Reason Roundup

States Sue Over School Lunch Changes, Say They're Not Scientific Like the Obama Rules Based on Retracted Nutrition Studies

Plus: Pete Buttigieg says no to "free college," and the problems with Elizabeth Warren's plan to jail business execs

|

Suit takes aim at new school lunch standards. A recent rule change regarding school lunches was greeted with relief by some school districts, who had found that federal mandates from the Obama administration led to food waste, less lunches sold, and more kids buying meals from vending machines. Additionally, schools were still allowed to serve sugary flavored milk, but for some reason it had to be the less nutritious nonfat version.

The changes approved by the Trump administration are relatively minor—more time to comply with reduced sodium levels, no need for flavored milk to be nonfat, and lower whole-grain requirements for some foods—but they address some of the chief criticisms from public schools across the country.

Some state attorneys general don't like that. They're now suing in federal court to make the Obama-era lunch standards permanent.

The suit argues that the recent changes are illegal because Agriculture Department officials didn't provide scientific justification. This is pretty hilarious, considering the sloppy science that the Obama administration relied on when instituting its "Smarter Lunchrooms" program. Many papers from the lead architect of the initiative have since been retracted, after fellow researchers found inconsistencies, errors, and evidence of fraudulent data.

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys general in California, D.C., Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont. The eternal whackjobs at the PETA-esque Center for Science in the Public Interest have filed a separate lawsuit also challenging the changes.

FREE MINDS

Warren wants to lower burden of proof for white-collar crime. Some people are defending Sen. Elizabeth Warren's "bad bill to jail executives for negligence" using "the argument that we should trust prosecutors to show restraint," tweets Radley Balko. But this "flies in the face the history of prosecutors."

Read more on why from criminal law professor Carissa Byrne Hessick in this thread.

FREE MARKETS

Pete Buttigieg says no to "free college." Behold, the rare Democratic presidential candidate capable of resisting a trendy talking point:

QUICK HITS

  • Amazing how many new ways that prison staff can find to be evil:

Advertisement

NEXT: George Mason Students Want Visiting Professor Brett Kavanaugh Fired Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations

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. Warren wants to lower burden of proof for white-collar crime.

    She’s picked her other to build a campaign on.

    1. Profits are criminal.

    2. Hello.

    3. Warren is a pandering jackwagon.

        1. Is that SFW? I’m dubious.

          1. It’s a Geico commercial.

            1. Best commercial ever.

            2. LOLOLOL

      1. She’s getting desperate because Bernie hijacked her fundraising network, and Hollywood celebrities are enamored with O’Rourke now.

        She’s not the media darling that she was 6 years ago, and she has no compelling reason for someone outside of New England to vote for her.

        1. You can smell the growing desperation.

    4. Do politicians really want to make incompetence a crime?

      1. As usual, they’ll exempt members of Congress.

      2. incontinence will soon be as well…

  2. Also, I say we boycott reason until they fix commenting. WHO’S WITH ME?

    1. A lot of commenters have been boycotting reason for a long time.

      1. Each Reason boycott (there have been several) has led to a subsequent lowering of the quality of the commenters. That’s why my jokes (and Fist’s) are getting progressively worse over time.

        1. I don’t do jokes but if I did they would remain consistently top shelf.

        2. Hundreds of millions of people boycott REASON comment section every single day (confirmed!).

          I think the rickety-wood-and-rusty-metal creaking of the comments is charming. It’s like renting a mountain cabin that has an outdoor well with a pump handle. It’s so old school I can sometimes imagine the screech and buzz of a 28k phone modem.

          1. Yep, it’s a good community on average as well. There are really one 3 people or so that are really bringing this down significantly. The rest range from regular internet angry to pretty great. (and whatever Crusty is)

          2. I was trying to make a joke — boycotting lower-case-R reason, as opposed to Reason.

            Should’ve workshopped it first.

      2. I’m still trying to determine if what they said about sloopy’s mom was inappropriate or not.

        1. The problem was that they didn’t say anything about sloopy’s mom after she got in a fight with a cop.

    2. what needs fixing?

  3. Pete Buttigieg says no to “free college.”

    Unfortunately, his follow up comment was somewhat contradictory.

    1. Buttigieg calls for states to cover higher proportion of the cost than students, more generous + accessible programs for loan forgiveness and looking @ interest rates to refinance loans

      Unless that’s mischaracterizing what he said next.

      1. The state paying for most of the bill is not the state paying for all of the bill. So it’s technically correct.

        1. It is technically correct but not really fair to Buttigieg. What is really sad about this is that the editor wrote it to damage Buttigieg. The Democratic rank and file are so crazy that saying no to free college for all is damn near disqualifying.

          1. It’s funny because Louisiana has been doing this years. The state pays for tutition for kids with average grades and better. It’s called the TOPS program and most people love it.

            1. – Minimum High School GPA of 2.50 (GPA computed on core courses only)
              – 19.0 Core Units
              – Minimum ACT Score (or SAT Equivalent) of the prior year state average; Currently 20
              – Must enroll full time as a first time freshman, by the first semester following the first anniversary of high school graduation
              – Be a US citizen or permanent resident
              – Meet TOPS Louisiana residency requirements

              *BESE-Approved Home Study Eligibility ? ACT/SAT Score of 2 points above standard ? Currently 22
              *Louisiana Residents graduating from an eligible out-of-state/country high school ? ACT/SAT Score of 3 points above standard ? Currently 23

              Well that’s problematic as hell.

          2. Maybe instead of free college they could work on having high schools teach useful skills for employment instead of putting as many people as possible on the college-prep track. The people who want universal “free” higher education seem to have no idea how it works in countries that have that. Free college in Germany doesn’t mean that everyone get’s to go study underwater basket weaving if they feel like it.

            1. Bingo Zeb. We spend over a trillion dollars a year on primary education in this country. Is it too much to ask that it produced people skilled enough to be productive without the expense of four more years of college?

