From the NYT:
Buried deep in the health care legislation that President Obama signed on Tuesday is a new requirement that will affect any American who walks into a McDonald’s, Starbucks or Burger King. Every big restaurant chain in the nation will now be required to put calorie information on their menus and drive-through signs.
In other words, as soon as 2011 it will be impossible to chomp down on a Big Mac without knowing that it contains over 500 calories, more than a quarter of the Agriculture Department’s 2,000-calorie daily guideline.
The legislation also requires labels on food items in vending machines, meaning that anybody tempted by a king-size Snickers bar will know up front that it packs 440 calories.
The measure is intended to create a national policy modeled on a requirement that has already taken effect in New York City and was to go into effect in 2011 in places like California and Oregon. The new federal law requires restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets to disclose calorie counts on their food items and supply information on how many calories a healthy person should eat in a day.
“I think it is an historic development,” said Kelly D. Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. Consumers spend more than half their food dollars outside of the home, he said, “and when people eat away from home they eat more and they eat worse. And part of the reason may be because they don’t know what’s in fast foods, and they’re often shocked to find out.”
Does anyone actually believe this — that is, the part about Americans looking at a greasy burger on a buttered bun slathered with mayo and being “shocked” that eating it isn’t the equivalent of eating a plate of endive and sprouts?
The typical nannystatist response to complaints about this type of legislation is that all they are doing is helping to “better inform consumers.” But that’s not all that is happening here. Informing consumers, should consumers wish to be so informed, could happen as a function of market pressures: if posting calorie counts brings in conscientious eaters, and all eaters were conscientious about how many calories are in their meals, then most restaurants would cater to that desire.
Beyond that, the legislation is — given that it is progressive-driven — predictably classist and elitist: the onus here is being put on “chain” restaurants of the type frequented by suburban sprawlers and Wal-Mart shoppers, while your local single location restaurants continue to brown their snails in garlic butter, or use heavy cream in their sauces without any gauche bourgeois “reminders” about calories polluting the elegance of their menus.
No, this legislation is meant to protect the rabble from themselves, especially now that Uncle Sam is stepping in to foot the bill for health care (paid for with your money, and with legislators themselves exempt from the specific programs we’ll be using). And it is but the camel’s nose under the tent: soon, the government will be able to tie each and every new instance of legislative intrusion into our lives to some “health care” necessity or other.
Because just as judicial expansions of the Commerce Clause gave the government the legal “right” to monitor your garden, the government takeover of “health care” will bring with it a host of new legislation that will be devised and implemented with “health concerns” — and specifically, the government’s “responsibility” to protect against bad choices, as the guarantor of health care dollars — as its justification.
This isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a goddamned ice rink turned completely on its side.
While Mr. Brownell acknowledged that some consumers will ignore the nutritional information, he said labeling would affect the decisions of enough people to create a public health benefit.
“The broader issue is that this firmly establishes the government’s role in improving the nation’s nutrition,” he said.
[…]
Passage of the measure provoked aggravation among some free-enterprise groups, who saw it as another unnecessary government intrusion into private decision-making. Critics of the new law also contend that there is little evidence to show that menu labeling leads people to eat better.
“Frankly, it seems to me that whether I’m buying an apple or a Big Mac from McDonald’s, if they want to sell it to me without any information, I have a perfect right to buy it,” said Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group. “This simply is not a federal issue.”
It is now, brother.
Welcome to the New Freedom: as long as you do as the government says, the government will have no reason to step in and tell you what to do.
Let me an a “We’re all fucked” to the discussion mix. It’s de rigueur in these post Obamacare days.
We the Government, in order to chase a utopian order, establish socially determined definitions of justice, promote elitist tranquility, provide for the defense of the state, promote classist welfare, and improve the nutrition of the nation, do hereby ignore and disestablish the Constitution of the United States of America.
“add” not “an”
No wonder I can’t find work. I can’t even proofread a frelling comment properly. Well, the government is here to take care of me, right?
I’m home, Nanna Pelosi.
It’s one thing to require ingredient lists on canned goods—you can’t evaluate exactly what’s in a sealed can of soup for yourself—but in restaurants, where you can effing ask the cook whether something contains gluten?
Control freaks.
