Food Labeling

Dairy Lobby Sides with Florida in Orwellian Attempt to Redefine 'Skim Milk'

According to state regulators, skim milk = skim milk + mandated additives.

|

Milk
Ocheesee Creamery

Natural skim milk in Florida still can't be labeled as "skim milk." At least not yet.

You may recall the Ocheesee Creamery case, which I wrote about in April. As I described in that column, a Florida state agriculture department inspector ordered Ocheesee, a small, all-natural creamery located along the state's panhandle, to stop selling its skim milk in 2012. He claimed Ocheesee's skim milk ran afoul of Florida's standard of identity for skim milk, which requires creameries and dairies to add vitamin A to their skim milk.

Ocheesee, which prides itself on its all-natural milk, proposed to label its skim milk as "Pasteurized Skim Milk, No Vitamin A Added." The state countered with "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed" and ordered there be no mention of "skim milk" on the label. The state later changed its tune, arguing instead that Ocheesee could sell its 100% skim milk only if it were labeled as "imitation skim milk."

Finding the state's Orwellian proposals to be as untenable and ridiculous as they sound, Ocheesee—working with the Florida office of the Arlington, Virginia-based Institute for Justice—sued to overturn Florida's rules on First Amendment grounds.

A federal judge in Florida upheld the state's rules this spring. Ocheesee soon appealed the judge's decision. That appeal is pending.

Last month, Florida's lawyers argued in a filing in the case that labeling a skim milk as "skim milk," if said skim milk "fails to meet the standard of identity for skim milk," is either "inherently" or "potentially" deceptive speech the state claims "may be banned."

Nevermind that Ocheesee's skim milk meets what's been the dictionary definition of skim milk for hundreds of years.

The state went so far as to malign Ocheesee's all-natural skim milk as "an inferior product." Florida's lawyers also claim that its "unrefuted evidence shows that consumers expect skim milk to meet the standard of identity."

But that evidence has indeed been refuted. I should know. I was retained as an expert in the case, and drafted a report describing how Florida's standard of identity for skim milk misleads and fails to serve the interests of consumers. I refuted.

"Reasonable consumers have not been and would not be not misled by Ocheesee Creamery's use of the term 'pasteurized skim milk' to describe its pasteurized skim milk," I write in my report.

This past week, a global dairy-industry lobbying group added its two cents in the case. The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), a Washington, D.C.-based group that "represents the nation's dairy manufacturing and marketing industries and their suppliers, with a membership of 550 companies within a $125-billion a year industry," filed an amicus brief in the case.

If you thought the IDFA might have ridden in on a milk-white horse to stick up for Ocheesee, which at last count had three employees, then you're new to how the world works. The IDFA sided with Florida regulators and against Ocheesee.

I describe this case at length in my new book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable (which you can pre-order at Amazon or pick up in bookstores on September 15). Not coincidentally, my discussion of the case appears in the second chapter, the one titled "'Big Food' Bigger Thanks to 'Big Government.'"

"It is clear that giant dairy conglomerates are scared that they might lose customers to local creameries who provide more choices and better products," said Justin Pearson, head of IJ's Florida office and lead attorney in the case, in comments to me this week.

"We see this in many of our cases. Whenever there is a ridiculous regulation, there was usually a powerful and politically connected group pushing for it, at the expense of hard-working small-business owners," says Pearson.

Sure enough.

"Food processors, such as Ocheesee, who choose not to replenish essential nutrients to the standardized level, must label those products as 'imitation,'" reads the IDFA brief, which goes on to argue that Ocheesee's skim milk is "misbranded" unless it contains the word "imitation" on its package.

Notably, Florida's long-preferred terminology for Ocheesee's skim milk—"Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed"—also does not contain the word "imitation," and so would also be "misbranded" in the opinion of the IDFA.

But then, the IDFA also has what could charitably be termed as a flexible approach when it comes to standards of identity.

In 2009, for example, the IDFA petitioned the FDA to change the federal standard of identity of milk so that sweeteners like NutraSweet or Splenda could be added to milk and the resulting additive-laden product could still be labeled simply as "milk." Their position seems to be that the more additives you add to milk, the milkier it is.

The IDFA is in the business of selling milk—literally and figuratively. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nothing, that is, until the IDFA works with the government to stifle competition.

NEXT: What It's Like To Be in Debt to the State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yesterday I made a comment on how the NFL has become a watered down product to boost offense under the guise of protecting players. To which a number of cosmos here were appalled and basically said I was a barbarian. There were some moronic sarcastic comments indicating that NFL players shouldn’t have to put their brains at risk.

    1. These are rules implemented from on high by the NFL commissioner and largely driven by a false media narrative. It isn’t the people playing the game many of whom hate the changes.
    2. There is no evidence anything they’ve done has made the game safer.
    3. Beyond CTE being a grossly exaggerated risk, the sort of rare hits focused on by the NFL aren’t the primary cause of CTE. There’s not even a clear link between concussions and CTE. Constant repetitive blows to the head are an even bigger threat and can never be weeded out.
    4. The NFL has a second motive – liability.

    I would expect libertarians to scoff at the faux outrage over concussions – especially now. This seems to be more a matter of the ability to make informed consent. The media pushes a hysterical narrative and pushes to have the decisions removed from the hands of the players. It’s nannyism. Not state-nannyism, perhaps, but no better.

    1. I think some of the moral panic also has to do with football being a sport that working-class whites still enjoy, as opposed to, say, soccer, which has its own blows to the head issue but is enjoyed by the right people (at least, in America).

      1. Soccer is not enjoyed by anyone.

        1. Them’s fighting words to Rufus and several other commenters here. (I’m a soccer fan, too.)

          1. Them’s fighting words to Rufus and several other commenters here.

            LOL – yeah, like I’m gonna be scared of somebody who thinks it’s unfair to use his hands to fight with?

            (Just joking – just because I don’t like soccer because it’s not violent enough doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate that other people like it for other reasons. Some people like to watch figure skating and I don’t think that sport even allows you to hit the other skaters at all. Nothing wrong with that, just not my cup of tea.)

            1. So you don’t like kickboxing.

              1. I’d watch baseball more if it was tackle baseball – and the batter is allowed to keep the bat when he runs around the bases.

                1. Baseball does need all the help it can get.

                2. I recall Mad Magazine had something about “Basebrawl” back in the 70’s.

            2. Tonya Harding!!!

              Almost made it as palatable as kickboxing. Crowbar to the knees. She’s hot.

        2. As someone who played growing up and occasionally watches now, I respectfully disagree.

          1. With Tonya Harding, or baseball?

        3. Soccer is enjoyed by the same people who find professional dart throwing too stimulating and action packed.

          1. Back when I still had cable, occasionally I’d come across a dart throwing tournament. There was some real tension going on. I still remember the surprise when the commentators were talking about hitting spots other than the bullseye.

            1. The bullseye is only 50 points, and the triple ring is worth more for the numbers 17-20, if memory serves.

              1. Yes. In _01 you’re shooting for triple 20s. Even if you hit one trip and two singles, you’re getting a ton (100). If you hit one bullseye, your two other darts can hit any numbers. You also need to control your score so you can leave a good out.

            2. It is surprisingly engrossing. I got caught in a tournament on TV one time.

        4. Soccer is enjoyed, but only by commies and pinkos.

      2. They’ll eventually go after soccer. Don’t you worry. One sport at a time. Start with the more violent ones and proceed from there.

        1. ACL injuries occur most commonly in soccer … specifically girls soccer
          They got next

        2. Soccer is way more dangerous than football in terms of injuries per player-hour, for what it’s worth. It just doesn’t have such a bad blows-to-the-head issue, and it’s also not presented as a bloodsport like football is.

          1. You understood everything.

            Bang on.

    2. So if it isn’t watered down, they have to label it as “imitation NFL”? Is that the tie-in?

      1. That was the USFL.

        Oh shit, another Trump article.

      2. Then there was XFL, that tried to cash in on the bloodsport.

    3. You might enjoy this episode of EconTalk. I found it quite elucidating. Football, despite the use of crash helmets, has brain injuries while rugby, with no helmets, has virtually none (they do get a lot of cauliflower ears though). FTA –

      “Michael Munger of Duke University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the role of formal rules and informal rules in sports. Many sports restrain violence and retaliation through formal rules while in others, protective equipment is used to reduce injury. In all sports, codes of conduct emerge to deal with violence and unobserved violations of formal rules. Munger explores the interaction of these forces across different sports and how they relate to insights of Coase and Hayek.”

      1. Don Cherry, who the left and smarty pants liberal sports writers loathe despite him making more sense about the sport of hockey than they ever could, contends the increase in injuries are correlated to stupid rules (ie instigator) and the gladiator type equipment which makes players feel invincible.

        1. Football, despite the use of crash helmets, has brain injuries while rugby, with no helmets, has virtually none

          this is sort of similar to how, despite appearances, MMA is less damaging than Boxing

          its bloodier, but they land a lot fewer punches to the same spots in the same amount of time. boxing is just, “hit them in the face until they fall down”. A nearly spent person can stand and endure withering abuse for far longer.

          As i often explained to people when i worked at REI – its also a fact that Skiing is much more dangerous than rock climbing. The most common injuries climbing were finger-toe damage, ankle strains, dislocated shoulders, etc. Skiing: broken legs, broken wrists, concussions, neck problems, etc.

          it should be obvious that hurling one’s self as fast as possible down a hill is riskier than slowly ascending a cliff *(while provided multiple layers of protection and security as well as someone actively managing your belay) People still act like the latter is supposed to be more ‘death prone’.

        2. Not to be confused with Ron Cherry.

      2. Didn’t football lack that equipment at the turn of the century and people were dying in the games?

        1. Yes and sort of. Lack of equipment may have been a problem but the rules were pretty brutal too. There was no specific rule against things like punching for example, and the infamous flying wedge caused a lot of carnage.

          1. The forward pass wasn’t legal, either. That didn’t come until about 1905, when enough football players died that Theodore Roosevelt decided to use his bully pulpit to change the rules of the sport.

            1. 1906. But it’s not clear that the forward pass has resulted in a net decrease in injuries.

          2. But there was a 2nd, even greater peak of deaths & life-threatening injuries about a decade after the flying wedge & some similar plays were outlawed. Some factors:

            Medical dx & care was advancing rapidly, accounting for much of the decline side of the peak. Remember when X-rays were invented.

            Stats were misleading. True story: when a child chased a football into the street & got run over, that was recorded as a football fatality. When you consider the trend at that time in automotive traffic & the popularity of football w children in urban areas, how could the stats not have been affected?

            Much of the subsequent decline in fatalities in specifically college football was accounted for by a simple expedient: shorter seasons & games. The games were shortened by a bit, and schedules were shortened by a lot in many cases. Football season used to be fall & spring. If you recalculated the decline in serious injuries per hour of play, it wouldn’t look like such a dramatic decline.

            1. True story: when a child chased a football into the street & got run over, that was recorded as a football fatality.

              I find it wildly implausible that reporting of this kind of incident could account for more than a handful of reported “football fatalities” unless you have some evidence that local police and coroners’ offices were in the habit of specifically logging the type of ball an injured/dead child was chasing after at the time of their injury.

      3. That’s the Lee Corso argument. Remove face masks and wear leather helmets and everyone will hit nicer

        1. The speed and power of hockey and football is not what it once was indeed.

        2. Remove airbags, ABS, seat belts, crumple zones, and install a 12 inch steel spike protruding from the steering wheel and I’ll bet everyone drives a lot nicer too.

        3. That’s the Lee Corso argument. Remove face masks and wear leather helmets and everyone will hit nicer

          I think the helmets are the wrong place to focus, but I don’t think Lee Corso is way off the deep end (this one time). Something closer to lacrosse pads gives protection to the ribcage, collarbone, and shoulder, without giving players a 3 layer deep foam and plastic battering ram on their shoulders.