            2. Although I’d hate for it to be like Germany within the trades. From what I have read it is a very unionized, top down approach. Maryland does something like this (very small scale) and we generally don’t like to participate. Its goes like this, to skip the Journeyman test you can enroll in a state approved program and your employer signs off on your hours of work; but your employer must guarantee a prevailing wage upon completion of the program. The prevailing wage goes against our company philosophy which is quality, hard work gets rewarded, not your “license level”.

              1. It is a tough dilema. On the one hand, I totally understand your company’s position. On the other hand, you need to get companies to be willing to pay their trainees enough to live to get the program to work. People in training are necessarily overpaid. They are training and not very productive. If they were not, they wouldn’t need training.

                1. We pay a good wage; it’s the mandate of what we WILL pay regardless of anything other then a piece of paper. It’s also really unnecessary in at least today’s (last 20-30 years) labor market because their is always people looking to poach employees, its a very competitive labor market. But I know at lot of guys who will stick with our company for maybe even a lower salary because they know they have a secure job, they like our geographical work area, or a host of other reasons. The one constant in construction is people won’t work for you for very long if your not treating them well and there is a ton of competition.

              2. Yeah, I’m not suggesting we should immitate Germany. But it is an example of a pretty successful education system with government paying for most of it. Throwing more money at existing higher education institutions would not give us a system like that.

                1. I know you weren’t its just when I hear about them I like to point out that it shouldn’t be a top down approach. It really hurts the smaller or medium sized company the most since they can’t comply with these sorts of regulations.

                  The other reason I do it is because I do want and think our country needs to get away from “higher level” ed at all costs. We have a extreme lack of supply within the trade labor market especially for younger people. And the more barriers they put up to the more depressed it gets.

            3. When I lived in Sweden in 1992, they had free college for those who were accepted; something like 8-10% of the kids were even accepted into college. The rest went to trade schools for 1-4 years, depending on the trade, and most of them had training and a decent job by the time they were 21. I don’t agree with how they did it over there, but there was no fucking way they could afford to send 50% of the kids to college on full rides.

    2. dude’s an idiot how did he become a thing?

  4. A Texas prisoner was allergic to his blanket, and it made him break out into sores. He asked for a new blanket. For 10 YEARS, officials refused. So he sued. The prison system fought it for a year instead of just giving him a new blanket. https://t.co/m8AgodbvYH
    ? Keri Blakinger (@keribla) April 4, 2019

    It was the principal of the thing.

    1. Don’t wanna get allergy sores like a thug, don’t…
      I got got nothing here.

  5. …federal mandates from the Obama administration led to food waste, less lunches sold, and more kids buying meals from vending machines.

    Let’s move… to the trash can.

  6. Reposting from last night, because it’s just too important.

    New York Times: Some Mueller investigators say their report is worse for Trump than Barr says

    We in the reality-based community always had faith in Mueller. #TrumpRussia denialists look especially stupid today.

    1. Barr ignored footnote 538: “Nevertheless, Trump’s still a poopyhead.”

      1. And footnote 607: “Trump is a notorious cheater at golf”. Really big important stuff.

        1. Cheats on his wife, golf, taxes, elections, you know, everything.

          1. A guy that was a political enemy of Obama and filed his taxes to the Obama run IRS for 8 years cheats on his taxes and the Obama IRS never went after him out of kindness I guess. Whatever get’s you through the night.

            1. Some people seem convinced that writing off losses is cheating if those losses are really big.

          2. So, just like Bill Clinton.

            1. Only worse in every measure.

    2. So what? Is it really surprising that the New York Times managed to find at least two people who feel that way?

  7. There was a saying about the old Soviet propaganda rag Pravda that said what was important in Pravda was the things it didn’t say. It is a tribute to how big of a propaganda rag the NYT has become that you have to read it the same way. Yestderday they publish a piece about how “sources” in the Mueller investigation are unhappy with Barr’s description of it. Two things are left unsaid that tell you the truth about this story. First, they don’t name the sources. This despite the fact that the Counsel’s office has closed up shop, so there is no job for them to lose and that any whistle blower on the Barr letter would be an immediate national hero to the left. Yet, somehow these “sources” don’t want to be named. Second, they don’t give any facts that explain why the Barr letter was inaccurate. Not only do these guys not want to be named, they, out of the kindness of their hearts I guess, didn’t bother to leak these explosive facts that would prove Barr a liar. Yeah, What is not said in this article tells you the truth, the Barr letter was accurate and there is nothing in the Mueller report to contradict it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2019/04…..eport.html

    1. Releasing the report would end the speculation.

      1. Yes, and I have no doubt Trump will do that eventually. The more I think about it the likelier I think it is that the “sources” for the Times article are Trump people. It is so obvious what Trump is doing. He is letting his enemies in the media build up the false hope that there is something in the Mueller report that Barr isn’t saying only to at some point release the report sawing off the limb his enemies have put themselves out on. These people are so stupid and have such poor impulse control, they just can’t help themselves.

        1. ^This is most likely the case. The more you hate, the more easy you are to manipulate.

          1. Yeah. If they were smart they would play down the report and just say they want it released to alieviate any doubt in the public’s mind. Do that and the momentum to release the report builds on its own. Then if the report turns out to be a dud, you haven’t put any of your credibility in it being something important. If it is important, no one is going to care or remember that you played it down. If anything downplaying it will make your outrage after it is released even more credible.

            This shit isn’t hard. But they appearently lack the impulse control to do it.

            1. The play is akin to what savy defenders do in basketball.

              If the defender knows that his opponent likes to use his body to create contact in an effort to both push back the defender and maybe get an and 1, the defender backs up and leaves some space thereby causing the offensive player to travel.

              Charles Barkley was superb at doing this.

