Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
That would be a CRIME!
I'm guessing church potlucks aren't a major part of your social life, but if you ever wanted to go to a gun-club game dinner, this would be your season for that. They're not long for this world.Disabled veterans, bitter clingers, truck gardeners, and food eaters obviously weren't enthusiastic enough in their support for Our One. Maybe if we just apologized, then went home and committed suicide, they'd let our children live. In camps.
the only appropriate response i have for this involves lots of profanity...so i will refrain.let's just say it's a no-good, very bad, horrible idea.
The Won is a Loser.
Unpossible. Everyone knows it the evil Republicans that are corrupt.The leader says so.WV: wagma Is that short hand for the tail wagging the dog?
Everyone who reads my blog knows what I think of Monsanto. It is a criminal organization that operates in Fortune 500 disguise.All The Best,Frank W. James
Curse you, Bushhitler, and your eeevil laws aimed at enriching your big business cronies!Err, wait...
I planted 28 fruit and nut trees yesterday. Planning for the future to supplement any retirement income that's still available in 13-14 years.Thanks fellas. The NAIS bill wants me to "Chip" all 6 of my chickens and other small stock and submit to random inspections or face $1000/day fines. Is there any area of life that these SOB's haven't thought of to contaminate?
Is there any area of life that these SOB's haven't thought of to contaminate?Yes! But they're hard at work to clean up the loose ends.It should be noted, however, that this is something I've been seeing posters about in farm country for years. It's not an Obama-era Democrat thing. It's a Power thing. Both parties want it. It's not about the guns, or the food, or the children. it's about control.
Oh noes LLG in danger! The Hoosier-style BBQ on a thick slab of wheat bread in tH3 awesome. Mmmm, getting hungry. Maybe Saturday? Just the thing after pounding the gun show.It's as if Obama and the Democrats are playing to the tin foilers. "Let's see what can we do to stir up John Q. Comma Nutjob and his merry band of wookie suiters? I know let's regulate seeds!"Man, Comma Nutjob looks saner every passing day with this crew in charge of Congress.Shootin' Buddy
It's For The Children©
Goddamnit, I hate how everyone instantly blames Monsanto for anything in agriculture. You want to know why they propose this law? It's the salmonella outbreaks. It's not The Big Evil Corporate Culture Trying To Squash The Heroic Little Underdog. Besides, it's not like farmers markets impact the wheat crop, the corn crop, or the dairy and beef industries enough for some corporate accountant to bring it to the immediate attention of the cackling boardroom vultures eager for another chance to destroy the little guy.You do realize right now America has the safest food in the world, and the cheapest, and it's because of a huge amount of government inspection and oversight, right?Or would you rather when/if Foot And Mouth breaks out and spreads across five or six states in a week because of our highly interconnected food distribution network, we have no fucking idea where or how it came to pass?I really hate how people always see anything to do with agriculture as some knee-jerk "ohnoes the farmers are getting squashed" instead of "hey, farmers are proud of and responsible for their produce and are interested in keeping the food supply safe and the public fed."This has been your Angry Farmer Rant. At least till Brigid/farmgirl shows up.
"You want to know why they propose this law? It's the salmonella outbreaks."Yes. It's a knee-jerk "Thereoughttabealaw!" response."You do realize right now America has the safest food in the world, and the cheapest, and it's because of a huge amount of government inspection and oversight, right?"So, obviously we need another federal agency, right?"This has been your Angry Farmer Rant."Are you and Frank James gonna thumb-wrestle? ;)
Maybe because Monsanto's got their thumb in it somewhere? Kinda' fishy that a "public food crisis" happens, and Hey look! here's some legislation we just happen to have lying around ready to go to control our highly connected food supplies, which will just happen to put all the small timers out of business. Have you *ever* heard of a massive food crisis caused by stuff bought at a farmers market?
Between this and the CPSIA it almost seems like the gov't wants to make sure that we get all our food and kids' stuff from megacorps that can afford the testing. What's next?WV: comedoe - a female deer that likes to tell jokes.
I found out about this a couple of weeks ago while reading up on Victory Gardens (there's something of a push to revive them). The bloodsucking fiends who are supposed to represent me already know how I feel about it. I did manage to resist the urge to tell them they're not gettin' any of my homegrown 'maters if they don't cut this crap out.
Consider the scale and scope of the enforcement task. Think they can do it? I don't.
Damn, Ken beat me to it...I can see squads of armed tomato & watermelon police roaming the roads right now looking for anyone with the tailgate dropped and a load of illegal produce for sale.OTOH I can see that stupid bint proposing this law because someone told her to sod off when she inquired about the produce cleanliness somewhere outside of the normal confines of her favorite meglomart.Gmacwv: minatAbout how long it would take for my trunk monkey to fix her problem.
That's easy to say when it's not *your* income that's at risk. My in-laws' business is gone if this passes. How's it going to affect your income?
How is this Constitutional? We are not talking about interstate trade. Or have we reached the point where the Constitution is just plain irrelevant to everyone in Congress and the Administration?
"Or have we reached the point where the Constitution is just plain irrelevant to everyone in Congress and the Administration?"Bingo.Article I Sec. 8 has been toilet paper since the New Deal.
Thank FDR and his threats to pack the Court.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn"Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted."