Oh shit, did Obama launch some sort of War on Drugs that makes criminals out of tens of millions of people? And then appoint some sort of “drug czar” to help enforce this? Plus all of the other stuff that fits the characterization set forth in your last sentence? Also, lol?
When presented with a menu containing such information at a restaurant, I think the correct response would be to take out a Sharpie and black out the offending gummint-approved language.
OUTLAW! or merely outlaw?
I look forward to the Congressional debates over motorcycle helmets:
“We’re losing thousands of our young citizens every year!”
“This is true — but we need their organs!”
In the end, of course, Congress will just dump the issue off on the rulemakers at the FEFFYLA.
* Federal Every Fucking Facet of Your Life Agency
Most people don’t care about the calorie count when they are craving a certain food. That’s the point of a craving. I’ve always loved hearing our “betters” telling us that information about calories and sodium needs to be posted at restaurants, because they think we don’t know that already. I’m been asking myself for years do they really believe that we don’t understand that those fries and chili dog are bad for us? We KNOW, we eat them because they taste YUMMY, not because we believe it’s healthy. They think we’re stupid.
“Does anyone actually believe this — that is, the part about Americans looking at a greasy burger on a buttered bun slathered with mayo and being “shocked” that eating it isn’t the equivalent of eating a plate of endive and sprouts?”
I don’t want to believe it, but I guess I have to. “Mommy” is at our doorsteps.
And these busy-body assholes are EVERYWHERE! Did anybody hear Ed Schultz saying that Rush has the absolute BALLS to oppose Obama? I mean, OPENLY oppose that arrogant little Marxist whippersnapper?
We are well and truly FUCKED! I hope America lasts long enough to make it to the mid-term elections.
Right now, I’d have to wager that there’s a fifty-fifty chance.
I hate it when Trollhammer expires and a steaming glob of Barrett lands on my screen. Have to fix that.
Look, everyone — Barrett is here to grace us with his wisdom!
Oh shit, did Obama launch some sort of War on Drugs that makes criminals out of tens of millions of people?
No, but as with so many things, Obama has taken the policies he once decried and turned them into his own.
How’s that Hope and Change shit working out for you, BB? And while I’m asking questions — how much louder do I have to criticize the War On Drugs before you’ll allow that I have standing to criticize the War On Freedom?
Ah, the answer is MORE of what Barrett rails against. Don’t like drug laws? Take over food production and distribution!
Barrett, why are you wasting your time here when you could be polishing the Lizardoid knob and hunting white supwemacists?
South Korean war ship sinking. NoKo attack suspected. Obama promises to help by sending some health care.
Drama!
Also, lol?
Are you asking permission to laugh out loud? Are you asking whether Jeff was laughing when he wrote his post?
I can’t wait until everyone gets skinny because the calorie counts are right there on the drive-through menu. It will make my visits to water parks so much more enjoyable.
“I look forward to the Congressional debates over motorcycle helmets:”
You’re behind the curve Squid. The debates now are about helmets for skiers…
I think ALSO, the cashier should be forced to repeat your order with a grand total of calories in each meal.
That would be cool.
Drama!
Wow, he actually said that? These people, and their puppy dog constituents, really have no idea the principles this country was founded on. They either do, or reject them outrightly.
And yes, a BB sighting. Maybe. I’ll second Squid and Pablo’s sentiments in #’s 11 & 12. BB’s like a kid or something.
Yeah, can’t say I get this comment. As someone who is against the “War on Drugs” the way the government has waged it, this post seems to me entirely consistent with that mindset.
Whereas, Barrett the libertarian doesn’t have a problem with this because, what, because it isn’t being tried by evil Christianists?
No, that’s not it. Barrett’s libertarianism extends to Barrett. And the market for Barrett only pays when he bashes conservatives, or pretends that he’s catching them in some sort of awkward double standard.
Meanwhile, let me point out that, though I haven’t agreed with the War On Drugs as it has been waged, the drugs that are being warred on are, in fact, illegal, and the enterprises revolving around them, therefore, are criminal.
Whereas a cheeseburger is still legal, so far as I know.
None of which matters, because Barrett, along with many others who used to pretend to debate, have discovered that they no longer have to: just pick the right enemy, and the “work” gets so much easier!