      4. People make a fundamental category error about helmets and pads- they aren’t protection, they’re weapons. If you’re in a helmet and pds, you’re likely to launch yourself at an opponent with much greater force.

        1. Exactly like boxing gloves. And exactly like boxing, football is doomed in the long term.

            1. Am I the mincing faggot bully or the cowardly Jew here?

              1. Why can’t you be both?

                1. Thanks for giving away my secret, Ted, you fucking dick.

              2. Too much foreskin to be Jew. Or pigskin, I can’t remember which.

              3. Can I be the sultry bitch?

      5. Rugby is played for two continuous 45 minute halves, with stoppage only occasionally when the ball goes out of bounds and limited substitutions (like soccer). You’re not going to generate nearly the concussions force when played isn’t stop poured for a break every 10 seconds.

        1. Rugby reminds me of Rollerball … they don’t even stop play to drag an injured player off the field

          1. But then there’s Australian Rules Football. Which from what I can tell is a marriage of rugby, soccer and mixed martial arts.

            1. There’s a lot of tackling but only on the player who has the ball and only between the neck and waist. Otherwise the game is mainly about drop-kicking and tossing the ball rather than contact. They don’t wear *any* protection so I suspect they are rather careful about the damage they do inflict on each other.

              1. The first play of Australian Rules football I ever witnessed was sometime after midnight on ESPN. I was flipping channels sometime after midnight and I see this weird game. About 5 seconds after turning it on, this referee bounces what looks to be a rugby ball off of the ground and about 20 feet up. Two guys come running full speed from 20 yards apart and one of them jumps up and grabs the ball, smashing into the chest of the opposing player with both feet.

                “Oh, that’s a great play!” the announcer exclaims. It looked like felony assault to my eyes.

                I was instantly hooked. It was many weeks before I had even a rudimentary understanding of what was going on.

                “And it’s through for one behind! That makes it 8-12 and 60 for Perth!” What?

                And then some guy would be running with the ball and get gently dragged down and everyone would boo and the announcer would say “Oh, that’s a dirty play by the half there”. What? A minute ago some guy got punted in the face and everyone cheered…. Figuring out what “taking a mark” was, versus just catching it and being a runner….. really obscure without having ever watched or played a game.

                What a fantastic sport.

                1. Yeah, it’s like a different language but the game is actually pretty simple once you pick up on the rules. My team is out of the Finals so it’s mostly wait until next year now.

                2. and one of them jumps up and grabs the ball, smashing into the chest of the opposing player with both feet.

                  +1 Nigel de Jong

                  1. Dick. I can’t stand him.

                  2. Ted, that’s awesome. If that were the way it was usually played, I’d stop calling it a faggoty pseudosport.

                    1. Zidane pulled a few others in his career before that idiotic play. He was no angel.

                    2. Outrageous he wasn’t disciplined. Plus he remains unapologetic! To me, the greatest foul of all time.

                      Leonardo:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30rSHY9aFBI

                      Butcher of Bilbao.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_f9UrizSk

                3. AFL is the most exciting to watch out of Rugby, Football, Soccer and AFL. Though sevens rugby comes pretty close…

                  1. I haven’t seen sevens.

                    Rugby would be better if they got rid of some of the fluff like the extra point and the scrum. Those things just delay the game for me.

                    1. I haven’t seen sevens.

                      It’s pretty easy to find rips of the Olympic sevens tournament, worth a google…

    4. I think the constant repetitive blows to the head could at least be greatly reduced. One of the biggest rule changes at all levels was back in the eighties or early nineties when they liberalized the use of hands for offensive players. Prior to that change, the primary technique for blocking was to put your shoulder on the shoulder of a defender(look up wing-t or single wing on YouTube to see good examples of shoulder blocks). Since then, the blocking technique has basically become headbutt and punch. But the NFL will never change that rule for reasons you’ve already stated.

      1. Got forbid the sport doesn’t have enough offense.

    5. What does this have to do with College Football, the only game worth watching?

      1. If you like inferior talent, gimmicky schemes, and inbreds cheering for schools they could never get into, then sure. College football is great.

        1. inbreds cheering for schools they could never get into

          Thats sort of funny, because “good schools” generally suck at football. Mine certainly did.

          I’ll trade the ‘inferior talent’ for a more dynamic game any day. same with basketball.

          1. “trade” = “take”

          2. Most college football fans couldn’t get into any of those schools regardless.

            And it’s going to be real dynamic watching Alabama steamroll Western Kentucky today. I mean, do any ranked teams even play one another this week?

            1. the team i follow is ranked, and got crushed in its opening game by a local underdog rival for the first time in decades.

              your criticisms amount to “Erg, pro football fans SMARTER!!”” (which i think is … doubtful)… and that you think many college games are such mis-matches as to be predetermined conclusions.

              I would guess that latter point is probably wrong as well. but i think you’d actually need some stats to fortify that point. This article suggests that College is more competitive (by a different set of metrics than you might expect)

              To your specific criticism; i’m not sure whether its a legit gripe at all – because isn’t the great thing about college football that there are so many different teams playing on that you can almost always find a good game every week?

              my argument is just for what i prefer in any case. I’m not trying for any objective measure of superiority. I just think being a fan of college football is more fun. i have a few teams i follow year to year and its just more interesting to me than watching overpaid brutes try and avoid hurting themselves via overextension.

          3. I’ll trade the ‘inferior talent’ for a more dynamic game any day. same with basketball.

            Yup. I think that people can outgrow a sport, and the NBA is exhibit one. The inferior talent at the college level makes for a much more balanced (offense to defense) and strategic game.

        2. ” gimmicky schemes,”

          Yeah, because everyone knows there’s only one”proper” way to play football. And that the most exciting form of the game is to see 30 teams a week doing the same goddamned thing.

          1. If what college coaches did was so brilliant, it would be effective – more effective, even – when the skill of the athletes was most similar. It’s the opposite. There’s very little new or unique about what they do in college football. In NFL, the differences are smaller and you out scheme opponents through detail work.

            1. “If what college coaches did was so brilliant, it would be effective – more effective, even – when the skill of the athletes was most similar”

              Any examples of such an attempt?
              The reason that NFL teams generally don’t even attempt to run “college offenses” is a) risk aversion on the part of coaches b) a lack of knowledge about those offenses and c) the inbred nature of NFL coaching( which kind of ties back in to b).

              “There’s very little new or unique about what they do in college football”

              Define “new or unique” I’ll agree that what most people consider to be innovations is just a synthesis of pre-existing ideas, and that most innovation happens at the high school and small college level.

              1. Do we need to go through the list of top college coaches who failed horribly at the NFL level, and whose ranks will soon include Chip Kelly? It took the league all of a year to adjust to his offense. Spurrier is another nice example. Nick Saban runs pro-style schemes at the college level, but so did everyone else. His schyster recruiting tactics and authoritarianism offered him no advantage with professional players.

                College football is a large, yet shallow pond. People who pretend that the NFL fails to adopt the multitude of systems from college football are deluding themselves. Once upon a time, the NFL *did* have many of those same elements, and they were weeded out over time as the game evolved.

                Moreover, it ignores the way NFL schemes do change. Maybe the issue is that the people who think it’s all the same don’t really pay much attention.

                1. “Do we need to go through the list of top college coaches who failed horribly at the NFL level”

                  Not really, since it has nothing to do with college systems being implemented.

                  Oh, wait, are you one of those people that think coaches just come in from college and, despite many rules differences, owners and stakeholder pressure, plug in the exact system they used in college?

                  Lol, now all your posts make sense.

                  1. Smarmy sarcasm masquerading as insight. Chip Kelly most definitely was running his scheme. Spurrier most definitely tried to implement his schemes. Other coaches come in and try to adjust to the pro-game or already run a pro-style scheme.

                    1. “Chip Kelly most definitely was running his scheme”

                      Nope.

                2. Chip’s offense works in college because he’s counting on the other team’s defense having a weak link somewhere. He believes that the 11 athletes he puts on the field are better than the 11 players that the other team can field. Not all 11, but he creates 1-on-1 match-ups to find a weakness to exploit. Plus he emphasizes conditioning and wears the other team down by going fast. That advantage doesn’t exist in the NFL.

                  1. The Oregon offense works by creating a numbers advantage, like all option offenses.

                3. “Once upon a time, the NFL *did* have many of those same elements, and they were weeded out over time as the game evolved.”

                  Laughably wrong.

                  1. So you are the football equivalent of Palin’s Buttplug?

                    1. You don’t really know, anything about football, and you’ve proven it to people who do.

                      Have a nice day.

                    2. “So you are the football equivalent of Palin’s Buttplug?”

                      You haven’t presented anything approaching an argument.

                4. “college coaches who failed horribly at the NFL level, and whose ranks will soon include Chip Kelly?”

                  I have yet to see Chip Kelly actually run the same offense he did at Oregon. They line up in the same formations, but there’s a lot of missing elements in his NFL offense. Also, I don’t see how Spurrier or Saban would have introduced anything to NFL defenses that they didn’t already see every week.( with the possible exception of Spurrier’s Mills concept)

                  ” People who pretend that the NFL fails to adopt the multitude of systems from college football are deluding themselves. Once upon a time, the NFL *did* have many of those same elements, and they were weeded out over time as the game evolved.”

                  Again, when has it been tried?

                  “Moreover, it ignores the way NFL schemes do change. Maybe the issue is that the people who think it’s all the same don’t really pay much attention.”

                  Most people absolutely don’t. Because I’m convinced that most people learned everything they know about football from playing tecmo-bowl.

                  1. What element is missing from Kelly’s offense besides the running QB – which seems to be wholly a decision made by Chip himself? That he still continued to run them pounding his head against the wall and showed no ability to adapt/adjust is entirely on him. NFL players are smarter, faster, and can identify this stuff pre-snap. Which they started to do pretty quickly after the initial shock of his tempo wore off.

                    Smarter NFL teams can take the tempo and maintain complexity of a NFL offense. And the fundamental principle of Kelly’s offense – a few things done really well – isn’t new. Nor is the element of misdirection.

                    Meanwhile, speaking of of the read option, everyone besides Dom Capers eventually adjusted to that to where it’s nothing more than a change of pace or wrinkle.

                    Again, when has it been tried?

                    It’s easier to talk when the ‘what’ is defined. A spread? Offenses built on misdirection? Read options? What is the what that you are referring to?

                    But the argument boils down to NFL coaches just being stuck in their ways. There’s a revolving door at the position with 32 spots a year and movement between the college/pro ranks.

                    1. Meanwhile, speaking of of the read option, everyone besides Dom Capers eventually adjusted to that to where it’s nothing more than a change of pace or wrinkle.

                      As a Packer fan, I’m still angry about this.

                      (Then again, the Packer fans I know will all still point out that Jerry Rice fumbled.)

                    2. “What element is missing from Kelly’s offense besides the running QB ”

                      First, that’s a pretty big part of the offense. Secondly , the tempo. NFL referees told Kelly before his first year that they were not going to operate at his tempo. That’s why his average plays per game is much lower than what it was at Oregon.

                      “It’s easier to talk when the ‘what’ is defined. A spread? Offenses built on misdirection? Read options? What is the what that you are referring to?”

                      You’re the one who brought up ‘gimmicky” offenses, you tell me.

                      “There’s a revolving door at the position with 32 spots a year and movement between the college/pro ranks.”

                      More movement at position coaches than the higher ups, but i”d also point out that the NFL coaches seem to have trouble adjusting to the college game too( Charlie Weis?)

                    3. Also, since you brought up zone read( the term”read option” is redundant and I goddamn hate it), that play really gets to the difference between how pro style coaches think about an offense vs other coaches. To a pro style coach, an offense is merely a collection of plays and formations. Most offenses outside of pro style take a more systematic approach. Zone read might be a base play, or it may be a play that compliments another one. For instance, if a defense starts overloading the running back side of a formation or scrape exchanging to stop zone read a college or high school coach has a complimentary play that will attack the weakness of the defense( midline, speed option etc). Where as a pro coach might just throw his hands up and say” See, that shit doesn’t work at this level!”