              1. Especially when guys were just backing into him down low. But I always figured he was just homophobic.

              2. Yes Mike. That is why Kevin McHale ate Barkley’s lunch. McHale had all of those funky post moves and a beautiful turn around jump shot. So, backing off didn’t help Barkley. To this day Barkley says McHale was the best post scorer he ever played against. He once said when asked about how Christian Lattner compared to McHale “the only thing Laitner and McHale have in common are that they both pee standing up.”

                1. All true about what Barkley had to say about McHale and the latter’s funky moves.

                  But, Barkley was damn good at fooling offensive players who liked to back down defenders. To be sure, he learned a lot from having to play against McHale. Barkley’s rookie year was 84-85 and McHale’s best years may have been Barkley’s first three seasons. Remember, McHale was never the same after he suffered those foot injuries late in the 86-87 season. If he had been healthy, the Celtics would have won in 87, IMO.

                  1. The Celtics would have totally won in 87 had he been healthy. They should have shut him down. He severely limited his career playing through that injury. In today’s NBA they would have.

                    Had Len Bias not been a coke head, McHale not gotten hurt, and Bill Walton gotten one more year out of his feet, that 87 team would have been something else. For winning as many titles as they have, the Celtics have lost so many titles due to injury. In 73 they won 68 games and would have rolled the Knicks had Hondo not gotten hurt. In 82 they were on pace to repeat and Tiny Archiball hurt his shoulder. In 85, Cedric Maxwell got hurt. Then there is 09 when Garnett got hurt and 10 when Perkins got hurt in game 6 forcing them to play Rasheed Wallace’s corpse for 40 minutes in game 7. That is six championships they have left on the table thanks to key injuries at the wrong time.

                    1. Sunday, April 29, 1973 was a crusher for me. It was the first time the Celtics lost a home game 7. In that series vs. the Knicks, the Celtics had managed to tie it at 3-3 after having fallen behind 3-1. I was positive that they would win game 7 at home. Nope, lots of tears for me that afternoon.

                      Similar with 82 – down 3-1, they managed to tie up the series at 3-3. In that game 7, the chant “Beat LA” was born in the 4th quarter after the outcome was no longer in doubt.

            2. I think big tent politics is to blame for this. If one person on your team lacks the self control to do as you described then others ideologically near that person feel the pressure to back them up. It snowballs from there. And once something catches on in the media it becomes an arms race to see who can be more extravagant in their calls for “justice” and “truth”.

      2. No it won’t, cuz people like you will claim there’s a boogeyman hiding behind every redaction. In a months time you’ll be pandering for the unredacted version and the names of everyone in any grand jury.

        1. I trust that there wasn’t enough evidence to indict Manafort for conspiracy and he was literally working for a Russian oligarch during the campaign. I just want to see the evidence so I can document the ways and depths of Trump’s deception.

          1. Manfort was campaign chairman for like two months and was fired. You might want to stop lying by omission and quit implying that Manfort was some important figure in the Trump campaign rather than a short lived visitor.

            1. John, we might not differ on this point, but as long as one makes his loan payments, what difference does it make if one overstated his assets in the loan application?

              Thus, if Manafort paid off his loans, no harm, no foul.

              1. I agree with you Mike. But the feds take a harder line approach. Even if you think it is a crime, if the loan is paid back, it is a crime that deserves little punishment.

                1. I don’t know if there is no harm no foul at all, but that seems more an issue of contract law with the company issuing the loan more than the Government. My guess is they wouldn’t care that much about the fraud if they get their payment though.

          2. “I just want to see the evidence so I can document the ways and depths of Trump’s deception.”

            “I need to see this so I can fit it into my pre-drawn conclusion”. LOL. I mean, at least you’re honest about it.

  8. Twitter’s refusal to take money from the state to promote the message baffled many in France. One MP, Na?ma Moutchou, tweeted: “I thought it was an April Fools!”

    Look in le mirror.

    1. They can just ask again, only the next time less politely. Twitter reminds me of the band leader who Don Corleone forced to give up his management rights to Johnny Fontaine.

  9. Some state attorneys general don’t like that. They’re now suing in federal court to make the Obama-era lunch standards permanent.

    Bullshit!! Bring back the little smokies and rectangular pizza!

    1. You really can’t overstate how big of an assault on the rule of law this and the DACA suits are. The Democrats are saying that a Democratic President can unilaterally make law without the consent of Congress but a succeeding Republican President cannot undo said law. It is absolutely outragous.

      1. They represent the 99% whether they like it or not, and therefore are legally and morally entitled to power. I’ll leave the difference between “we represent the 99%” and “we are the vanguard of the proletariat” as an exercise for the reader.

        1. Pretty much. We have whatever rights our robed overlords think is good for us.

          1. Wait until they pack the SC and abolish/recreate the Federal judiciary to make it 100% prog.

    2. Are we just waiting for some Federal judge in Hawaii to rule that Obama is president for life?

      1. This is pretty close. A judge in Alaska ruled that since Obama intended his ban on off-shore drilling to be perminant, only Congress can undo the ban. If that isn’t making Obama President for life, it certainly is in the spirit of doing so.

        http://www.governing.com/topic…..ation.html

        1. “As the most recent legitimate President, this court invites Mr Obama to submit a brief outlining what he wants us to do”.

          1. “Accompanied by a form of order, which is hereby SO ENTERED.”

        2. The problem with these judges are the same as the red flag laws–when you cater specifically to the sensibilities of left-wing urbanites and openly declare that you will run roughshod over those who don’t share your sensibilities or else, people who aren’t in that demographic might just decide that you don’t represent them and will ignore what you’re trying to enforce.

          That’s a big reason why McConnell pushing through Trump’s judicial picks is such a big deal. The judiciary is, for the moment, the de facto ruler of the country, due to nothing more than the public perception that their interpretation of the law is final.

          Eventually, that’s going to end, and the authority of judges will be entirely dependent on whether the local jurisdiction agrees with their ruling or not. They’re taking that step on their own with their judicial special pleading and it’s not going to end like they think it will.