So China loosened its grip on Kim Jong-il’s leash enough to make a point, but about what?
“Congressman, all these numbers on the menus are confusing me! How should I know whether 500 is good or bad? I mean, bigger is better, right?”
Many of my constituents have expressed such confusion, which is why I’m introducing this bill which would simplify the consumer education component of the Federal Fast Food Fuckup Act to replace the confusing numbers with “funny face” stickers. Foods that are good for you* are marked with this smiling green sticker; ‘sometimes foods’ are marked with a worried yellow face, and anything that you actually want is marked with a bright red version of Mr. Yuck, who I’m sure you all remember fondly from the old War On Poison days.
* Green stickers will mark any food with sufficient levels of nutritional value, or trade organization campaign contributions.
“Ah, the answer is MORE of what Barrett rails against. Don’t like drug laws? Take over food production and distribution!”
I didn’t say anything of the sort. My point, as usual here, is that there is nothing fundamentally different between the ideology that produces this legislation and the ideology that produced a vast amount of other legislation that is supported by conservatives and liberals alike, and that this attempt to paint Obama as embodying some sort of radical departure from the past (“The New Freedom”) is thus nonsense.
DING!
I find that having the ingredients listed on packaged food is helpful, because it’s food I end up eating quite often. It also helps when one wants to add seasoning, since if I know some canned stewed tomatoes, for instance, already have plenty of salt, I won’t add any more. However, when one eats out, one is making a choice to eat food that is most likely not particularly healthy (as well as being relatively expensive).
Eh, well, we are all, according to the progressives, a bunch of idiots, so please, mommy government, save me!
there is nothing fundamentally different between the ideology that produces this legislation and the ideology that produced a vast amount of other legislation that is supported by conservatives and liberals alike, and that this attempt to paint Obama as embodying some sort of radical departure from the past (“The New Freedom”) is thus nonsense.
That ideology is called statism. You won’t find many statists here, as you well know. So your point is…?
So, your opinion that the expansion of policies that you view as bad are OK as long as your guy does it?
Just, FTR.
The “War on Drugs” isn’t exactly one of those issues that conservatives are in agreement on, so that’s rather a bit of a strawman you’re hurling at us.
I repeat: agree with it or not, but the War on Drugs goes after illegal substances and criminal enterpises. The war on fatties IS different, and the differences are not unimportant.
Obama and crew just skip the middle step of making burgers illegal first.
What’s nonsense is that a “libertarian” can’t see the difference.
Can I nominate Barrett as the most boring troll ever?
Nuance.
“I look forward to the Congressional debates over motorcycle helmets:”
You’re behind the curve Squid. The debates now are about helmets for skiers…
Well, I could have used a rib helmet this winter when that 12 year old little prick cut me off when I was going about 120 MPH.
If you ski, try not to catch an edge when you are going insanely fast. And look out for 12 year old little pricks.
I know you’re opposed to the War on Drugs, Jeff. My point is that it and a thousand other crimes against freedom proceed this “New Freedom” you’re characterizing. Government intrusion on individual free action is not “new” and is endorsed by conservatives and liberals alike. This legislation does not require any sort of new ideological heresy against the individual; it is founded on precedent established and maintained by both of the degenerate parties. I still consider the Republicans to be more degenerate than the Democrats insomuch as that the Republicans took fiscal conservatism off the menu quite a long time ago yet have not done much in the way of abandoning social conservative constraints on free action or the ideological basis for such things.
I have an audience made up mostly of members of one party that advocates interference in individual liberty; you have an audience made up of the other party that does that, and whose members are also far more likely to believe in witches than are members of the other. To each his own de facto audience.
I don’t recall the Gubmint mandating disclosure of the dangers of the brown acid.
Barrett being Barrett. Yawn.
And now, having abandoned the point you were arguing, you call us a bunch of Godbotherers.
Could you trying constructing an argument with your whole ass?
BB is now an apologist for Obama, if he wasn’t already. Sellout.
…and that this attempt to paint Obama as embodying some sort of radical departure from the past (“The New Freedom”) is thus nonsense.