          2. Watch some youth football if you want to see the really creative stuff like this that I put in last year: http://users.bestweb.net/~robg…..ndv4-4.jpg

            1. I saw at today’s Jr. PeeWee scrimmage that Coach Tim (who I coached with with the Cardinals last year) is carrying over the sidesaddle T to the Chiefs. But he doesn’t know how to do it right.

            2. I’m too lazy to find a link, but during his one year suspension, Sean Peyton coached his son’s team. They got beat twice by a team running Dave Cisar’s single wing.

              1. That’s a well known anecdote. Dave Cisar has produced a well-tested package of training materials for youth football coaches that not only includes his children-optimized version of single wing offense, but a defensive scheme, and what he considers to be the most important: instructions on how to train the kids, not only with particular drills, but his entire method of organizing practice sessions. (Many customers buy just for the training methods alone, which don’t require a particular system of either offense or defense.) Plus, ancillary material on organizing a club or league from scratch if need be.

        3. My problem with college football isn’t the inferior talent, it’s the inconsistency of the inferiority. However much you may mock a given NFL team, the fact is that every guy on the team is good enough to play in the NFL. College teams, you may have a few guys that are good enough to play in the NFL and they’re playing against mostly guys that aren’t. When you’ve got that many teams and that many players, you just aren’t going to have a consistent standard. Is that running back really that good or does he just look that good because he’s running against guys that really aren’t very good at stopping running backs? Too many games are decided by “big plays” that aren’t actually a good player making a good play, it’s a poor player making a bad play. When the safety races across the field to back up the cornerback and instead knocks him on his ass and they both fall down, it makes that 65 yard TD pass look just a little bit less impressive.

          1. tomato, tomatoe. what you describe is part of the appeal of college football for me

      2. The concussion/CTE craze is having a ripple effect throughout the sport. Most significantly( on the negative side) parents not letting their precious snowflakes play youth or high school ball. If it gets bad enough, it can have a pretty nasty impact on the college game.

        1. Eh. Let’s be frank – the pipeline for most talent is in the South. Ghetto areas where no one gives a shit about CTE and rednecks. It isn’t the white progressive suburbanites in Massachusetts who provide the bulk of talent.

          1. Think of all those Texas cheerleaders who won’t have anyone left to give blowjobs to.

            1. I volunteer as tribute!

      3. “College Football, the only game worth watching”
        +1.
        College football is played to a general high standard, but with enough randomness thrown in keep it wacky.
        The slate of games is disappointing this weekend, but I love rooting for the home underdog to pull off upsets while polishing off a whole bunch of foods and beverages that are not conducive to keeping one fit and trim.

    6. Well, I’m scoffing at your faux outrage, does that count.

      And frankly, you make 4 “points” that are more like assertions of your flawed viewpoint that you insist is correct.

      Most people don’t write multiple screeds insisting their take on things constitutes unadulterated reality when they don’t like something, they just stop watching.

      1. Well, feel free to actually explain what aspect of the claims is wrong. And we can actually discuss the particulars and the evidence behind each. Otherwise, you are just posting like a shitty troll. Feel free to spit all of this superior knowledge of yours and show me how wrong I am.

        I am a fan of football with a particular team I have an interest in. That doesn’t just evaporate because the product declines, though it has a breaking point. And as a consumer of said product, I have every right to bitch about the trend and reasons for that decline. Your argument is the sort of stupidity one often finds online among fans who can’t handle criticism of whatever their a fan of whether it’s some awful TV show or movie, a video game, or a sport. Better question is why people expressing a counter viewpoint seems to disturb you so much.

        There’s nothing “faux” about my comments. I went from watching football religiously to just watching one team play. And I’m not alone even if the sport remains incredibly popular.

    7. I’m making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. Read more on this web site… http://www.14earnpath.com

  2. As I understand it,some milk is not ‘milk’,and many vegetables ,meat and poultry are not ‘organic’. The country can ‘run’ on only wind and solar and Hillary Clinton is the bestest person to every run for president.

    1. many vegetables ,meat and poultry are not ‘organic’

      They don’t contain carbon?

      Grilled horta for everybody!

      1. Hortas are made of silicon, not carbon.

        /Star Trek geek

        1. Ergo, they’re inorganic meat.

          1. Ah, Soylent Green. All natural, no preservatives needed

    2. I know organic foods are a big health craze, but I like my food to be inorganic. I don’t like DNA in my food. That stuff is dangerous. The most evil acts in history where committed by people with high levels of DNA in their bodies.

    3. “Organic” has certainly gone through an evolution in meaning over the course of my lifetime.

      Back before the government or industry were interested in “organic”, the term meant they used little or no pesticides or additional chemicals.

      Once trade groups became interested in the term, “organic” came to mean that it didn’t contain any genetically modified ingredients.

      And once the government got involved, “organic” came to mean that some 70% or more of it contained “organic” ingredients.

      Given what I know of what it takes to make soybean oil edible for humans (between the hexane, degumming, alkali refining, and bleaching), I’m always amazed to see anything that contains it referred to as “organic”.

      Back before industry or government got involved, if it was organic, it didn’t contain soybean oil. Nowadays, as long as the soybean oil is less than 70% of the ingredients, they can still call it “organic”. Not only that, you’ll occasionally run across ingredients that say “organic soybean oil”, which by the old definition is a bit like saying “pregnant virgin”.

    4. Point being, it seems to always go something like this:

      Step 1) Small suppliers create a differentiated product with high margins.

      Step 2) Chasing those high margins, industry groups makes it easier for themselves to enter that market segment.

      Step 3) Industry groups start using government to protect themselves from competition by smaller suppliers.

      In the end, the small suppliers who are still selling the real thing can’t compete with the scale of the big guys, anymore, and customers have a harder time understanding or even finding the differentiated product as the label loses its meaning.

      “Organic soybean oil”–like really?! I never cared whether the soy was genetically modified. That “organic” was originally only meant to suggest that it wasn’t treated with Roundup–but if you do what needs to be done to make even non-genetically modified soybean oil edible for humans, then you did shit to it that may make using Roundup look like using water from a mountain spring.

      1. You assume that soy is edible at all.

        1. *Clutches bottle of soy sauce and tempeh blocks*

          Sure, it ain’t sirloin, but it is edible.

          1. Soy is okay fermented.

            Soy sauce is fermented. That’s different.

            What they do to make soy digestible for humans makes it seem a lot like paint or glue.

            1. Should read: “What they do to make soy [oil] digestible for human . . . “.

              And it’s getting practically impossible to find soybean oil free stuff in your regular supermarket.

              Try to find hot dogs rolls, hamburger buns, or a loaf of any kind of bread but sourdough without soybean oil.

              It’ll always be the cheapest oil because it’s a byproduct of turning soy into soy meal for animal feed. They make their profit on the soy meal as animal feed, and they used to just throw the oil away. As farming and food became more of an industrial process, the scale made it so that the chemical engineering process by which you can make soybean oil edible for humans started making sense.

              It’s like natural gas. They used to just burn it off. Thought of it as something that was a pain in the ass to get rid of when you were looking for petroleum. Once there got to be enough of it, scaling up the process to transport and store it started making sense, . . .

      2. “Organic soybean oil”–like really?!

        Isn’t that basically liquid estrogen?

  3. I was retained as an expert in the case, and drafted a report describing how Florida’s standard of identity for skim milk misleads and fails to serve the interests of consumers. I refuted.

    Shouldn’t you be puffing yourself up by flogging your book instead?

    [reads further]

    Oh.

    1. God forbid people promote their books on a libertarian website; otherwise, how can we ever ever expect to end the scourge that is free enterprise?

  4. “The state went so far as to malign Ocheesee’s all-natural skim milk as “an inferior product.”

    This is the MO and shtick from statist-commies. Up here, they demonize private daycare as being ‘inferior’ without a shred of evidence (and it’s bull shit by the way) to prop up subsidized daycare.

    Bureaucrats are a scourge on the economic landscape. They get caught up in semantics and useless technicalities (because they have nothing to lose) while a business lies at their mercy. The power they wield is retarded.

    And don’t ever expect large corporations or ‘associations’ to defend (innovative) small-businesses. The former are natural allies of the government to form the cronyism to create their monopolies. They will crush small entrepreneurs if need be and the progressive left in particular will cheer them on. Historically, progressives love big business and hate the small guy despite their bull shit rhetoric.

    This is what I’ve learned growing up in a small-business family and owning one. We have very few allies. Thankfully, in Canada a group called the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was formed and have made great inroads on our behalf.

    Does the USA have something similar?

    1. I’d like to add when we were inspected, the inspector combed through our menus (which is outstanding) and she decided to pick on the notion of if cheese was a protein. She readily admitted she didn’t know but asked if we could either remove it from the menu or not claim it was protein.

      First off, parents don’t generally give a shit. Not because of apathy but they just understand what dairy is in the daily diet. They don’t need a fricken definition at every turn. It’s paternalism for its own sake. Next, we challenged her assertion on the spot. So, she left it as ‘I will look into it’ but never heard on it again. We called whatever the Federal agency that covers this crap is called and the best the person could tell us was that she wasn’t sure and proceeded to send us a bunch of government four food groups nonsense.

      Businesses don’t have time for this rubbish but it’s unfortunately a reality. Almost as if you have to discount it in your cost structure. Time is money and boy do they cost you time and money.

      1. She wanted you to remove cheese from the menu at a daycare?

        Jesus fuckity fuck, what an idiot. Assure her that you will replace mac-n-cheese, which kids hate, with celery sprouts and broccoli salad. The kids will love it.

        1. Yes, cheese is an excellent source of protein. So is peanut butter, which kids also love, but I am guessing that’s out.

          http://www.webmd.com/fitness-e…..in-sources

          1. Peanut butter is banned in all the schools I know of now because allergies. I would like to see some evidence that it was a widespread problem because I don’t recall any issues from when I was a kid and I knew at keast one person allergic to it.

            Seems like a panic of fear that the status quo will lead to dystopia.

            1. I know someone who is allergic to peanuts. I also know someone who is allergic to shellfish.

              The solution is: don’t serve those people those foods.

          2. My understanding is that peanut butter was invented as a source of protein for people who had lost their teeth.

        2. That or change claiming it was a source of protein.

          Which we challenged.

      2. So at least two people who are supposed to regulate your menu don’t know whether cheese is a source of protein?

        Yeah, that makes sense.

        1. In fairness, their degree in grievance studies didn’t cover that.

        2. Their job is to enforce the rules. Not to understand them. This way whenever you get a new enforcer, you never know what will happen or how the rules will be interpreted and enforced. Keeps people afraid, which is how the government likes it.

        3. I had a building inspector turn me down because the furnace vent didn’t have the required 1″ clearance from the (metal) return duct. When I politely pointed out to him that the requirement is that the vent has to have 1″ clearance from combustible material and that the return duct – being made from the exact same material the vent pipe itself is made from – is not in fact combustible, he just shrugged and said “that’s the rules” and I re-hung the return duct an inch lower. The first rule of rule-making is that the rule-maker is always right. Just glad he didn’t tell me the vent pipe had to have a 1″ clearance from itself.

          1. I was failed for a condensing furnace using PVC, really, of course he learned something new thatday

      3. Government food nannying promotes carb-loading, leading to the obesity “epidemic”.

      4. Some perverts get their rocks off on bossing other people around.

    2. I don’t think a lot of people understand that the regulatory agencies are the enforcement wing of big business.

      1. that does fly under the radar. more regulation means less competition for the big boys and higher prices for us.

  5. Huh. Geraldo Rivera is on FOX defending Cankle’s categorization of Trump supporters as bigots. He just cant understand why racism has become such a big issue.

    Imagine that.

    1. Geraldo found his intelligence in Al Capone’s vault.

      1. Ah, love the historical reference to his self promotion…

    1. Is there a newbie section where I can learn how to post a link so it appears like that?
      Maybe that section also explains the significance wood chippers and other H&R cultural standards?