          1. Eventually, that’s going to end, and the authority of judges will be entirely dependent on whether the local jurisdiction agrees with their ruling or not. They’re taking that step on their own with their judicial special pleading and it’s not going to end like they think it will.

            You are exactly right. Every time a judge pulls one of these stunts the public loses more faith in the courts. At some point, a judge is going to go too far and if we are lucky it will only result in them being removed from the bench and not in the public taking matters into their own hands.

    3. Bitter clingers.

  10. Fewer lunches sold! Fewer lunches sold! Fewer lunches sold! Goddamn it!

  11. Hey baby, my masculinity is so powerful it changes the very climate of the planet:

    Forbes: What if Toxic Masculinity Is The Reason For Climate Change?
    Brough co-authored a paper with professors from four other universities to understand how gender norms affect sustainable decision making.

    1. Toxic masculinity = more lethal farts. It’s a known fact.

    2. http://youtu.be/249CBLDH-_Y

      Jordan Peterson on why SJWs tend to be women. Not sure I totally buy it but it is an interesting theory.

      1. I want to watch that.

        IIRC, there was a clear correlation between marital status and how women voted in 2016. Single women tended to vote for Hillary, while married women tended to vote for Trump. Socialism/statism attracts people who are more risk-averse.

        1. It absolutely does. You only value freedom if you think the opportunity it provides are not outweighed by the risk and responsibility that come with it. Libertarians all too often fail to understand that and appreciate how a person could rationally reject freedom. Libertarians are nearly always, healthy, employed and from stable backgrounds. A person in that position is going to be more likely to value freedom because they can absorb the risk and take advantage of the opportunity. If, however, you are say a single mother who doens’t have a husband or stable family to fall back on, the risk associated with economic opportunity is a lot bigger problem. This is why so many single women and single mothers especially vote Democrat. They don’t have the social net to fall back on if things go wrong and vote for the government to provide them one.

          The old school leftists didn’t set out to destroy the nuclear family for fun. They wanted to do it because they knew it would cause people to turn to the government for security and make it easier for them to take power.

          1. Libertarians all too often fail to understand that and appreciate how a person could rationally reject freedom.

            This is probably fair. Too many people think that pure reason leads you to libertarianism. But libertarian principles rest on assumptions just like any other value system. The anti-authoritarian impulse that underlies a lot of libertarians’ orientations to the world is just as irrational (and just as rational) as the impulse to want to be safe and protected that underlies more collectivist politics.

            1. Why is an anti-authoritarian impulse irrational and how in Zoroaster’s name can it be just as irrational as the impulse to demand that you be protected at the cost of doing violence to others?

              1. It’s not founded on indisputable first principles is pretty much what I’m saying.

                Pure reason doesn’t tell you that unprovoked violence is bad and self-responsibility is good.

                1. Pure reason doesn’t tell you that unprovoked violence is bad and self-responsibility is good

                  No it doesn’t. It can tell you that if you start with the right assumptions but it doesn’t have to. And even then, the devil is always in the details. Under the right circumstances, even unprovoked violene or irresponsibility can be “good”. You just have to dream up extreme enough circumstances.

                  If you could just reason ethics there would be no such thing as a ethical dilema and debate over ethics would have ended long ago.

            2. Liberatarians have a bad habit of assuming everyone is just like them. An example to illustrate this is imagine you were given a choice between living in one of two situations in the past. The first situation would be the Victorian West. That would be as close to complete freedom as you could get in the last couple of hundred years. The other situation would be being one of the few prisoner in the old Spandow prison.

              Which would you choose? Obviously the Victorian west is the most appealing. But, what if you were a quardrapolegic? Then all of the opportunities offered by the Victorian west would seem pretty meaningless and the risks of starving to death or being killed by Indians or wild animals a very big deal. Meanwhile, the security of Spandow prison and knowing that you are safe and will be taken care of sounds pretty appealing. I think this is how people think about freedom whether they realize it or not. Create enough risk or danger and pretty much anyone will give up freedom for security.

          2. The old school leftists didn’t set out to destroy the nuclear family for fun. They wanted to do it because they knew it would cause people to turn to the government for security and make it easier for them to take power.

            Yup. They’ve been undermining organized religion for the same reason.

            1. All for daddy gov

      2. Is there actual research that shows that SJWs are high in agreeableness and emotionality, or is he pulling that out of his ass? Because getting in someone’s face and yelling at them for being a privileged oppressor is not high agreeableness.

        1. I don’t get that either. Emotionality, sure but agreeableness makes no sense.

          1. Or, rejecting the affectionate, warm embraces of a septuagenarian doesn’t sound too agreeable either.

        2. I believe Peterson does refer to actual research on these things.

          I suspect that for every screaming SJW dickhead, there are several shy, retiring ones trying desperately not to have their preconceptions about the world challenged. The loudest voices in a group are not necessarily representative of the group.
          Also, SJWs tend to exist in their own little world where they all pretty much agree with each other.

          1. Another guy who analyzes and writes on this and related topics is the Audacious Epigone at Unz. His analysis concurs with JP’s take.

          2. How can you be a shy, retiring warrior?

        3. The agreeableness is towards the perceived collective, not all positions. That’s why they’re called warriors. They battle anyone who thinks outside the gated narrative.

      3. This video is a good example of why Jordan Peterson annoys me so much. He doesn’t understand the difference between 50 Shades of Grey and the #MeToo movement. Here is a hint, dude: one is consensual.

        1. Chipper doesn’t understand how control works. Telling

          1. You are making no sense, brother.

        2. It is also patently obvious he never read any of the books. One of the conflicts is that Jaime, at first, demands almost total sexual submission. But she can’t give it. So by the end, they have reached a sort of equilibrium whereby he is still officially the “dom”, but she likes to “top from the bottom”. So it turns out that it isn’t that she gives complete control over to him. They actually share control, but from different roles.