Here’s the thing: when I talk to people who have, in the past, supported policies that eroded my liberty but today think that these policies have gone too far, I’m thrilled that I have a chance to win these people over with the arguments I’ve been trying to make all along. I encourage them to follow up with their legislators to make their concerns known. I’m happy that my pool of potential allies has grown, and I work to use our newfound common ground to develop a relationship that will allow for serious policy discussions in the future. Such a relationship goes a long way toward making it possible to have a real discussion on the merits of other policy positions. My new existence as a real human being with real arguments, and not some two-dimensional cartoon character, makes possible discussions that would never have been possible in the past.
The last thing I’d do is stroll in, look down my nose, and sneer at these potential allies because I’d been right all along and they were all stupid sheeple who were just now beginning to wake up.
But then, I suppose I could never hope to be as clever as Mr. Barrett.
This legislation does not require any sort of new ideological heresy against the individual; it is founded on precedent established and maintained by both of the degenerate parties.
This, of course, being why its BAD.
Now, google the phrase “tipping point” and see if you can figure why we’re all pitchforky and “she’s a witch” over it.
Well, I’m certainly a G-dbotherer, but I haven’t done any of that in this thread yet. In fact, I rarely do that, nor are the vast majority of my politics informed by religion, as I keep that separate from my policy advocacy.
I’ll be over here, clinging to my guns and stuff.
I still consider the Republicans to be more degenerate than the Democrats insomuch as that the Republicans took fiscal conservatism off the menu quite a long time ago yet have not done much in the way of abandoning social conservative constraints on free action or the ideological basis for such thin
Let’s sum up what constraints the R v D are putting on society:
R’s: Mostly believe gays shouldn’t be able to “marry” but are OK with Civil Unions.
Mostly believe that abortion should be limited to first trimester, and support restrictions on minors having the procedure w/o parental approval.
L: Interference in …
Banking
Auto industry
Health care
Student loans
Smoking bans in privately owned property
Redistribution of wealth…
Which would be dumb enough on its own, but when you add the fact that the cheerleaders Barrett sees in his head exist only there and not here.
I have an audience made up mostly of members of one party that advocates interference in individual liberty; you have an audience made up of the other party that does that, and whose members are also far more likely to believe in witches than are members of the other. To each his own de facto audience.
Quick show of hands — who supports government interference in individual liberty? Who believes in witches?
I’d just like to know who it is that Barrett is addressing here.
Actually, Barrett, the New Agey Wiccans and Crystal rubbers tend to be of your bailiwick.
But you’re right: because others before have tried to pass laws curtailing individual freedoms at other times in our history, pointing out that a new law — one that the public didn’t want, and that can potentially create the legal justification for the biggest single grab of government control over individual freedom ever — is PARTICULARLY bald in its aims, is just nonsensical hyperbole. After all, none of this is new. Just the scale is. And using phrasing that isn’t hyperliteral is beyond the pale.
Unless you are describing what those demon Christians have done, I mean.
Give it a rest. If you were interested in individual freedom rather than your own ego you’d spend less time attacking those who oppose such government overreach and more time pointing out those who support it, regardless of what God, if any, they believe in.
Or, what Squid said.
Oh, I see. Now I know you’re just another lying jackass looking to derail a comment thread. Have you always been a colossal idiot, or is this something you’ve worked long and hard at?
I vote always.
“But then, I suppose I could never hope to be as clever as Mr. Barrett.”
I’m clever enough to have given up on the prospect of making any allies over here a long, long time ago. I’m building my coalition out of people who are actually interested in joining.
Barrett is too sophisticated to believe in religion.
Which ironically has turned Barrett into his own God.
Bingo. BB’s raison d’etre emerges from the murky filth of his arguments…The boy just wants an abortion. Can’t the boy get an abortion if he wants? I’d have said the boy just wants some cheeba, but for the uncomfortable fact that democrats are the same as republicans in that vein. At least the law makers, that is.
Barrett probably thinks that the red pills behind the sofa cushions are all vitamins, and that the ‘Dillo is whacked out on wheat grass smoothies.
Then go do that.
Stop knocking on my door trying to get me to take one of your pamphlets.
“Actually, Barrett, the New Agey Wiccans and Crystal rubbers tend to be of your bailiwick.”