      1. No. Reason is like Sinclair’s The Jungle. It’s like being taught to swim by being thrown in the deep end of the pool: sink or swim, baby, sink or swim.

          1. This link works! Thanks for the link tutorial DenverJ.

          2. Thanks for the link. I had taken wood chipper as referred in these threads to be something besides a Fargo reference. Post Snowden, nobody should assume that they can post anything anywhere without prying eyes knowing where it came from.

        1. You trolled him with the explanation of the term “SF’ed the link”?

    1. Saturday is the Tulpa signal.

      What else is there for him to do on the weekends?

        1. Yeah, but not all day.

          Although I imagine it takes him at least an hour to set up the mirror the way he likes it.

  6. OT: Johnson and Weld just wrapped up a nice segment on Smerconish just now.

    If I had a vote they’d have it.

    1. Johnson’s performances are on-again, off-again. He is definitely not the worst choice but my sense is that his performance would be ‘meh’.

      My wife and I discussed this yesterday. We both decided Johnson is the great neighbor you invite to all of your bbq’s, Weld is the asshole neighbor that turns you in to the HOA, Trump is the gung-ho guy at work that you avoid in the break room, Pence is the neighbor you don’t know because he has a completely different circle of friends, ‘Creepy Tim’ is a perfectly fitting name for Kaine, and Clinton is a straight-up sociopath who should be locked up.

  7. FOX headline:

    “Buzz about a ‘bud’: Clinton camp denies claims she wore earpiece at forum”

    The article basically outlines and quotes what each side has to say.

    LA Times headline:

    “Trump’s son raises Clinton earpiece conspiracy”

    The article tries to link the controversy to Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire.

    Does anyone know if the MSM is still denying they carry water for the left?

    1. Christ Episcopal historian George Downing said Episcopalians in America have a custom of saying a prayer for the president of the United States, and the prayer is in the American Episcopal Book of Prayer.

      “It has been in the Book of Prayer since it was written in 1785,” he said.

      Gee, why would the Anglicans Episcopalians feel the need to do that in 1785 I wonder?

      1. “—Gee, why would the Anglicans Episcopalians feel the need to do that in 1785 I wonder?—”

        Probably for the same reason that Microsoft spends millions of dollars in Washington lobbyists. It’s better to be the predator than the prey.

  8. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/…..index.html

    “Hillary Clinton told an audience of donors Friday night that half of Donald Trump’s supporters fall into “the basket of deplorables,” meaning people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.”

    She’s promised to unite the country. Or at least to unite her “us” against the despicable them who didn’t vote for her.
    4 years of her is really going to suck

    1. I suppose the media is going to crucify her for her version of the 47% remark now.

      1. Rule #13 for Radicals: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it

        The opposition must be singled out as the target and “frozen”. The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community’s segregated practices. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, a corporation, which has no soul or identity. Never attack the company, always attack the president of the company.
        “He that is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23)

        One acts decisively only in the conviction that all angels are on one side and all the devils on the other. A leader may struggle toward a decision which is 52% positive and 48% negative, but once the decision is reached he must assume that his cause is 100% positive and the opposition 100% negative. Many liberals, during our attack on the then-school superintendent, were pointing out that after all he wasn’t a 100% devil, he was a regular churchgoer, he was a good family man, and he was generous in his contributions to charity. Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as “He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband”? This becomes political idiocy.

      2. but the 47% statistic was correct (at least if you go by the household figures for federal income tax on the IRS website).
        fact-checking her claim, I guess, simply relies upon using common sense

        1. She claimed those people are not America, which is demonstrably false. Unless as defined by the IDFA.

    2. “We are going to reward our friends and punish our enemies.”

      Cankles will hit that 100 times harder than Obumbles did. Yeah, it is going to suck if she wins.

      1. Cankles will hit that

        *barfs*

    3. “To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”

      Clintonophobic?

    4. It’s all about intentions. Clinton supporters have good intentions. They want government to be everything for everyone. Anyone who disagrees can only do so from bad intentions. It is the only explanation. After all, any bad results are not caused by good intentions. They are caused by something else. Only evil people disagree.

      1. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

        1. The problem is that seeing those consequences requires thinking. Leftists don’t think. They feel. They feel that their good intentions will have good results, and that is it. Full stop. So I don’t believe the foreseeable consequences of their good intentions are intended. They simply can’t see them because they can’t think. As a result, when someone like you or me points these consequences out, leftists feel that you are attacking their good intentions. How could bad results happen from good intentions? Only bad intentions have bad results.

          1. “Leftists don’t think. They feel.”

            These five words explain 90% of current politics. If everyone understood them, the Internet would be 34% smaller and there would be only 1 or 2 cable news channels.

    1. Deep-dish Mexican?

      Will Minnesohhhtans make taco hotdish?

    2. Are you trying to convince people to vote for Trump?

      1. +1 deep dish taco truck on every corner

    1. Brits working on Wall Street.

      Immigrants taking our jobs!

  9. The New American* runs an interview with Darrell Castle, Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party.

    “I’d institute lower taxes, lower regulations on employment, and reductions in government spending. I’m also calling for an end to the Federal Reserve and a return to currency backed by gold….

    “…in general, I favor the policy of nonintervention in foreign affairs, just as the Founders did….

    “…once we have regained control of our borders and the flow of immigrants, we can admit as many as we choose, in a controlled and lawful manner….

    “I’m totally opposed to the war on drugs. It’s not doing anything except imprison a lot of people for trivial offenses. I favor some kind of decriminalization, especially where federal laws are concerned….

    “[Concerning same-sex marriage] Well, I’m a Christian, so I’m opposed to it. I don’t think it exists, because it violates God’s law. But as president, I don’t think it’s any of government’s business. I want to see the government out of the marriage business altogether….

    “…right now, there’s a race underway between technology, which offers us longer, better lives and government, which seeks to destroy those things.”

    *An affiliate of the John Birch Society, for those nostalgia buffs out there

    1. Look at all those crazy ideas! How could anyone take them seriously?

      Actually, looks pretty common sense and libertarian.

      Why aren’t the Constitution Party people all Libertarians?

      Is it just an aesthetic thing?

      1. Why aren’t the Constitution Party people all Libertarians?

        Sex and porn

        1. I agree with everything the Founders put into the Constitution with the exception of that pesky First Amendment.

        2. There are large numbers of people that are at core liberty minded with everything except what you do with your wee-wee. That gives them uncomfortable funny feelings.

          1. And drugs. I know plenty of conservative, liberty-minded people who would be libertarians except for drugs. I ask why and they say it is a moral issue. Drugs are just wrong, and anyone who uses them is a bad person with moral failings who needs to have their lives ruined by the government.

            1. I ask why and they say it is a moral issue.

              Right. A moral issue, not a legal issue. Ask them how happy they are with morality police carrying guns, and if they have any concern whatsoever that those morality police might be getting their moral direction from the likes of the Clintons, BLM, SJWs, and the like.

          2. And drugs. I know plenty of conservative, liberty-minded people who would be libertarians except for drugs. I ask why and they say it is a moral issue. Drugs are just wrong, and anyone who uses them is a bad person with moral failings who needs to have their lives ruined by the government.

            1. And squirrels. Can’t abide with the squirrels.

              1. Speaking of, I need to check my traps. Have flying squirrels nesting in my attic.

            2. Yes, essentially they are old-fashioned puritans. If someone, somewhere is enjoying themselves that shit must be shut down.

              1. See: Kratom (at the end of the month)

              2. If someone, somewhere is enjoying themselves that shit must be shut down.

                The “War on Pleasure” …

              3. Didn’t realize flying squirrels cared that much.

      2. Federalism.

      3. I haven’t looked lately, but when they first came out, the Constitution Party were strict adherents to the Constitution just as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ wrote it. Which meant that some parts of their interpretation of the Constitution weren’t necessarily the same as my interpretation of the Constitution.

      4. Because many libertarians are openly hostile to Christians. The libert movement is bigger outside the LP than in it.

      5. We can’t go back to the gold standard and most people realize we’ve gone too far down the wormhole of fungible trust in credits to go back. If they dropped that as a plank then they might gain some mindshare. While attractive it’s a shortcut to reigning in government spending. Far better to institute zero based budgeting and have the Fed float. That has bad outcomes to budget and debt which is one reason they kick that can down the road alla time…

    2. Sounds like a platform I would write myself. I could get excited if I thought the guy had a snowball’s chance. Everything he said there would have some faction screaming their heads off.

      1. If you make a Venn diagram of candidates with a snowball’s chance, and candidates who are strongly committed to limited, constitutional government, where would the overlap be?

        1. I prefer Presidents to have prior executive experience. So the circle starts off fairly small.
          Snowball or no, how many people want to spend their days working within an organization that they want to be smaller and have less influence than when they joined it?

          1. Castle founded and ran a law firm, the two Pauls ran medical practices…oh, you mean mayoral or gubernatorial experience?

            1. For Prez, either a prior Gov or CEO of big enough company to have had to make the bureaucracy productive. Then I pick the most libertarian from that set. Castle and Jill don’t make the minimum requirement for me, but then I don’t think my state has ever gone the way I voted so what do I know?

    3. Should gay couples have the same adoption rights as straight couples? stats discuss
      Darrell Castle‘s answer: No, and gay couples should not be able to adopt children

      Do you support the death penalty? stats discuss
      Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes

      Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide? stats discuss
      Darrell Castle’s answer: No

      Should the military allow women to serve in combat roles? stats discuss
      Darrell Castle’s answer: No

      Should Muslim immigrants be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists? stats discuss
      Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes

      Should children of illegal immigrants be granted legal citizenship? stats discuss
      Darrell Castle’s answer: No

      Should the U.S. increase restrictions on its current border security policy? stats discuss
      Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes

      Should there be term limits set for members of Congress? stats discuss
      Darrell Castle’s answer: No, we already have term limits – it’s called an election

      Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers? stats discuss
      Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, no corporation should be immune from the possibility that their product after being introduced into public commerce was defective, etc. and caused harm

      1. Should corporations and unions (Super PACs) be allowed to donate to political candidates? stats discuss
        Darrell Castle’s answer: No, as a matter of public policy it is very detrimental to the nation to allow large corporations to buy candidates and elections

        Should internet service providers be allowed to speed up access to popular websites (that pay higher rates) at the expense of slowing down access to less popular websites (that pay lower rates)? stats discuss
        Darrell Castle’s answer: No, treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet

        Should the government raise the retirement age for Social Security? stats discuss
        Darrell Castle’s answer: No

        Do you support the legalization of Marijuana? stats discuss
        Darrell Castle’s answer: i support decriminalization not legalization

        Should a photo ID be required to vote? stats discuss
        Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, this will prevent voter fraud

        Should the government fund space travel? stats discuss
        Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes

        Should police officers be required to wear body cameras? stats discuss
        Darrell Castle’s answer: No but it should be a decision made at the state and local level

  10. Skimmed milk maybe?

  11. You know who else joined a fight on the wrong side?

    1. The British Light Cavalry?

    2. Benedict Arnold?

      1. Before or after?

    3. Italy? Romania? Russia? Am I close?

    4. Bobby “the Brain” Heenan?

    5. Andre Maginot’s creations?

    6. Colin Kaepernick?

    7. The 18th North Carolina Infantry pickets at Chancellorsville? (Too soon?)

    8. Jim Marshall?

    9. Fred Savage?

    10. Robert E. Lee?

    11. Sal Tessio?

  12. The IDFA sided with Florida regulators and against Ocheesee.

    I think that might be kinda like saying Nancy Pelosi sided with the Democrats against the Republicans. I’ll bet if you look closely, you’ll find there’s some overlap in the Venn diagram of “people who work for the IDFA” and “people who work for the FDA”.

    (Hmmmm….”International Dairy Foods Association” and “Florida Department of Agriculture” and “Food and Drug Administration” all have nearly the same acronym – and that acronym is nearly the same acronym as the “Die In A Fire” acronym. Coincidence, conspiracy, or subliminal suggestion?)