...and as he realized she was eating from a $150 jar of strawberry jam....Let's hear it for those delicious Monsanto Blue wafers, yes? Don't get yourself caught in a scoop on the way home, kids.
Soylent Green is PEOPLE!
The only farmers I know personally that defend Monsanto are in their employ.So much for the angry farmer rant.All The Best,Frank W. James
Hey guys? I'm sorry about Rosa DeLauro. She's not in my district, and I didn't vote for her....but, on the other hand, I never stood in the towns in the Third District on voting day, yelling, "Who did you just vote for--Are you nuts?"So I guess I can't honestly say that I did everything I could to prevent social planning from occurring.
"It's the salmonella outbreaks." - Then teach the now illegal, soon to be loyal citizens, to stop shitting out in the fields with the lettuce and spinach. Don't tell me that doesn't happen. I've seen it myself.Apparently, so has the Dept of Agriculture has too or they wouldn't feel the need to print posters like this - http://curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.com/2009/03/dept-of-agricultures-mission.html#linksMonsanto using this to there advantage? Can't really blame them. Never waste a good crisis and all that. This is more about a .Gov person being ethically challenged and pushing further into areas that they don't belong.Monsanto needs all the help they can get, right?
Vaarok, what in the hell are you talking about. The bill consolidates federal regulatory authority, overrides existing state inspection, and extends the authority to every producer. This includes gardeners. This is the nature of the complaint. Monsanto wasn't picked out of the air. There is a close personal relationship between the sponsor of the bill and a Monsanto executive, and that is suspicious I don't care who you are. It includes authority over food preparation. Unless heavily amended, the goddamned law makes it illegal to have friends over for dinner. Read the fucking post.
That wonderful mecca of incredible food, roast pick and apple pies would be gone. . but that fast food place down on 38th, the one with the kid with dreadlocks and dirty fingernails at the drive through? No, it will be safe, you know, because it's a real restaurant so it's SANITARY.
1. Don't these people have enough sense or good taste to trade corruption? "You sponsor the bill my husband wants, I'll push that one your corporate consultancy is paying for."Sheesh. 2. I always thought that Wickard v. Filburn was the point at which people should have shot the Supreme Court. For those who don't know it, Filburn grew and harvested 239 bushels of wheat, threshed it, and fed the wheat to his own pigs. As far as the record indicates, neither wheat, pigs, nor pig excrement left the same parcel of private land, nor were any of them the subject of any transaction of any kind.The 239 bushels were grown on land which the AAA said he couldn't grow wheat on, using the interstate commerce clause of the constitution as authority for Federal regulation of an entirely intrastate- in fact, intra private property- event in which no commercial transaction occurred, because only one man and his own property were involved.Because, "It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market and if induced by rising prices tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce."317 US 111 at 128.Double sheesh.
Rosa is also the Congresswoman who housed Congressman Rahm Emanuel rent free for five years, although neither reported this gift to the Congressional ethics office or the IRS.
Rob K did me the favor of sinking his own argument. First he says farmers' markets don't have any significant effect, then he cites Wickard saying even home-grown and -consumed products are considered to have enough effect on the market to warrant Federal intervention.And yes, Wickard is a crock.
OK, so you admit that Wickard is a crock, yet you think my linking to it sinks my argument? WTF? Wickard was about economic impact and it was BS. This legislation is about "food safety" and it's BS. Both are power grabs. You seriously misunderstood what I meant. Farmer's markets have very small regional impacts and very short paths from production to consumption. If somebody were to get sick from eating something bought at a farmers market, it's almost trivial to trace the food back to the very square inch of ground it was grown on. Try that with something ConAgra produced. Have you ever heard of someone getting sick from food bought at a farmer's market? No, it's always a list of lot numbers on seven different brands of some type of product bought at five different chain stores in nine states. How does the Wickard ruling, which you yourself claim is a crock, invalidate that observation?
This is all about enacting the UN's Codex Alimentarius by the end of the year.http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=155
To circumvent CPSIA, just label your products "For Adults Only". No one reads labels, just ask the video game companies.To circumvent the food police, just label your products "Fresh picked - NOT for Human consumption"Lawmakers are slow and stupid and easy to evade.Samsam
Statist power grab, trying to control all the agriculture of whatever scale.What's next, collectivization?When Barry O starts talking about the Kulaks, you'll know the end is near.
Alath, it's already started. See the article in Newspeak, blaming the savers?
OK, so you admit that Wickard is a crock, yet you think my linking to it sinks my argument?Sorry, Rob K, I was actually referring to Vaarok's weak argument. You and I appear to be on the same side here, and Vaarok needs to realize that the Wickard ruling means that whatever impact there is (or isn't), it's enough to let the Feds claim that authority.I confused who was saying what; mea culpa.
Rob K makes a good point. Apart from being unconstitutional (Wickard v. Filburn notwithstanding -- when the Court is out to lunch, it's out to lunch), this law is manifestly unjust; therefore it cannot bind in conscience.That said, providers should not be expected to bear alone the risks of exercise of conscience. "Let's you and him fight" should never pass the lips of a person of character.
Samsam, heh. In the 20's, vineyards on what used to be called the Wine Islands in Lake Erie sold jars of concentrated grape juice to tourists with a yeast packet, with instructions "Danger--do not add to juice or it will produce alcohol"!
Post a Comment