        3. Jordan Peterson annoys you, chipper morning eunuch, so much because you’re a reflexively progressive eunuch

      4. Huh, not sure I agree with that, but I’ll have to watch that.

    3. Sustainable decision making is about cooperation rather than competition and socialism, I gather?

      I don’t know why it is that feminists, from Charlotte Perkins Gilman to Valerie Solanas and the feminists of today, feel such an affinity for socialism, but I suspect it may be an artifact of a paternalistic culture.

      There’s something deeply anti-feminist about the socialist implication that women need to parasite off of the hard work of men in order to flourish. There isn’t anything empowering about leeching off of the taxpayer.

      There has been a theory for a long time in anthropology that maternal societies are less likely to go to war. Meanwhile, the great women leaders I’ve known have been just as competitive as anybody.

      1. It is because they are not “feminists” they are socialists who use feminism as a tool for advancing their ideology.

        1. I think the ones I mentioned were legitimate feminists. No doubt, there are plenty today who use feminism like environmentalism as a wolf in sheep’s clothing for socialism.

          For the legit feminists, it may be that since they’re already predisposed to thinking in terms of group identity in one way, it makes them susceptible to thinking in collectivist terms in other areas.

          Individualism, on the other hand, lends itself to capitalism. And as an individualist, I don’t think in terms of whether women are well off generally so much as I think about whether an individual woman is free to make choices for herself–despite being a woman.

          I can hardly adopt a collectivist mindset. Once you do, I guess it becomes easy to see everything that way.

          1. Here is how you tell actual feminists from socialist drones. Actual feminists are appalled by transgenderism and socialist drones buy into it because that is what the party expects of them.

  12. Beautiful: A government social-media campaign in France got blocked by Twitter for violating the country’s own law against “fake news.”

    Ce n’est pas ce que nous voulions dire!

  13. “Massachusetts US Senator turned Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren wants to make sure that CEOs who preside over massive data breaches in the future don’t get off so easily. On Wednesday, she announced the Corporate Executive Accountability Act, which would impose jail time on corporate executives who “negligently permit or fail to prevent” a “violation of the law” that “affects the health, safety, finances or personal data” of 1 percent of the population of any state.”

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po…..-breaches/

    That’s what she’s proposing. If your company gets hacked, then the CEO should go to jail–as if being criminally responsible for your IT team not being up to snuff against Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, or Russian state sponsored hackers were somehow reasonable?

    1. Elizabeth Warren’s proposal has nothing to do with anything but her failing bid for president.

      The latest poll from Quinnipiac shows this among Democrat voters for the top contenders:

      Biden: 29%
      Sanders: 19%
      O’Rourke: 12%
      Harris: 8%
      Warren: 4%
      Booker: 2%

      Warren is getting her ass kicked. Those numbers are especially bad when you realize that Warren has better name recognition than Harris or O’Rourke. That means people already know about her–and they do not want.

      If Warren is smart, she just declared war on Silicon Valley donors (who would be most affected by this) because they’ve already broken for Harris, O’Rourke, or Sanders in the early donations. If she’s stupid, then she’s just biting the hand that feeds her.

      I suspect Warren is well known for having abused the racial preference system for Native Americans, and that doesn’t sit well with Democrats. That’s why she’s making all these ridiculous Trump style statements in public. She’s desperate for attention.

      Let’s do what we should have done with Trump and stop giving her empty and incendiary comments much attention. She’s flailing. Her proposals shouldn’t be taken seriously. She’s aping Trump’s campaign of 2016. She’s a clown, and we shouldn’t take the shenanigans of clowns seriously.

      1. Harris performing so poorly is a surprise. She is basically the Obama foundation candidate. It looks to me like it is going to pretty quickly coalese into a three way race betweet O”Rourke, Sanders, and Biden. O’Rourke is going to get the suburban moms and gentry left. Sanders will get the brain dead millenials, and Biden will get the establishment who want a job in the next administration.

        I wouldn’t underestimate O’Rourke but his speeches really do lose something when they are translated form his native Spanish. So that could be a real handicap.

        1. Beto will get a bunch of those young voters that want their “first time to be special”. Remember those Obama commercials?

          For all the toxic masculinity they crow about, they have no trouble voting for the rich, good-looking white guy.

          1. “first time to be special”.

            What ever happened to that chick?

            I guess nobody cares about her bullshit anymore.

          2. good-looking

            Really? He looks like a chipmunk.

        2. Harris is doing extremely well given her poor name recognition numbers at this point. People still don’t know who she is, and that’s an expensive burden to overcome. Also, Harris’ advantage is that she’s likely to win California on Super Tuesday, and she has all those Silicon Valley and Hollywood donors behind her. It doesn’t matter if 20% of the people nationwide support you so much as it’s important that a plurality of voters in California will vote for you.

          Harris will probably win in California.

          Warren and Sanders might split the northeast, with Warren taking Massachusetts, and Sanders maybe taking the rest.

          The key will be Texas, and I’m not sure who wins there. I believe there are still conservative Democrats in Texas, and Harris being a prosecutor and not as openly socialist as the others may give her an advantage there. Texas will be key. O’Rourke speaking Spanish may help him a lot.

          P.S. I was calling out people for carrying water for the Socialists yesterday for going after Biden over his alleged hair sniffing. We better hope Biden kicks all their asses. He’s the least awful one of the bunch, and if Trump loses, for some reason, the last thing we want is a self-described socialist to win. Who gives a shit if Biden likes to sniff women’s hair–so long as he isn’t a heart-felt socialist?

          1. The attacks on Biden, in my opinion, are coming from the extreme left (he’s not left enough), but are being amplified by the right because they see him as the most viable candidate to beat Trump.

            But you are actually right. A choice between Biden and Trump would certainly be less harmful to the nation overall than a chance that Warren or Sanders gets elected. We shouldn’t be increasing the odds by continuing a narrative that someone more reasonable like Biden should be disqualified for sniffing hair.