  13. Did the news about the lawsuit filed by Minnesoda’s Democrat party to remove Trump from the ballot get discussed here yesterday?

    Basically the GOP fucked up the process for selecting 10 alternate electors. Now the DFL (Democrat-Farmer-Labor our version of the Democrats) is claiming that rules are rules and Trump has to be taken off the ballot.

    It is pretty funny watching a major party get fucked by the arcane ballot access rules. It is also amusing that the same people who a few months ago were telling everyone here in Minnesoda that having Trump on the ballot was going to kill the down ballot races, now trying to get him off that ballot.

    If Trump was going to be such poison here, why try to get him booted? The last I saw for polling was Hillary had a 10 point lead, but 11% were undecided. So maybe those numbers are breaking the wrong way?

    1. Because fuck you, that’s why.

    2. It was embedded deep in the PM links thread but didn’t get much traction.
      Surprised that this sideshow isn’t getting more national schadenfreude.

      MN Sec of State says a decision is needed by Monday. 1 million ballots already printed, some already sent out to absentee and overseas voters. DFL says what’s the rush? Election is still two months away. Except that no excuse voting begins 9/23. Those who want an excuse must wait until November.

      Minnesota still owes the rest of us an apology for electing Jesse Ventura, the slippery slope that led us to Trump.

      1. I’m always amazed by the idea that Americans can’t do their voting in one day. Even though unlike most countries we hold a bunch of elections at the same time.

        1. Its horseshit, and a gaping hole in election security.

          I think we should make election day a holiday, so there’s no excuse. You’d probably get more people who have actual jobs and pay actual taxes to vote that way, too.

          Photo ID at the polls. Absentee ballots have to be picked up in person, with a photo ID. And paper ballots all the way. That’s decent election security, perfectly workable, and anything else sacrifices security for “convenience” without any real improvement in how well the system functions. So, anything else is just a pretext for weakening security. Now why would anyone want to do that?

    3. The thing is, the Democrats suddenly so adamant about following the rules weren’t so hot about that principle when they had similar problems with Laughtenberg and Carnahan – and the GOP who were so adamant about following the rules then have now forgotten they were supposed to be arguing the principle of the thing. Pretty obvious neither one of them were or are arguing a damn thing on principle.

      1. Didn’t both parties hold their 2008 conventions after the filing deadlines in one or two states? Of course, that didn’t keep them off the ballot.

      2. No private servers. Rules are rules, right?

    4. “Now the DFL (Dumb-fuck liberal our version of the Democrats)”
      FTFY

    1. My intuition is that he is going to win. I have been fooled by that before so I don’t want to make assertions I cant back up.

      She seems to be leaning harder and harder on the lunatic fringe and I just don’t see that going well for her. I keep hearing that Trump’s core supporters are the middle class and working class whites. Is that a demographic to alienate during a presidential election? Calling them all bigots just doesnt seem to be a good strategy to me, especially after her ‘we are going to tax the middle class!’ Freudean slip.

      I can see it going either way but my sense of it is that he will win, hands down.

      1. To put it a different way, going after a major national candidate is acceptable. Going after their supporters is not.

        1. Why not? It worked for Obama.

          1. Half you people are as Sholes, the rest of us are smart…. not a good tactic unless you are a 1 percenter or dillisionual..

    2. Watch the markets and what the Fed says and does. To me the question is which will keel over first, the fake economy or Hillary. Even a a moderate correction this month or early next month and Trump may pull it off.

      1. Didn’t stocks have their worst day in a long while Friday?

      2. Trump wins the election in November. The fake asset bubble economy keeps over the first of December and media calls it “the Trump depression”.

    3. All is proceeding as I have foreseen. I’ve never given either of them more than a 60% chance of winning. Now that Trump is close enough for a horserace, the Dems lose one of them more potent, if stupid, messages – Hillary is inevitable.

      Now, why people like to vote for the “inevitable” winner, rather than who they want to win, has always been a mystery to me. But they do.

      The endless, and it won’t end before the election, scandals are taking their toll. I don’t see any news on the horizon that will boost Hillary, and many opportunities for news that will damage her. She’s still a terrible campaigner, and now that its a horse race she can’t hide as much, which hurts her.

      OTOH, Trump. Who I would prefer over Hillary, for the entertainment value and because it will be a glimmer of hope that our political class hasn’t completely freed itself from the mass of the country. Hillary’s election would be something of an inflection point, that our political class (or at least those on the in with the Deep State) are beyond the law, beyond accountability, and completely out of control.

      1. Assange says he has 100,000 Clinton documents to release well before the election. Who knows what the are, but it can’t be good.

        1. “Assange says he has 100,000 Clinton documents to release well before the election. Who knows what the are, but it can’t be good.”

          Clinton message ratio:
          2 = good/98 = suck

      2. “why people like to vote for the “inevitable” winner”
        … because it makes them feel like a winner to be on the winning side.
        As in college football … people take it personally when their team wins or loses.
        also note the phenomena of jumping on and off the bandwagon

  14. Hillary Clinton told an audience of donors (LOL she doesn’t talk to anyone else) Friday night that half of Donald Trump’s supporters fall into “the basket of deplorables,” meaning people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.

    In an effort to explain the support behind Trump, Clinton went on to describe the rest of Trump supporters as people who are looking for change in any form because of economic anxiety and urged her supporters to empathize with them.

    “To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”

    She added, “And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.”

    Clinton then said some of these people were “irredeemable” and “not America.”

    This is because Hillary Clinton has spent the last few decades circulating among “Real Americans”, you see. She is of the Volk: the common people love her!

    1. Romney’s 47% statement was stupid but he at least was speaking privately and didn’t know it was being recorded. Hillary said this at a public event. I really think her brain has gone soft.

      1. At a minimum, candidates should disclose what medications are prescribed for them. I have a feeling Hillary goes through her day with a pretty good load of pharma on. I’d love to know what it is.

        And yes, its highly relevant.

    2. Because dubbing a sizable portion of the American population irredeemable, not America, and ‘the basket of deplorables’ is not hateful, mean-spirited or offensive.

      I see this all the time from pinkos. They fill a hate-filled, spittle-flecked, angry screed with accusations of how hateful their opponents are.

      1. But Trump is the hateful rage filled candidate.

    3. “the basket of deplorables”

      What a cunt

      1. Good band name or title for a Clint Eastwood western.

        1. Oooh, I’ll go with the Spaghetti Western. I like!

    4. Makes you wonder what she plans to do about it.

      1. ^totally this.
        if that’s her attitude towards 1/2 of the not Hillary vote, what does she do to those folks once in power?
        dark times coming

  15. Bureaucratic Tactics 101 =

    When you want to kill something that “makes too much sense” – Pass rules making them too-expensive to maintain

    Police departments in at least two states that outfitted their officers with body cameras have now shelved them, blaming new laws requiring videos to be stored longer, which they say would significantly increase the cost.

    About a third of the nation’s 18,000 police agencies are either testing body cameras or have embraced them to record their officers’ interactions with the public. But departments in Indiana and Connecticut suspended their programs this year after their states imposed considerably longer video-storage rules.

    Clarksville, a southern Indiana town just north of Louisville, Kentucky, began using body cameras in 2012 for its 50 full-time officers and 25 reservists. That program ended in late June when Chief Mark Palmer pulled the cameras in response to Indiana’s new law requiring agencies using the cameras to store the videos for at least 190 days.

    1. How much server space would that take up?

      1. I think many places still do data backups on tape, no?

    2. new laws requiring videos to be stored longer, which they say would significantly increase the cost.

      Oh, FFS. We’re just a community hospital with a 2% operating margin in a good year, and our total storage, all in (backups, radiology images, everything), is measured in petabytes. If we can afford it, so can they.

  16. Body building with one arm and no legs

    A short video about a guy who was born with a genetic disorder preventing proper limb development. He decided to get into bodybuilding.

    1. I had an uncle who came back from Vietnam with no legs and one arm who had a chin-up bar installed over his bed. He looked like 1/4 of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    2. Awesome.

      There are a ton of stories of cripples and sickly kids getting into bodybuilding and strength sports, especially in old-timey days. There really isn’t any better response to having a disability.

      1. The high school wrestler with no legs was amazing.

      1. Chile is on my short list. Did Argentina a while back and doing NZ this winter. Maybe next winter.

        1. I’d like to get to NZ next year, but after this year’s travel, I think I might have to put that off.

          Argentina and Chile are both on my list, but aren’t very high right now.

  17. A short interview with the members of Fishbone. The frontman talks about how the black community didn’t embrace them because they played rock and punk.

    1. This false idea of “Community” is the fucking problem.

  18. Free Staters take on sobriety checkpoints

    I THINK the Free State Project is pretty cool.

    Thousands of freedom-loving people are moving to New Hampshire, prompting natives and long-timers like me to think and rethink the Granite State’s bedrock beliefs of self-reliance and small government.

    And the Free Staters have inspired us to once again cherish our Constitutional rights, like our right to assemble and protest, our right to bear arms and our right to drive drunk.

    I’m sure that last one is buried in the Constitution somewhere.

    Because nowadays when Manchester police set up a checkpoint to try to detect and arrest drunk drivers, Free Staters are close by.

    They wave signs to warn drivers away from the impending checkpoint. They point their arms with the precision of a signal corpsman. They shout loud enough to penetrate closed windows of air-conditioned cars.

    “Checkpoint on Bridge! Turn now! Take Granite! Take Amoskeag!” shouted Manchester resident Curt Howland.

    1. Because drunk driving checkpoints are never ever misused for anything else, no sirree.

      1. Checkpoints catch drunk drivers. Drunk drivers kill babies. Libertarians are against checkpoints. Libertarians kill babies.

        The syllogism is the height of human reasoning. Aristotle himself says so or something, broski.

  19. Some asshole turns a pot grower to the police

    I wonder if the snitch is a competitor?

    The plants, which police estimated to have a street value of $80,000, were discovered on Aug. 31 after police received an anonymous tip about a “large-scale” marijuana growing operation in a heavily wooded area off of Moose Meadow Drive near the Raymond town line, police said.

    According to police, the plants were well cared for and appeared to be nearly ready for harvest.

    Fremont Police Chief Jon Twiss said police interviewed the property owner, who owns a large tract of land, and believe he wasn’t involved and had no idea pot was being grown on his property.

    1. Of course he was a competitor. How do you think cops make drug busts

    1. I love the VW Thing. Those things were so cool.

      1. A friend of mine from the olden days loves VWs. He’s gone through many Beetles and VW vans. He keeps a Beetle parked out in front of his deli. It’s covered in stickers advertising his deli. He calls it his “Deli Bug”.

        1. The old 15 window safari vans are awesome. Sadly the rest of the world has figured out how cool they are and they now go for upwards of 70k for a good example.

  20. Georgia “heroine” went shopping

    Sandra Putnam, a former “top agent” with the Georgia Bureau of Investigations racked up $87,243 on GBI issued credit cards. Not only did she use her own plastic for her lavish shopping sprees, but she also maxed out the cards of seven other employeesl.

    Putnam, who was a member of the GBI’s Command Staff and ironically was in charge of the “Intelligence Unit,” managed to keep at it for at least three years. That means that she averaged close to $30, 000 per year during her crime spree. Reportedly, it required a tractor trailer to haul away all of her taxpayer-financed loot and the GBI agents who came to get it had to work through the night to complete the job.

    1. Former GBI Inspector Sandra Putnam, 44, was charged on Aug. 31 with one count of RICO (Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization) violation in DeKalb County, for the alleged misuse of a GBI purchasing card to the tune of more than $87,000. . . .

      To date, the investigation has revealed over 350 transactions totaling over $87,000. Putnam allegedly ordered the items for personal use and had them shipped directly to her home. She allegedly altered the invoices to reflect legitimate type items being purchased and submitted those receipts into the p-card management system.

      One count? I see over 350 separate crimes, so far. And each transaction probably includes more than one crime, once you include the altered invoices, etc.