Except that I write for Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer and my first book was of a skeptical nature and my core audience has always been more skeptical than Democrat. No New Agey types seem to read me; you’ve got plenty of Biblical literalists over here, including, as I recall, folks who believe Thomas Jefferson was the most religious of the Founding Fathers and that most of them were quite religious.
You talk like a commissar.
“I vill make allies!”
“You vill join our coalition!”
How about a tall, frosty glass of Get Over Yourself?
Or would you prefer a nice hot cup of Shut the Fuck Up?
It’s me, BB. I’m the Godbothering Puritan religious fundamentalist. I scour Leviticus nightly looking for new people to oppress. I denounce myself.
Now can we get back to talking about the feasting Leviathan? Or did you have other plans?
I’m clever enough to have given up on the prospect of making any allies over here a long, long time ago. I’m building my coalition out of people who are actually interested in joining.
Well that-there is your problem. We’re not so much interested in making you an ally. We’re trying to debate/discuss.
We’re not really joiners anyway.
<
You were a complete fucking asshole, Barrett. Introspection isn’t your thing, I suppose. I can call you a complete fucking asshole, because I was one of the few, if not only, to give you the benefit of the doubt after you became a complete fucking asshole. That leash was short, mind you, but don’t come back as a victim. You have to have some shred of dignity about you. Libertarians usually do, unless you’ve gone full on statist lefty because of the godbothers? Then I question your mental resolve all the more.
“you’ve got plenty of Biblical literalists over here, including, as I recall, folks who believe Thomas Jefferson was the most religious of the Founding Fathers ”
Name one.
Blockquote fail…Must have been my God.
Who gives a shit about Jefferson’s religious beliefs, Barrett? Besides you, I mean. Lutherans and Mormons and Catholics and Jews and agnostics all coexist quite peacefully here, Barrett. The only witch hunter here is you.
The battle before us is not about religious beliefs. It’s not about the disposition of our souls after we die. It’s about our freedom here on Earth, and whether we’re going to allow ourselves to be controlled by those who think they know what’s best for us.
The Capitol and the Vatican both have domes, Barrett. I don’t want either one of ’em telling me what I can and can’t do. I’d be happy to listen to what you have to say, and to support your efforts to the extent that they align with my own, except that you’re a closed-minded secular bigot with a terrible holier-than-thou attitude, and you’re so blinkered that you can’t even recognize the irony in that set of attributes.
Don’t come here and pretend you’re brighter than everyone. We can see right through you.
A lot of atheists seem to stomach us, too, Squid. No Barrett hates, hates, hates him some Christians, and that colors his world view.
OT: I’m trying to parse out “believe in witches” and determine what, exactly, the point is of that statement.
I believe that there are people who believe they are witches. Does that mean I believe in witches?
I highly doubt the Salem witch trials involved any witches in the traditional sense of boiling cauldrons and eye of newt and wing of bat. I highly doubt that any human has an way of influencing events directly except through pure physical means. Even if there were a non-physical way of doing things, the engineer in me wonders where the energy to perform such tasks comes from, and where it ends up.
On the other hand, I’m not so arrogant that I think I know everything. Not only that, but I think there are things in the universe that humans will never comprehend, because we will never be able to sense them, let alone understand them.
BTW, of course I know the true purpose of the “witch” statement. One wonders if the (currently TrollHammered™) BB does.
I see a parallel with tobacco in the proggs’ intent here. People knew as far back as the 1940s that smoking tobacco was bad for your health (for that matter, Britain’s King James I railed against it in the 1600s), and there was a Surgeon General’s Warning on cigarette packs during the 1960s.
Most people responded rationally to the warning saturation by looking at it once, making a decision, and ignoring it thereafter. So later when the cigarette warning was altered to be more panic-inducing, nobody cared.
And then suddenly the tobacco companies were being sued because they allegedly misled people to believe tobacco was harmless.
We are now passing from the cultural, non-government-required knowledge that fast food is unhealthy, to the Surgeon General’s Warning phase. They’ll never actually ban the substance, but the massive litigation phase is within sight.
“We’re trying to debate/discuss.”
You guys were doing a bang-up job, too. First comment: “Let me an a ‘We’re all fucked’ to the discussion mix. It’s de rigueur in these post Obamacare days.”