            1. I think the attacks are totally coming from the hard left. Biden is the only Democratic candidate who hasn’t gone hard left.

            2. It is absolutely astounding that you think that any US government prior to the year 2000 no matter what party was in charge would bat an eye at closing the border during a migrant crisis. You really must selectively read history.

          2. If he’s still viable when Super Tuesday rolls around, Beto will win Texas by a large margin.

            There’s the general advantage because of name recognition and “native son” factors. There’s the aftereffects of his visit-every-county 2018 campaign on rural Democrats, a sort of retail stunt nobody else can even try to duplicate. There’s the conservative-moderate Democrats liking the fact that he’s been reluctant to accept the “progressive” label. And history and Spanish-speaking help him with the Hispanic vote, particularly in the RGV.

            That mostly leaves the committed white progressives of the cities of the Texas Triangle, and they’ll likely split between several candidates.

            The interesting thing then becomes if he wins the nomination. Remember the trouble Trump had in his vote margin in Texas running against Hillary Clinton. It’s not actually unimaginable to have Trump narrowly win the national popular vote over O’Rourke, and lose in the Electoral College because Texas goes narrowly for Beto.

        3. It’s usually the best looking and most charismatic candidate that wins. So Beto has a good chance.

          1. I read someonwhere that “only a vapid moron would vote for Beto and that means he is a very serious threat to win the nomination.” That is about right.

        4. >>Harris performing so poorly is a surprise.

          nobody fucking cares about Kamala Harris on national scale. nobody.

        5. I wouldn’t underestimate O’Rourke but his speeches really do lose something when they are translated form his native Spanish.

          O’Rourke can’t be underestimated because he is going to get pimped *hard* by the media and Hollywood. He built up a huge war chest thanks to the free publicity they gave him when they thought he would be a white Obama and beat Cruz, and he’s just the kind of bubble-brained avatar that liberal soccer moms love. Hell, that’s why Hollywood celebutards love the guy so much; he’s the same kind of all flash and no substance idiot they are.

          Buttigieg’s a typical white prog, but unlike O’Rourke he actually has a coherent political vision and policy proposals, unlike the Mick Who LARPs as a Spic, who would clearly sell out his own mother if he thought it would get him extra votes. But unless the media fall in love with Buttigieg’s husband, he’s not overcoming that deficit.

      2. Wow, O’Rourke comes in 3rd? How far the mighty have fallen.

      3. Oh, and the fact that Biden is the #1 candidates the Democrats can put forward tells you everything you need to know about how lost the Democrats are.

      4. The old white guys have the machine.

        But Harris checks the identity boxes. She could drive turnout to give Trump trouble.

        Bobby Newport has no chance.

        Warren is a worse autocratic socialistic screecher than Hillary. Doomed.

  14. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12060

    Gentleman, there is no fighting in the War Room!!

    1. “[I]t relies on a cramped caricature of ‘free speech’ — people yelling at each other and then walking away.”

      I guess he’s trying something new.

      1. Speakers [at Union] must take unscreened, sincere questions from the audience, and they are expected to respond respectfully,” he said. “Speakers must have evidence and reasoned arguments to support their views, given that both form the foundation upon which knowledge and wisdom rest.

        Or in other words; anyone who speaks on campus has to be saying something the President deems acceptable.

      2. He’s confusing free speech with marriage.

        1. This comment wins the internet for today and possibly the entire year. Well played Mr. McKigney. Well played.

        2. Free speech isn’t the only Constitutional right you give up when cohabitating with females either.

          The right not to be forced to testify against yourself? Forget it.

          The right to be free from unreasonable searches? Don’t make me laugh.

          The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments? You must be joking.

          Freedom of assembly? Why is it that whenever the last poker buddy gets a girl, poker night is permanently cancelled? One guy tried to keep having it. We each brought a twelve pack. His girlfriend made hors d’oeuvres and creme brulee for dessert. No one smoked a cigar. No one claimed to have screwed anybody’s mother. There wasn’t even any foul language.

          It was torture.

          1. they dated the wrong women is all.

            lots of women out there who are fine with a rowdy poker night. Just have to find them

            1. I know one of those. An actual unicorn.

              Stay at home mom.. does all the housework. Picks out husband’s clothes. Volunteers at the church. Does 100% of the childcare. (not 90%, not 95%…. all of it. ) And with three kids, the big unicorn – he tells us that he’s unhappy, so we ask what’s wrong… one guy asks about their sex life…. she is good to go whenever asked, they have sex daily. Not several times a week. Daily. Sometimes more, but he insists on daily. And she is OK with that.

              So he moves out and abandons the family. His reason? He didn’t like the way she folded the laundry and he didn’t like that one night a week she took the kids to church and if he came home late from work she would have his dinner waiting in the oven instead of being there to serve him.

              No, this is not an apocryphal story. This really happened. We all deemed him the biggest idiot in history. And kind of an ass, because he doesn’t even see his kids on the couple days a month that he insisted on in the divorce settlement.

              1. Fuck, men have it made if you can get this from your wife:
                1) Clean house
                2) Gourmet cook
                3) Great sex

                Pick two.

                And he had the fucking trifecta. He should have his balls cut off and fed to him.

            2. i live with one.

            3. My poker group is full of guys with wives like that.
              Hell, they even look the other way on the occasional strip club trips after… not that those are acknowledged

          2. Why is it that whenever the last poker buddy gets a girl, poker night is permanently cancelled? One guy tried to keep having it. We each brought a twelve pack. His girlfriend made hors d’oeuvres and creme brulee for dessert. No one smoked a cigar. No one claimed to have screwed anybody’s mother. There wasn’t even any foul language.

            Every other week I play in a booze fueled D&D session with two married couples and some other friends. A great time is had by all every time.

        3. yeah that’s funny

    2. “Speakers must have evidence and reasoned arguments to support their views, given that both form the foundation upon which knowledge and wisdom rest.”