      I mean, I’m glad they charged her, but this sure looks like they went easy on her.

      1. The King’s Men… or Women in this case.

  21. Jesus Christ could Freddie Mercury sing. Really the harmony is just as impressive

    http://digg.com/video/freddie-…..-champions

    1. IMHO he was the greatest rock singer of all time.

      1. After hearing that it is hard to argue with you.

  22. So, it’s the weekend, and I’ve given you links about the Civil War, deep-dish pizza, and Darrell Castle.

    I have the feeling that I left something out

  23. Ocheesee’s skim milk meets what’s been the dictionary definition of skim milk for hundreds of years

    I would have guessed that “skim milk” only became a thing in one of the health crazes from recent decades. What the heck did people do with it centuries ago?

    1. Separating the milk into its components (milk is an emulsion) allows for making various dairy products; cream, butter, cheese, etc.

      1. *Smacks head* Right.

        I can’t think of any use for the watery gray waste product, though. Maybe they tossed it?

        1. Skim milk was originally industrial waste

          At the risk of upsetting skim milk users ? the truth needs to be told. Orginally, fat-free and low-fat milk were never designed to be a ‘health’ food.

          Turning an industrial waste into a health food takes time ? especially when trying to profit off millions of ‘uneducated’ consumers. At first, the byproduct of cream was not only considered useless, but quite unappetizing. When cream is skimmed, from milk, the remaining byproduct is a watery-like substance ? with a bluish tint and a chalky taste.

          In the 1920s, the streams in rural areas with cheese factories and creameries festered with rotting dairy discharge. …

          Tourists who ventured to the countryside to be energized by fresh breezes found that breathing the foul air of these byproducts made them feel nauseated.

          To answer this question ? it’s good to know a little history. At the turn of the twentieth century, skim milk was converted into condensed milk. This was done by putting the liquid into a vacuum pan at 100-120 degrees ? until sufficiently concentrated and then adding sugar.

          In the 1920’s, this is how skim milk was marketed to the public.

          1. In ancient days of my youth on a farm, the cheese factory to which we sold milk would send a truck once a week and fill a big tank with whey, free of charge. We fed to the hogs. It was a great protein source and the pigs loved it, but I’ll bet whey is put to better economic use these days.

  24. It realized today that at some point this fall some will refuse to make a Trump deep dish pizza and reason will have to close Hit and Run. Peak hot and run will have been reached.

    1. This was recently posted on H&R, too bad the woman didn’t go to a pizza joint.

      1. Unrelated but I saw it in your link, seems pretty H&R-ish
        http://www.washingtontimes.com…..tudent-tw/

        1. I posted that story earlier.

  25. Sad Beard informs us that Hillary’s emails don’t matter because FOIA is outdated and the public shouldn’t be allows to see government officials’ emails in the first place.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/9/6/12732252/against-transparency

    This might be the most retarded thing he has ever written

    1. I’ll make him a deal:

      If government emails aren’t discoverable, neither are private emails.

      Or, if he prefers, we now have the technology to log and record phone conversations in a way we didn’t use to. If we need to level out phone conversations and email, why not make them all subject to FOIA?

      I’m flexible. I can go either way.

      1. the contents of phone conversations are subject to FOIA if there are any records of them, i.e. Notes taken about them, call logs of numbers called and such. Certainly a recording of a call if such existed would be subject as well.

        He is just profoundly stupid

  26. Scott Adams believes that 3 percent of the voters are “Shy Trump Supporters” who don’t want to trumpet (ha!) their preferences

    “In a recent Reuters poll, 7% of respondents “refused” to vote for either Trump or Clinton. I’m guessing some Shy Trump Supporters “park” their votes with Gary Johnson (polling at 9.3%) or Jill Stein (polling at 3.3%).

    “But I wonder if the Shy Trump supporters are mostly parked with Johnson because of gender (consciously or unconsciously), whereas Stein is more of a real protest vote against Clinton. Anecdotally, Shy Trump Supporters tell me they do park their pre-vote preferences with Johnson. So far, none have told me they are parking their vote with Stein. (This is anecdotal, and a small sample of perhaps a dozen.)”

      1. “Clinton calls half of Trump supporters ‘deplorables'”

        This from a woman who wears Mao suits exclusively.

        Didn’t she recently try to float the idea of sending people to camps?

        1. “sending people to camps”

          24/7 public school?

          1. For Adults. The only thing dumber than voting for Obama is voting for Clinton. Fifty years ago this wretched, vile excuse for a human being would have been exiled, yet our current crop of morons want this woman in the white house.

            “We really need to have camps for adults…”

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..citizens-t

            1. She may be having a fun deficit. Her husband on the other hand.

        2. You mean they aren’t? If you are a Trump supporter– and God knows why you should be one– and are not a racist why should you be concerned about Clinton calling 1/2 of Trump supporters racist? Someone needs to draw you a Venn diagram and tell you to relax.

          I’m a left-wing socialist who thinks taxes should be high on rich people, that we should keep military interventions to a minimum, and that the government should not intervene in the private lives of its citizens. You have no idea how many times I’ve been calling a Stalinist stooge for believing in such things. Since I’m not a Stalinist in any way, I don’t get upset when someone calls me a Stalinist and just move on.

        3. The reason there is a lack of fun is that we have two wretched candidates heading up the major parties.

      2. Oh I see this has been covered.

        1. go to the basket and think about what you’ve done

          1. Hillary supporters want Americans to get in this basket.

            1. NOTE: Lotion not included.

            2. That was random

              1. It seems a fairly obvious basket-related joke.

            3. 100%…..wailing and gnashing of teeth?

  27. So it looks like we’re going to get another single, Saturday, 600+ comment, thread.

    And tomorrow, the Lord’s day, there’ll be 10. Fucking heathen libertarians!

    1. And tomorrow, the Lord’s day, there’ll be 10. Fucking Jewish libertarians!

      Let’s be real, I don’t think Rothbard, von Mises or Rand would be caught in a church.

      Or if you’re part of the alt-right, (((libertarians))) I guess. Cause Jews are evil apparently.

      1. Goddammit how do I keep breaking this?

      2. Uh-oh…. will everything be in italics again?

      3. So, fucking (((heathen libertarians)))!?!?!?!?

    2. I prefer the term Godless

    3. It’s just like Christmas

      https://youtu.be/HOhKQyRAo6k

  28. Breaking: Railroad Alliance Passes Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule

    1. And even though dogs eat lots of gross stuff, do they actually eat other dogs?

      How did that rumor get cur-rency?

      1. (yes I recognize the Ayn Rand reference, thanks)

      2. (yes I recognize the dog pun, thanks) lol

  29. If you’re against a national standard of vitamins in skim milk you must be against nutrition.

  30. I’m sitting here, with the Michigan game on in the background, skimming through the comments about football, and what happens? A kid gets booted for “targetting”. Shitty call. I probably would have gotten kicked out of every game I played, had the rules and enforcement been what they are now.

    Now and then, I stumble across what I would call “speed rugby”; I think they call it “sevens”. I like it because every guy on the field is an ATHLETE. No fat fucks. The rules are pretty much incomprehensible to me, but it’s fun to watch.

    1. I managed one season of 7s. Too damn hard…I’d rather crum 10 times than run one endless looping support and forward down the pitch.

      1. Scrum…what is it with this keyboard?

        1. I thought you meant “cum”.

    2. Ideal 7s team would be 7 NFL running backs and linebackers.

  31. Something i’ve tried pointing out a dozen times =

    Painting Russia as a Mortal Enemy Now In Vogue – But in 2012…..?

    [When Romney answered that “Russia probably remains our #1 rival”]… President Barack Obama reminded Americans…that he’s also the nation’s commander-in-chief who has made tough decisions in wartime and negotiated delicate diplomatic situations.

    His opponent, Obama said, is “new to foreign policy” and will drag the country back into old conflicts.

    “After all, you don’t call Russia our No. 1 enemy… unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War mind warp,”

    The media echoed the idea = Talking Shit About Russia?? IRRESPONSIBLE DANGEROUS CONFRONTATIONAL RHETORIC

    “I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in,” MSNBC Chris Matthews said with a sigh on March 28, 2012.

    “This is Mitt Romney’s severely conservative problem,” U Georgia professor Cynthia Tucker opined

    HuffPo’s Sam Stein agreed that Romney’s statement was evidence of an “antiquated worldview.” He fretted further about how Romney,…would enter the office having severely complicated America’s bilateral relations with Moscow given his carelessly provocative statement.

    “I personally am worried about what it says to the Russian people,”

    1. The Federalist expands on this point here

      “‘The New York Times is alarmed by Trump’s friendliness with Russia. It’s weird, considering their freakout when Mitt Romney called Russia a geopolitical foe.””

      1. Principals over principles

      2. yeah, but folks on the other side (regardless of side) never see the hypocrisy of going totally 180 on an argument cuz this time it’s different and stuff

      3. It’s the singer, not the song.

    2. President Barack Obama reminded Americans…that he’s also the nation’s commander-in-chief who has made tough decisions in wartime and negotiated delicate diplomatic situations.

      His opponent, Obama said, is “new to foreign policy” and will drag the country back into old conflicts.

      “After all, you don’t call Russia our No. 1 enemy… unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War mind warp,”

      Proceeds to base his next four years of foreign policy on his own personal Cold War mind warp, complete with his own ‘Soviets in Afghanistan’ moment (Syrian rebel funding) and Nixon’s visit to China (climate change non-treaty).

    3. Almost everything Clinton has said directly conflicts with something she has said or done in the past.

      Being a pinko means never having to be held to any standard of honesty or decency or responsibility.

      1. and what she shouts loudest against is exactly the sin she is committing herself.
        “unify the country” while being one of the most divisive candidates ever
        “get big money out of politics” while being on track to spending $1 billion + on this election
        the list goes on

      1. We should be looking for ways to bridge disagreements, and maximize cooperation.

        Which is exactly what the former Clinton administration did!

        *Cue NATO bombing of Yugoslavia that killed most of the post-Cold War goodwill with Russia*

        Oh.

        1. Was the bombing of Yugoslavia really that much of a sticking point with Russia?

          its far enough west that i’d have assumed they would have been completely unconcerned about its possible potential for ‘re-integration’. Hell, they’d consider themselves lucky if they ever got the Ukraine/Belarus back in the fold, much less Romania or bulgaria, etc.

          I would think that at the time, Russia was far more concerned with more-basic issues related to transitioning to a market-economy, than fussing about European post-cold-war re-alignment.

          And there was considerable warming between Russia/US in the wake of 9/11; at least when Medveydev was running the show. He simply wanted to enrich his crony oligarchs, and we were happy to look the other way while he did so if they allowed the US to help secure their nukes, and re-supply Afghanistan via their airspace, etc.

          I’d have assumed Yugoslavia in the 1990s was of very low importance in terms of their very-shaky national-integrity. there was also the war in Chechnya, etc. other problems of breakaway states that would have been far closer to home…

          1. They vetoed it on the Security Council. Russia was effectively strong armed into supporting NATO solutions via economic pressure. In terms of the general population’s view its seen as an attack on Eastern Europe and the Slavic peoples, not a peacekeeping operation. RussiaToday certainly doesn’t forget. There’s also an argument that this was NATO throwing its weight around after the Cold War to show it was the boss now and that the former Soviet Union was now powerless, which is a consistent Russian complaint.

            In my personal experience most of the Russians I’ve dealt with tend to have a way more favourable view of Milosevic than anyone in the West, and the general Russian consensus on the conflict was to get him to stand down and negotiate rather than depose him.

            Yeah, it wasn’t an event that would result in an all-out war, but Russians seem to see it as NATO laying their card on the table. “Oh that’s how it’s going to be, our geopolitical and ethnic boundaries mean nothing and they’ll just do whatever they want despite the preachiness of their international institutions and post-war order.”