“Stop knocking on my door trying to get me to take one of your pamphlets.”
I wouldn’t be, but a little bird tells me that my name keeps coming up here no matter where I may be, often a number of times in a single thread. Speak of the Demon Butcher of Capitol Hill, so to speak.
Anywho, I don’t think it’s amiss for me to drop in on my old stomping grounds insomuch as that this is still a staging area for wacky anti-Barrett hijinks, some of which are false.
I highly doubt the Salem witch trials involved any witches in the traditional sense of boiling cauldrons and eye of newt and wing of bat.
There was some of that, obviously, but thee was more. Midnight rendez-vous with Satan, flying out of houses, that sort of thing.
Many of those who affect the “skeptic” pose today do so as a substitute for religion. Their zealotry too often reveals itself in other ways, though — be in turning climate science into a religion, or by praying at the altar of “social justice,” with the State as their godhead.
Not everyone is interested in going after the easiest targets, Barrett — nor do they find anything remarkable or even interesting about those who do.
Holy fucking shit batman, someone’s ego is in over drive. Honest to God, I haven’t even thought of you until your little foray today. Anyone else? This is someone playing Barrett, correct? Then the real Barrett, should he have said such a thing, would have just cause to say such a thing. Wow.
#63: The witches who thought they were witches or thought they did “witchy things” were most likely drug users of some kind, perhaps inadvertantly. I’m sure a few of the accused were just women someone else didn’t like.
Also, I’m skeptical that BB has a fully functioning brain. So far I haven’t seen any proof of that.
That’s some libertarian stance you got going there: oh, I’ll just go walk all over this other fella’s property whether he likes it or not, seeing as the world is my oyster. Fuck ‘im if he can’t take a joke.
Really? The only time I see your name is when you’ve already dropped a turd on the thread. No, you’re just a jackass contrarian with nothing better to do than to stir up shit to stroke your own ego.
If your little bird tells you it’s coming from me, your little bird is lying to you.
You’re making a living beating up on those you don’t like. Be happy with that.
Others of us are doing this for different reasons — and that you are here trolling a post that rejects the kind of law that will inevitably lead to a exponential increase in the politicization of health care issues (and so government involvement in and against individual choice) — tells me you are interested in nothing more than moving the conversation toward your anti-religious hobby horse.
We get that you don’t think much of anyone here. Which is why you’d probably do best to find something else to do than hang around.
Now. You can have all the pleading, rousing, admonishing last words you want. The rest of us are going to discuss the post.
“and there was a Surgeon General’s Warning on cigarette packs during the 1960s”
I went to Canada a couple of years ago, and there a pack of smokes was $11, and each pack featured a picture (one of four) of internal organs ravaged by tobacco. One was a set of diseased, blacked lungs, another of a brain tumor. I tried to collect all four, but wasn’t there long enough.
I wonder how long before we see similar pictures on a $10 big mac…
I can’t wait until everyone gets skinny because the calorie counts are right there on the drive-through menu.
And I can’t wait until everyone gets skinny because there’s no fucking food to eat. At least, not in the “livable” cities, where they’ll be trying to figure out how to trade a bike path for some potatoes.
Out in the boonies, we’ll be fat on fish and venison and home-grown veggies, drinking our home brew, and hanging out with our neighbors around the campfire. Sure, we’ll probably sing terribly gauche Country songs and scratch our balls, but I’m pretty sure that these drawbacks will pale by comparison.
I’m skeptical about skepticism. Hot Wiccan chicks are aces by me, though.
“We’re trying to debate/discuss.”
You guys were doing a bang-up job, too. First comment: “Let me an a ‘We’re all fucked’ to the discussion mix. It’s de rigueur in these post Obamacare days.”
Well, I’ll let you in on a little secret. It’s bloody difficult to find a good liberal (or LIBERTARIAN!) to debate with, so we often commiserate our misery or toss out whatever additional info we’ve got.
I have yet to see a liberal here step up to the plate here to defend much of what’s going on in Washington right now. The best defense usually runs along the lines of … ‘”Oh, you’re just a RACIST”. Or, the ever popular “BUT BUSH!”