      Evidence and reasoned arguments?!

      Isn’t it homophobic, misogynistic, racist, and xenophobic to dismiss the lived experience of minorities and women?

      1. “lived experience” being loosely translated from the NPC as “anything I want to say I feel about anything”.

    3. The Pres of Union lays forth a beautiful vision of how to conduct public debate at a private college – I’d like to see how this plays out in practice, however, because we all know how the beautiful words of an administrator can be translated into crap behavior on the ground.

    4. What the unholy fuck? This guy wouldn’t be qualified to be a shift manager at a fast food joint.

  15. “The eternal whackjobs at the PETA-esque Center for Science in the Public Interest ”

    No holding back; I like it.

  16. Typoglycemia is the word for the idea that letter order isn’t especially important–so long as the first and last letter are in the right order.

    Example:

    “Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typoglycemia

    I suspect that’s why I tend to read “Pete Buttigieg” as if it were “Palin’s Buttplug”.

    1. First anagram on the Internet Anagram Server – Beige Peg Tutti (Beige Peg Everything). The optical illusion is about as close as you’ll get without even trying.

    2. Yes! I knew there was something familiar about this. Now there is no hope that I will ever think of anything else when I see his name.

    3. Also, it really is amazing how easy it is to read that paragraph you quoted.

    4. 90% of our comprehension comes from context. This research makes sense.

    5. Nice one, Ken. I was really wondering where you were going with this until I got to the punchline.

  17. So the Federal government gives the state government some slack, and the state governments retaliate with a lawsuit? Wat da fuck?

    I really dont’ think these states want an actual scientific study on the merits of Michelle Obama’s nutrition regulations. It might turn out that they were more woo based than science based.

    1. Aren’t the states still able to serve whatever they want to…within the new rules or far exceeding their nutritional requirements? I mean, there’s NOTHING in the less-strict rules to prevent them from still following the Obama-era rules, what the fuck are they suing about?

      1. This will be a test for the courts. We shall see if they are actually driven by the law or by political agendas.

        If they start arguing about which lunch program is better, you will know it is the latter, because that is a policy decision, not a “follow the law” decision.

      2. > what the fuck are they suing about?

        They just don’t like Trump. I don’t blame them, I don’t like him either, but it’s not a valid basis for a lawsuit. They’re just signalling.

        “Look at me! I didn’t vote for Trump! I’m progressive! Praise me!” — California

  18. How did we even get to the point where the Federal government mandates the contents of a school lunch? My god things are so bad I fear there’s no going back to a sane place.

    1. If back in the 1960s when the school lunch program started, you told the people who created it that it would some day lead to people in Washington telling schools what they could and could not serve for lunch, you would have been written off as a paranoid and a crank. Yet, that is exactly what happened. When it comes to a bureaucracy, the worst case scenario always occurs, it just sometimes takes it a while.

      1. Who would have thought that when we wrote immigration law that someday someone would be using it as an excuse to threaten cutting off all trade with a friendly country… (as an example).

        1. Since embargos have been a part of national policy since there was such a thing as a nation state, pretty much everyone.

          Thanks for the own goal.

          1. You missed this part, “threaten cutting off all trade with a friendly country

            You wouldn’t be equating Mexico with, say, Cuba, Iran, or Venezuela would you? You know, the types of countries we impose embargoes on today. If so, then I don’t see what chance Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 has of ever passing.

            1. You wouldn’t be equating Mexico with, say, Cuba, Iran, or Venezuela would you?

              If they refuse to control their borders and allow a mass migration into the US, that is a hostile act. No government in the world would allow that to happen. And if you think that the people who passed the INA never contemplated shutting down the border, you have no understanding of history and just pretend everyone in history is just like you.

              1. If they refuse to control their borders and allow a mass migration into the US, that is a hostile act.

                See… words have meanings. Both definitions include the use of force. Allowing people to walk across a line is hardly a use of force.

                1. Failure to control your own borders and allowing people to violate the laws of other countries is a hostile act. Yes, words do have meanings and sometimes they have technical meanings that go beyond the ordinary meanings that someone who doesn’t know the subject knows. This is one of those times.

          2. We’ve just never done it with a major trading partner before.

        2. It is absolutely astounding that you think that any US government prior to the year 2000 no matter what party was in charge would bat an eye at closing the border during a migrant crisis. You really must selectively read history.

          1. You missed the link to when we’ve closed our southern border in our history.

            1. I assumed you knew anything. My mistake.

              http://www.dailysignal.com/201…..rn-border/

              On three past occasions, presidents temporarily closed the southern border, something President Donald Trump threatened Monday to do permanently.

              Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan both closed the border over drug-related issues that halted entry from Mexico into the United States.

              President Lyndon B. Johnson, shortly after taking office amid crisis, closed the border after the assassination of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy.

              While Johnson’s example was unique, all three cases dealt with a president’s authority to act on the border during an emergency. The Trump administration has determined that the series of “caravans” of thousands of Central American migrants headed to the border is an emergency.

              With Nixon in 1969 and Reagan in 1985?as is the case today?the United States was trying to pressure the Mexican government’s law enforcement into stepping up its efforts.

              1. I actually wasn’t aware that Nixon closed the border.

                For two weeks, border regions from Texas to California reportedly lost tens of millions of dollars from their local economies and Nixon faced political pressure to end the operation.

                Yay drug war! Good thing it stopped drugs coming across the border when it happened in 1969, otherwise we might have a national emergency situation today.

                The stated goal of the mission, which effectively shut down all U.S. ports of entry along the border with Mexico, was to try to find Camarena or obtain information and those with information about what happened to him… The DEA agent’s body was found in March 1985, showing signs that he had been gruesomely murdered.

                I was aware of the Reagan thing, and am glad you linked us to yet another success in American border diplomacy. Thanks for playing along.

