between them is that some of the same people who favor the prohibition of the former will not agree to the prohibition of the latter. In the United States, the Methodists and Fundamentalists, right after the passage of the law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, took up the struggle for the suppression of the theory of evolution, and they have already succeeded in ousting Darwinism from the schools in a number of states. In Soviet Russia, every free expression of opinion is suppressed. Whether or not permission is granted for a book to be published depends on the discretion of a number of uneducated and uncultivated fanatics who have been placed in charge of the arm of the government empowered to concern itself with such matters. The propensity of our contemporaries to demand authoritarian prohibition as soon as something does not please them, and their readiness to submit to such prohibitions even when what is prohibited is quite agreeable to them shows how deeply ingrained the spirit of servility still remains within them. It will require many long years of self-education until the subject can turn himself into the citizen. A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police."

It doesn't have to cost anyone but the obese a cent. The only reason why it does cost anyone but the fat-asses a cent is that they are able to transmit the cost of their choices to everyone else via both public and private insurance mechanisms that have been rigged to insulate them from bearing the costs of their choices - unlike smokers. Once you disconnect premiums from risks that people actually have the capacity to control - like smoking, overeating, etc - then it's only a matter of time until you get an uncontrolled price-spiral that's perpetuated by people being able to shift the costs of their behaviors onto everyone else. I have no idea why it's deemed morally acceptable to charge the guy who smokes a pack a day more for health insurance, but we think it's a moral imperative to charge a guy who chugs down a Kentucky-bucket at every meal the same premiums as a vegan marathoner. Or why you can charge the Elvis-sized base-jumper a gajillion times more for life insurance than the agoraphobic fitness nut and no one blinks, but do the same when it comes to health insurance and you're violating the KFC chugger's inalienable right to indulge his self-destructive appetite at everyone else's expense. Eat yourself to oblivion if that's your favored path to the grave, but pay your freight on the way there....

that ship sailed...uh...like...2 centuries ago? fuckit, they're cheetoes, and they go down pretty goddamn well w/ some mountain dew and cowboy-killers! McD's and whatnot on every corner, on the boob tube 24/7, ... 2 centuries ago? the transition to the food culture of today was a result of the industrial revolution, no? the industrial proletariat of london and birmingham in the early 19th century were eating total shit, more often than not prepared by fast-food style street vendors too. Think Ronald McMalthus was more of a concern W/R/T children and food back then...

Word. http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/10/62-knowing-whats-best-for-poor-people/ "White people spend a lot of time of worrying about poor people. It takes up a pretty significant portion of their day. They feel guilty and sad that poor people shop at Wal*Mart instead of Whole Foods, that they vote Republican instead of Democratic, that they go to Community College/get a job instead of studying art at a University. It is a poorly guarded secret that, deep down, white people believe if given money and education that all poor people would be EXACTLY like them. In fact, the only reason that poor people make the choices they do is because they have not been given the means to make the right choices and care about the right things. A great way to make white people feel good is to tell them about situations where poor people changed how they were doing things because they were given the ‘whiter’ option. “Back in my old town, people used to shop at Wal*Mart and then this non-profit organization came in and set up a special farmers co-op so that we could buy more local produce, and within two weeks the Wal*Mart shut down and we elected our first Democratic representative in 40 years.” White people will first ask which non-profit and are they hiring? After that, they will be filled with euphoria and will invite you to more parties to tell this story to their friends, so that they can feel great. But it is ESSENTIAL that you reassert that poor people do not make decisions based on free will. That news could crush white people and their hope for the future."

Here's a cross-post from TAY that seems consistent with Matt's explanation: "I am an attorney and a former bicycle framebuilder (now a hobby). Some of these issues lie outside the sweet spot of my legal expertise, but I'll offer these comments: 1. I highly doubt that the decision to appeal is in REI's control. It is more likely in the control of REI's product liability insurance carrier. The policy likely provides that the carrier (who is ultimately on the hook to pay) controls all decisions re settlement and litigation. I've never heard of a PL policy that gives control over such matters to the insured. Such a rare provision might exist in some rare policy, but I've never seen one nor have I heard of one. So, I will assume that REI has no control over the decision to appeal. 2. I have quickly read through the opinion issued in Feb by the Court of Appeals, Division I. The fundamental issue is purely legal and involves the tension between the Washington Products Liability Act (WPLA) and comparative fault provisions of RCW Chapter 4.22 (sometimes called the "Tort Reform Act"). 3. The WPLA generally imposes strict liability on the manufacturer of a defective product, but holds a mere "product seller" (e.g., a mom and pop bicycle shop) to liability only for negligence, breach of express warranty or intentional misrepresentation. However, the WPLA also provides that, in limited circumstances, a the liability standard of a manufacturer may be imposed on a seller "where the product was marketed under a trade name or brand name of the product seller.” This private labeler liability appears to apply to REI’s Novara branded bicycle products. 4. Where more than one party has contributed to the injury suffered by the plaintiff, under the comparative fault provisions of RCW Chapter 4.22 one of the several liable parties can “point the finger” at the other parties by attributing a percentage of fault to them, thus limiting the finger pointer's liability. (I’m simplifying things here, so tort experts please forgive me.) In this case, the manufacturer, Aprebic Industry Company, Ltd., was not named in Monika’s action and was thus an “empty chair.” (I will assume that Aprebic was not named because Monika’s attorneys did not want to get stuck trying to chase assets in Asia.) So, the legal issue is whether REI can attribute all or a large percentage of fault to Aprebic and thus avoid liability or some portion of it. 5. Division I ruled in favor of Monika, rejecting REI’s argument that the CF provisions of RCW Ch. 22 trumped the WPLA imposition of manufacturer liability on private label sellers. Division I reasoned, among other things, that allowing REI to allocate fault would have the effect of abrogating the private labeler liability of the WPLC. Division I’s opinion is very well reasoned and well written. While it is difficult to forecast what WA Supreme Court will do, I am optimistic that Division I’s ruling will be affirmed. 6. If people are going to get angry at someone, I suggest you direct your ire against the insurance industry which heavily lobbied the WA legislature to pass RCW 4.22 and those lawmakers who are shills for the industry. As I state above, REI likely has no control over whether or not to appeal. The insurance industry continues its efforts to avoid liability by, for example, blaming soaring medical costs on insurance payouts to victims of medical malpractice and their attorneys," ....etc

Doesn't logical and moral consistency require you to criticize Obama for all of the breeches of international law, the Geneva conventions, etc that culminated in the use of millitary force for the targeted assassination of a non-combatant in a foreign country? It's fascinating to see people who worked themselves into a lather or righteous anger over waterboarding the likes of KSM give a shrug and a fist pump to practices like blowing entire families - women, children, grandparents, etc + the target - to pieces with Predator strikes, and killing Osama and everyone else in the compound with automatic weapons. If you're against waterboarding KSM, you can't be neutral on, much less giving fist pumps to direct assassinations of targets like OBL, much less actions where people who had nothing to do with terrorism are killed alongside them. Quite the stunning versatility of convictions on display, there.