            1. There’s also an argument that this was NATO throwing its weight around after the Cold War to show it was the boss now and that the former Soviet Union was now powerless, which is a consistent Russian complaint.

              i can understand russian “nationalism” in general…. but i really find it hard to understand how the average Russian had opinions about “NATO” in Europe in the 1990s … when their own country was a disaster-clusterfuck as a consequence of a half-century of communist economic-‘tardation.

              I mean, its one thing for China to be all uppity and sensitive now that they’re an ascendant power – but Russia seems to be like the worst “sore loser” of all time.

              They really seem to think they “deserve” the sort of influence over former Soviet-Bloc territory that they grabbed while they were a communist-totalitarian state? It would be like modern Germans insisting they should still have a say in the affairs of France… because, you know, “we conquered it once”

              1. Hey, I’m not saying the Russian position is fair or even-handed. But just because Russia was a goddamn mess in the 1990s does not mean that Russians just ignored what was going on in the rest of the world, particularly what ‘the West’ was doing in what they consider their sphere. I mean, this goes back to Stalin getting pissed about Tito’s independence and neutrality. Russia is definitely a ‘sore loser’ but I would expect an sufficiently nationalist state to be like that after their little collapse. I would think the United States would be a ‘sore loser’ following a massive economic collapse, losing eight states, and then have California suck up to China while Texas is invaded by Mexico.

                …when their own country was a disaster-clusterfuck as a consequence of a half-century of communist economic-‘tardation

                And a lot of that during the period was being blamed on everything from the former communist policies to the mafia to Western kulaks. The nationalism was focused on how the Russian people were being wronged, and an attack on a Slavic group at that time led to certain interpretations.

                1. They really seem to think they “deserve” the sort of influence over former Soviet-Bloc territory that they grabbed while they were a communist-totalitarian state?

                  They (as in the actual political class) think they ‘deserve’ some preferential deference over areas that they have either an ethnic or geopolitical historical justification for. They think they should have ‘a say’ in ‘the East’ in the same way that the United States gets ‘a say’ on the rest of the Americas via Monroe. This isn’t new, this goes back to them being the religious defender of Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire, and going to war for it.

                  The modern American state thinks like the British Empire, it’s all about international trade, naval control and worldwide force projection. Russia is still very much in its old mindset of just maintaining general geopolitical pressure and control of the smaller nations around it, and being able to be the primary actor able to do so, a la Congress of Vienna.

                  RT is the go-to propaganda example of this, they’re constantly pointing to horrible Western aggression and saber rattling worldwide while poor little Russia just wants to…engage in similar behaviour, but it’s fine because it’s in their backyard, not the world.

            2. One of the reasons Russia got into WWI was that they looked on the Orthodox Serbs as their brothers in need of protection. I doubt that this attitude ever fully died out.

  32. If you’re against a national standard of vitamins in skim milk you must be against nutrition.

    Absent government standards, milk would be poisonous.

    1. Without the SEC, the stock market would be one big lottery-scam

    2. I have spoken with many people who swear up and down that all food was poison until the government regulated it. Because businesses are greedy bastards who put profits before people. So they would poison their customers if the government didn’t tell them not to. That’s why there were so many farms. People had to grow their own food since everything sold by businesses was poison.

      1. I remember a video posted here about the minimum wage. People on the street were saying that without the minimum wage corporations wouldn’t pay people anything. People are idiots.

        1. Without government regulations we would all be slaves to the corporations. After all, we need to work to survive. That means the corporations force us to work for them and to buy their products. Without the loving hand of government, corporations would all create their own little fiefdoms. We would literally be their property. Everyone knows this. Duh.

        2. People on the street were saying that without the minimum wage corporations wouldn’t pay people anything.

          They imagine that corporations are all like turn of the century mining companies = own everything in a region, and be the sole employer, and pay the proles in Company Script, to be redeemed at the Company Store, or paid to the Company Landlord, etc.

          Its completely plausible! Provided you never actually spend 2 seconds looking at the composition of the US economy.

          1. Those “company towns” were a function of the remote locations of the mining, logging, etc. operations. Even if we had locations that remote now, Amazon Prime alone would make an abusive company town non-viable.

            1. I think the people we’re talking about already think of Amazon as a monopoly “Company store” on the intertubes.

              anti-capitalists are so hopelessly invested in their imagined dynamic of “exploitation” that its pretty much impossible to convince them otherwise by pointing to ‘external, objective reality’.

              The only way to cause them some dissonance (and its hardly worth the effort) is to force them to take their own presumptions and try and apply them. They will only start to believe in individual behavioral incentives when they see their collectivist ideas break down in practice.

              1. Any company that sells a lot of stuff or employs a lot of people is exploitative. They must be screwing over their workers and customers if so many people want to work there and buy their stuff. I mean, they’re making lots of profits, and profits are theft. This means they are somehow duping people into working for them and buying their stuff. Manipulative advertising, being the only game in town. Whatever. But profits are theft. They are exploitation. So any business that is doing well is by definition exploitative.

                Whereas taxation is not theft because government is us. But since businesses are them, profits are theft.

                1. Government is things we steal together.

              2. Hi Gilmore,

                Thanks fro the link, I am 3/4 of the way through the whole thing, it is awesome… Most progs will say “TL, DR”, or, “Well, my commune, run my way, would be able to take in all the welfare mooches, AND have a higher standard of living than we have now”. No reasoning with the unreasonable…

        3. “without the minimum wage corporations wouldn’t pay people anything”

          Want to have some fun? Next time someone raises this point, ask them why it is that any employers pay above minimum wage at all. Ask them why, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it’s only a single-digit percentage of the workforce who are actually paid the minimum wage. If minimum wage is the only thing stopping a “race to the bottom” of wages, how come so many employers pay more than the minimum?

          They rarely have an answer. When they do, it’s funny to watch them desperately try to cobble together an explanation.

      2. +1 Upton Sinclair

  33. “I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in,” MSNBC Chris Matthews said with a sigh on March 28, 2012.

    Item no. 72,849 on the list of things Chris Matthews doesn’t know.

  34. Ohio still in play

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..news-ohio/

  35. I think the NFL should suspend players for refusing to stand during the national anthem.

    There, I said it.

    The NFL isn’t the government, and the NFL’s brand is tightly woven with the military.

    And it isn’t just about color guards and flyovers, either; the armed forces spend a lot of money on advertising for recruits during football games.

    That’s where your signing bonus came from, you ungrateful bastards.

    Be all that you can be.

    Aim high.

    The few. The proud.

    I’m not saying the government should arrest players for protesting, but if I’m working for a company, I’d expect to be disciplined by the company for dissing the company’s clients to the client’s faces and on TV.

    And the armed forces are an important client of the NFL.

    Why should the armed forces continue to advertise during NFL games when the players are dissing them?

    1. I’d try to explain the answer, but a racist fascist like you wouldn’t understand.

      Into the basket of deplorables with you!

      /sarc

    2. The NFL may like the drama. The 49ers however can’t like the distraction. I personally don’t care.

      1. No, the NFL doesn’t like this drama.

        They’re so scared of being called unpatriotic, they cancelled games in the wake of 9/11.

        They’re so scared of being called racists, they’re sitting on their hands while a third string quarterback wipes his ass with the flag on TV.

        1. You gotta have your bad guys.

          1. THEN HE SHOULD A RAIDER!!!!

            1. Then he should what a raider?

        2. The Meadowlands were being used as a staging point for 9/11 relief, and the Giants couldn’t hold a game there that Sunday.

          1. All that week’s games all across the country were cancelled and rescheduled.

    3. Why should the armed forces continue to advertise during NFL games when the players are dissing them?

      Because the advertising is effective. Meatheads dig it.

      1. I think some of their advertising is awesome myself, and I certainly appreciate those that volunteer.

        If I’m Papa John’s Pizza, I don’t think I want to advertise with the NFL if the players are on the sidelines holding up signs that say, “Papa John’s is Racist!”.

        It makes you look like a patsy for advertising there, doesn’t it?

        The NFL should start doing tributes to the Tuskegee Airman, et. al. everywhere Kaepernick and co. are scheduled to go. Let them sit there with their thumbs in their asses while black patriots get all the applause they deserve.

        1. The NFL should start doing tributes to the Tuskegee Airman, et. al.

          Flyovers should be doable. They flew P-51s, and there are still some of those around. New paint job with the storied “red tail”, and you’d be good to go.

          And it would be a really cool flyover.

        2. My dad had 18 months stolen from his life courtesy of the peacetime draft. (As I’ve mentioned several times, he spent them at White Sands, NM, keeping the missiles there from falling into the hands of the Ernst Blofelds of the world.) I’d like to see the NFL do a salute to the people who were drafted in peacetime.

    4. Our commander in chief is sympathetic to BLM.

      When I was in Jr. HS we did several weeks of soccer in gym class. The coach chose up the teams. On my team we had two guys who were buddies with most of the other team. One played goalie. They faked failure and ‘oops’ moments to hand the game to their buddies on the other team every fucking day.

      1. I suspect Obama may feel like black people who volunteer are dupes.

        No way Obama ever would have volunteered himself.

        I suspect Obama thinks that patriotism itself is for saps.

        1. You are correct, but Obama isnt a black person. He is a progressive ideologue. He has been brainwashed into being a snake in the grass since birth.

          1. He certainly doesn’t have any real connection to the black community, other than as useful dupes for his career.

              1. Quite the contrary, I believe.

    5. Be all that you can be.

      I believe that’s “Be all what you can be”

      *Fd’A breaks high-right*

    6. I think the NFL should suspend players for refusing to stand during the national anthem.

      Clearly a private organization may set/enforce any rule it chooses and make employment contingent upon compliance. But it’s a fine line when it comes to public relations. Do you want to be known as the company that stifles the free speech of its employees? And how would that look from the perspective of the sponsors? “The military is recruiting with a company that doesn’t believe in free speech for its employees.” (Neither does the military, but you get the point.)

      By and large, free speech is a good thing in the eyes of most. And just because you may do a thing doesn’t mean doing that thing is a good idea.

      1. Do you want to be known as the company that stifles the free speech of its employees?

        As long as its stifling wrong-speech, sure

    7. I think they shouldn’t even play the national anthem before sporting events.

      I’d also like to see athletes do the Bellamy salute if they feel they’re being forced into standing for the anthem.

      1. its still “free speech” if he gets canned. He’s free to protest all he wants outside the stadium

  36. Why should the armed forces continue to advertise during NFL games when the players are dissing them?

    national anthem= military

    Was the country taken over by a military junta while I wasn’t looking?

    1. Either you support the military or you hate your country. It is the conservative credo.

    2. LE junta

    3. It has what I might call a military theme.

      I particularly like Verse 3:

      And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
      That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
      A home and a Country should leave us no more?
      Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
      No refuge could save the hireling and slave
      From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
      And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
      O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

      1. Or as they would sing it now

        To you we shall wave from a space that is safe
        Our new national anthem is “have a nice day”

    4. “national anthem= military”

      Like it or not, this is who he’s dissing.

      The NFL’s brand is tied up with advertising for the military.

      If this is a Black Lives Matter thing, then there are plenty of protests he could go to.

      Why use the NFL?

      1. Think of it this way:

        If Kaepernick succeeds in convincing everyone that dissing the flag is somehow essential to Black Lives Matter, he will have succeeded in hurting Black Lives Matter like no one else could.

        Biker gangs are smarter than this. You want veterans and patriotic Americans on your side.

        If you want Americans to get behind your movement, you don’t dis the flag. You wave it around!

        Most effective act of anti-Vietnam protest ever:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKvnQYFhGCc

        1. You hear him playing “Taps” near the end of that, right?

          Right.

      2. “national anthem= military”

        No.

        The purpose of the military is to support and defend the Constitution. 1A applies even when they don’t like the message. It’s been my experience that most in the military accept and agree with that notion.

    5. Last I knew, the military is part of the United States.

      Kaepernick made it clear that he condemns the entire country.