                1. Leo Kovalensky II|4.4.19 @ 11:52AM|#

                  You missed the link to when we’ve closed our southern border in our history.

                  What is that other than you saying it has never happened and thus wasn’t contemplated by the people who passed the INA? It has happened and can be done. And it sure as hell has always been a power of the government and never something any sane person ever questioned.

                  You lost the arguement. You put down a lazy snide remark and got your ass kicked for it. Just deal with it and move on.

              2. President Lyndon B. Johnson, shortly after taking office amid crisis, closed the border after the assassination of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy.

                And Juan Wilkes Booth is still at large today.

                1. Sorry… Luis Harvey Oswald just didn’t have a good ring to it.

            2. You guys really do think history began in 2001 I guess. How could you walk into that? You really didn’t think we had ever closed the border? Really?

      2. ‘This affirmative action plan will NEVER lead to quotas!’

      3. Not “would have been”. Was.

        Prior to the 1990’s, that was one of the primary objections to almost every federal program.

        No federal control over local things was a really, really big deal. Anything that had people on a national level list was viewed with great suspicion and often derided as being some sort of national ID card.

        Federal funding for local school programs of all sorts absolutely was objected to as a camel’s nose under the tent of a federal takeover of local control over the schools. It absolutely was ridiculed by proponents as impossible.

        And like in all situations with government, the “that’s the slippery slope falicy” counter argument was completely wrong. The slippery slope is always a problem with government. The ratchet of government power only moves in one direction, tighter. (as is evidenced by the fact that states are actually suing to make the government take more control.. they just don’t know how to handle it if it tries to move the other way.)

  19. “The lawsuit was filed by attorneys general in California, D.C., Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont.”

    Add Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Hawaii, and you have a list of “the usual suspects”! (Rhode Island is too small to matter.)

    1. Between electing Keith Ellison as AG and giving the Congress Omar as a rep, Minnesota is doing its best to be Minnesota.

    2. Hey! I live in Maryland. What are we, chopped liver?

      1. good crabcakes.

  20. So these states sued to cause school lunch requirements to be brought to bear against them.
    However, nothing is stopping those states from imposing those requirements on their own school districts.

    Thus, in very typical progressive thinking, it’s not about changing your own behavior, it’s about forcing everyone else to bow to your preferences.

    1. It’s a political stunt.

    2. its just more tedious TDS. you are correct states can always do more than the fed’s mandate unless the constitution states otherwise such as the 2A

  21. “The lawsuit was filed by attorneys general in California,…”

    That tells you it has everything to do with Trump and nothing to do with anything else at all.

  22. The problem with Obama’s school lunch initiative is that it is designed from the point of view of a bunch of middle-aged folks who are struggling with their weight. “Woe is me! We must do something about childhood obesity!!”

    Sure, there are a lot more chunky kids than their used to be.

    But that still is not most kids. Most kids are pretty skinny and need all the nutrition they can get. My eldest can’t put on weight to save his life, and they want to feed him a diet designed for a fat 57 year old with high blood pressure.

    They don’t need their sodium reduced, they don’t need lowfat milk, and they don’t need to eat their sandwiches on mealy tasting whole wheat buns.

    Nobody eats this stuff. Just go to a school cafeteria and look. The kids don’t eat it. They take it to their table, sit there for a while and then dump it in the trash.

    1. Nobody eats this stuff. Just go to a school cafeteria and look. The kids don’t eat it. They take it to their table, sit there for a while and then dump it in the trash.

      And end up eating things like chips and candy bars instead. I bet these standards have caused kids to gain weight.

    2. Sad!

      But true. I’m always amazed by the lack of empathy shown by people who wish to impose their will on others. They simply are not able to put themselves in the shoes of another and see their perspective.

    3. When i was a kid i was always hungry. there was plenty of food but i would still eat the school food if thats all that was available because like most kids we consumed energy. Kids need food with fat thats why they are so fat today because we try to give them low fat foods so the body tries to store what it can to maintain itself, this is why diet sodas and low fat mild are a joke.

    4. At that age, the only way the government could deal with obesity is by building more structured and unstructured physical activity time into the schedule from a young age and actually treating PE as a serious subject instead of an ‘A for effort’ one. Food choices available at a single meal aren’t going to do anything when the primary cause of obesity in kids is too much access to cheap high calorie/high carb/non-satiating foods and a culture where we’d rather have them inside playing games than kick them out to roam the streets until dinnertime.

  23. >>>Behold, the rare Democratic presidential candidate capable of resisting a trendy talking point:

    yeah for a stupid reason. he’s still stupid don’t be all lovey

  24. “States Sue Over School Lunch Changes, Say They’re Not Scientific Like the Obama Rules Based on Retracted Nutrition Studies”

    If these school lunches are so good, then let the state legislators eat them.

    1. Hell, make school faculty eat them and the teachers’ unions will have this sorted out by Labor Day.

  25. I always thought the Obama school lunch rules came from Michelle and her idea that the number one problem with the children of the proletariat was that they were too fat.

    1. Well Michelle is the nations mother and mother always knows whats best.

  26. Time to eradicate the left. They call us fascist? No, we aren’t; we’re responsible God-fearing citizens of this great democratic experiment called the United States of America (that they’re hellbent on destroying—-believe it). If they want us to be fascist, I’m sure we can summon up some of that for ’em……stay locked & loaded, people….the war is nigh……….

    1. Poe’s law?

  27. How’s about getting FedGov OUT of anything to do with what kids eat/don’t eat at school for lunch?

    Since when did FedGov become Mommie?

    Good grief…. what a stupid waste of taxpayer money already.

  28. ?Google pay 95$ consistently my last pay check was $8200 working 10 hours out of every week on the web. My more young kin buddy has been averaging 15k all through ongoing months and he works around 24 hours consistently. I can’t confide in how straightforward it was once I endeavored it out.This is my primary concern…GOOD LUCK .

    click here =====?? http://www.Geosalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.