  37. C’mon, somebody needs a nom du comment that plays on the “basket of deplorables” thing.

    1. It really should be John or SIV.

    2. Basket of deplorables

      http://m.lovethispic.com/image…..of-kittens

      1. The one in the middle needs a safe space

    3. Reason could just rename Hit and Run ‘The Basket of Deplorables’.

      1. I like Bitter Clingers better. Seems more distainful.

      2. “Our Basket of Deplorables”

      3. Isn’t Basket of Deplorables what Postrel calls us?

        1. I thought that was “Jerks”?

          1. There is something to be said for not mincing words

    4. Here’s an idea: let’s put together a gift basket of deplorables for Hillary, what should we put in it?

      1. A lifetime supply of classified markings.

        1. Yes and a pack of server cloths

      2. Blue dress

      3. Robitussin

      4. A copy of “Innocence of Muslims?”

      5. STEVE SMITH’S BUSINESS CARD

      6. Free pass to Warty’s dungeon?

        A leather and chain bound copy of SugarFree’s writings?

      7. Some Cuban cigars.

    5. “Harry Potter and the Basket of Deplorables”

      1. Something something slytherin her chamber of secretions.

      2. Hairy Pothead and the Bowl of Smoldering Weeds!

    6. I got yer Basket of Deplorables right here!

  38. Like it or not, this is who he’s dissing.

    Sez you.

    Feel free to impose your collectivist interpretation on the events of the day.

  39. let’s put together a gift basket of deplorables for Hillary, what should we put in it?

    Definitely some all purpose foetal tissue balm and salve.

  40. funny story about libertarians and milk…

    http://modernfarmer.com/2016/0…..milk-sick/

    Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk To Celebrate Its Legality, Become Immediately Sick

    Maybe there’s a reason the USDA exists after all.

    1. Something something mortgage…

    2. “Maybe there’s a reason the USDA exists after all.”

      Or at least a reason to pay attention to the conditions under which your “raw” food is produced. Be responsible: know your farmer.

    3. Funny story about a self proclaimed ‘anarchist’ who somehow manages to lick the asshole of every statist bureaucracy he can…

    4. Now when can I buy my own nuclear food ionizing-irradiation machine, so that I can nuke my own food? WHEN will Government Almighty allow this?

  41. Traveling in a fried-out Kombi, on a hippie trail, head full of zombie.

  42. I’m @(#*$@() fed up trying to diagnose a computer problem, and have decided to just wipe C: drive, bring pc back to factory spec, and work from there.

    anybody have any last minute recommendations? I’m backing up files to external disk but expect i’ll probably forget something, like some itunes library somewhere in some nook of “AppData”…. or things that are placed in app-specific folders that aren’t obvious.

    1. I’ve heard about this “Cloud” thing.

    2. Have you tried a System Restore to an earlier date?

      1. its not that. i think i updated drivers on my hardware beyond what the actual MB chipset supports… its an ASUS factory box, and i think the MB was set up at the factory to run everything stock, and as i updated stuff it got all out of whack.

        i think i just need to bring it back to ‘as shipped’ and see if its stable again.

    3. “C: drive”

      I think I found your problem?

      1. But seriously, Macrium free is pretty good I hear, it clones everything

      2. not sure what your point is re: “C:” . Should i have said, “partition”? does it matter?

        1. It was a joke? a bad one

          1. It was a Windows joke. When I need to use windows, I just run it in virtualbox, and I haven’t needed to do that in a while. Mostly cause I don’t trust it, for some of the reasons you’re experiencing .

            Sorry, Linux nerd here.

            1. Root for America, then!

      1. You might think you’re being cute, but it just comes off smug and unhelpful, really.

        1. sudo install linux

    4. zip up folders and put those on the external, much faster.

      just take your whole user\gilmore folder, and when you find something missing later you can go digging.

      1. This. Everything you need will be in there somewhere. You will have to reinstall your programs of course.

    5. Buy a Chromestick, a Chromebook, or a Chromebox.

  43. Is Ohio that good or Kansas that bad? Jayhawks look like a little league team.

    1. As a KU fan, Kansas is that bad. Winless last year including one loss to an FCS team and a 30 point loss at home to Memphis. Gave up 50+ points in 5 games, and 40+ in three more.

      Perenially not a great program but two bad coaching hires didn’t help. Plus Charlie Weis used a lot of Juco transfers which meant they had less than 50 scholarship players last year. Not sure what the situation is this year.

      /whining & sorrow off.

  44. Plus Charlie Weis used a lot of Juco transfers

    Is the guy who can turn anything he touches to shit?

    1. Yep.

      I know a guy who has connections inside KU Athletics. Basically Weis convinced the AD that he had totally changed his ways and was a different coach. Two years later, Weis got fired and the AD admitted he got snowed.

  45. Is *he* the guy…

  46. Speaking of the pussification of football America…

    The announcers on the Ohio State game just said they’ll stop the game if lightning gets within 10 miles.

    1. Soccer does that crap too – and they don’t stop for anything normally.

  47. Jesus. Fucken. Christ. Can you be anymore…slow?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsEZBSTc3a0

    I also love how being European these days is considered ‘bad’.

    1. To be fair, and I don’t mean this as a shot at most of the people here, who tend to have more worldly view, but many Americans are just profoundly ignorant of anything outside of the United States. And that doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘worldly’ is ‘smarter’ *Insert Swedish “American society is more violent because black genetics” story here*.

      I mean, Tony’s the perfect example of this. A week or two ago he was arguing that states rights only exist in history to support racism against blacks. Setting aside the whole fact that this isn’t the case in American history, the whole idea was stolen from the Dutch United Provinces system, which had nothing to do with race. Half of Canada’s political history is arguments about the balance of power between the federal government and the provinces. Every federal system on the planet has these issues, but they apparently don’t exist, because American exceptionalism. Tony considers himself some kind of informed tolerant multiculturalist but he doesn’t know shit about anything outside of the United States.

      Also attitudes like this are what fuel the alt-right, because then they get to lecture about ‘self hatred’ and ‘white genocide’ when in reality it’s just about Alba being a shallow idiot who wants to be more ‘exotic’.

      1. Interesting. Good points.

        Re Alba. She wants to be a certain type of exotic. How can she not know she’s of Spanish origin? It baffles me. It suggests a lack of curiosity for her background. And when you’re ignorant of your background you tend to believe you’re something you’re not. In her case, she seems to have wanted to be Native American.

        I blame Elizabeth ‘She with high cheek bones’ Warren.

        1. I mean, sure, I get the Amerindian thing if you want to exploit the tax advantages and such, but I can’t see the bonus of being descended from a poor illiterate Mohawk tribesman rather than a poor illiterate French peasant. Maybe if one of them has actually done something it’s worthy of note, but yeah, I’d chalk this up to ‘in fashion’ diversity and shallow self-interest caused by social justice musings (white people are evil, I am not evil, ergo I can’t possibility be descended from them entirely).

          Maybe it’s just me being a mongrel Anglicized French-Metis-Dutchman.

        2. How can she not know she’s of Spanish origin?

          The way I saw it was, she does know she’s “Spanish”. She just thinks that makes her a cool “Latina” (I think I heard her say that under her breath) and not some lame “European”. She did have something like 15% “indigenous American” – not sure what the cutoff is for “Latina”, though.

          1. I don’t know if I trust those DNA tests.

            OMG SPAIN! That’s all I know.

            1. “Jessica… you ARE the father!”

        3. Re Alba. She wants to be a certain type of exotic.

          You don’t think that being the likely descendant of Spanish imperialists, slave owners, and Conquistadores makes her “exotic” enough?

      2. “Tony considers himself some kind of informed tolerant multiculturalist but he doesn’t know shit about anything outside of the United States.”

        Canada has its fair share of Tonys. Shoot, Quebec alone is up to the challenge!

    2. I get that she doesn’t need to be smart to do her job, but good lord….how does someone go that long without realizing that Spain is in Europe.

    3. Still would

    4. Honey, “Spain” had one of the most brutal and oppressive empires in European history; Spain was responsible for most of the deaths of Native Americans, as well as for most of the slavery in the Americas. If you want to be judged by your heritage and ethnicity, congratulations, you’re the descendant of imperialist oppressors and slavers, Jessica!

  48. Raw milk IS an inferior product, pushed by the same pseudoscientific “natural foods” bullshit that aligns with the statists on many other issues. Pasteurizing milk and re-adding vitamins removed during skimming is more expensive than not doing it… why do you think the big milk producers do it anyway?

    I think the state is being stupid here, but the raw milkers should be required to inform consumers that they’re not replacing the vitamins lost in the process of skimming as most milk producers do.

    1. Inferior to *what*? Its milk.

      I think you should be required to inform consumers that you’re not replacing the nutrients lost when you boil vegetables. When was the last time your kitchen was inspected by a government licensing agency?

  49. Pasteurizing milk and re-adding vitamins removed during skimming is more expensive than not doing it… why do you think the big milk producers do it anyway?

    1) people don’t like it when their milk is chunky (homogenization)
    2) companies don’t like liability (pasteurization)
    3) most consumers like long shelf life (pasteurization)
    4) companies like loke shelf life (pasteurization)

    ?

    the raw milkers should be required to inform consumers that they’re not replacing the vitamins lost in the process of skimming as most milk producers do.

    What creates this obligation? If group [x] does something, group [y] is obliged to do it, why exactly?

    1. Some medical/historical considerations relating to pasteurization and added vitamins that the informed consumer of milk ought to be aware of:

      Tuberculosis, Bang’s Disease, Brucella abortus, undulant fever, Vitamin D, Rickets.

  50. “Food processors, such as Ocheesee, who choose not to replenish essential nutrients to the standardized level, must label those products as ‘imitation,'”

    An 8 oz glass of whole milk provides approximately *6%* of an adult’s daily Vitamin A requirement (subject to that persons size and the bullshit government expert du jour’s opinion).

    Assuming – for the sake of reductio ad absurdum – skim milk contains *no* Vitamin A, you’re not losing a significant source of it. It would mean a couple of extra pieces of cheese or something like that.

    1. I always thought the reason for adding vitamins to milk was the same for adding vitamins to flour – because people don’t eat enough vegetables.

      1. Just vitamins in general: B in flour, D in milk.

      2. By *government* standards. From 1932. That’s the problem with government programs – even when the program starts out as useful it not going to go away no matter how obsolete it becomes.

  51. upto I saw the receipt of $6105 , I have faith that…my… sister woz like realy earning money part time at there computar. . there sisters neighbour started doing this for only a year and resantly cleard the depts on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . check
    http://WWW.WORK.JOBSS1.COM

  52. It should be classed as “milk-derived opaque water”.

  53. my buddy’s mother makes $66 an hour on the laptop . She has been unemployed for ten months but last month her check was $18065 just working on the laptop for a few hours. blog here..
    ?????->> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  54. my friend’s mother makes $67 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for five months but last month her payment was $13463 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read more ..
    ?????->> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  55. What I find amazing is that humans continue to drink this stuff. All humans, even Libertarians, were weaned at a very early age from their own mother’s milk so you don’t need the lactate of another species for anything. It would be more natural for you to keep your own mother pregnant for the entirety of her life and drink her milk, than it is to keep another mammal pregnant and drink its milk. Weird, huh? There is nothing in cow’s milk that humans need for health or wellness. Backed by science!

  56. In the late 1940’s, early 1950’s the big dairy producers lobbied state legislatures to enact laws requiring all dairy farmers to sell their raw milk to co-operatives. Many small dairy farmers had previously sold their raw milk to local dairy’s for processing into dairy products and sold them locally. Many of these small producers held lucrative contracts with local schools and grocery stores to supply milk and other dairy products. The co-op legislation allowed the big dairy producers to force the smaller dairies out of this business and acquire it for themselves.

  57. my father in-law recently purchased a real nice Lincoln MKZ Sedan by working part time off of a pc online. have a peek at this website

    ?????? http://www.businessbay4.com/

  58. this is what you get when there’s a legal right to pass idiotic laws….it’s also what you get when you allow idiots to play politician.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.