I wonder if this law can be incremental or not. What I mean is, I don’t think you can apply it effectively across the board. Fast food is consistently prepared per corporate instruction (as is chain restaurant food, I imagine), so one can actually measure the calorie content and have it be meaningful. Otherwise, I guess that estimates could be provided for non-chain food, though actually measuring it for independent restaurants could get difficult.
I don’t agree with the law, but I wonder what the results will be if they eventually (as I’m sure they would) apply it to all restaurants. I think it would drive some non-chains out of business, or at least curb innovation because I’m sure they’d require a re-test whenever the ingredients changed slightly.
Well, I’m agnostic and no one here has given me the slightest bit of grief.
“The rest of us are going to discuss the post.”
Only time will tell.
“Holy fucking shit batman, someone’s ego is in over drive. Honest to God, I haven’t even thought of you until your little foray today. Anyone else?”
Try Googling my name along with Protein Wisdom. You’ll see all the old hits still in play as recently as two weeks ago. I really would prefer it if people would stop proclaiming that I hate Christians. I don’t hate Christians, and one of the people I respect and admire most is a Christian. I also serve in several capacities wherein that extraordinarily false notion, totally unsourced and made repeatedly here and by certsin your users in every single comment thread on every single conservative blog post in which I am attacked, can be damaging to the role I’m trying to serve in those capacities – and not damaging because it’s true, but damaging regardless of the fact that it’s totally untrue.
Of course, the fact that people here have indeed been discussing me and this can be seen by way of a ten second Google sessions will not dissuade you from pretending otherwise.
Jeff, you’re free to ban me if you’d like, but I’d really like your readers to stop lying about me here and on other forums.
Barret will now define how the commenters, who mostly “know” each other here, interact with each other when we don’t have something constructive to add.
Hey, Barret, fuck you with a swordfish, sideways. How’s that for “debate?” And also, feel free to fuck off now.
If I said you make some pretty bold blanket statements would that be a lie, Barrett? Or would it be proven merely by looking through this very thread?
Shorter Barrett: fapfapfapfap.
Get over yourself, you preening twit.
@66: No doubt. I’m just referring to what they were accused of/confessed to.
The interesting thing about the Salem Witch trials, is that they actually represented pretty solid jurisprudence — provided one believed that witchcraft was real. What’s changed between the 17th century and today is not that we have decided that witches are good people — what kind of good person would plot with a dark power to destroy his neighbors? — but that we have decided that there are no such things. Wiccans are but a gaggle of fools who seek the “spirituality” of religious belief without any of those bothersome rules.
Like I said, I’m the god-botherer. Burn me!
Heh. They can drape the BigMac with gruesome photos of the slaughtering process Lee: help put people right off their feed so’s the calories can quietly go to waste. Or plaster Barrett Brown all over Protein Wisdom and drive the “
readers” liars away!“Well, I’m agnostic and no one here has given me the slightest bit of grief.”
Why should we? We’re not sure you really exist (insert smiley here)
Away with thee, foul demon! Away!
Heh, the persecution, it burns! Save me, Barrett!
Back in September, BB came around making this exact same argument. Back then, he came in with a fairly measured argument and a fairly neutral tone. He got good feedback, some agreement, and some disagreement, almost all of which was cordial.
But because he could not get the entire commentariat to join his crusade against the War on Drugs, he got more and more pedantic and shrill. Because the PW community is insufficiently pure, it’s been written off. One wonders whether this sort of libertarian atheist purity is required of his relationships in real life, or if it’s limited to spaces where he can get away with such pretense without consequence.
Incidentally, BB, I just did a quick Google for your name at this site, and I haven’t seen anything since somebody remarked on your newfound respect for Charlie J on January 22nd. Did I miss something since then?
Barrett is the freshmaker I think.
cranky:
The recipe program I use contains a nutritional database. So if all the ingredients in the recipe are in there, it calculates the per-serving kCal, sodium, fat, etc based on the amounts you say you used. Naturally, this can’t account for preparation (baked vs deep-frying in butter-wrapped bacon grease), but it’s pretty cool.
I imagine that restaurants could use such programs; punch in the ingredients, amounts, and number of servings it makes and voila! Of course, you can generally gather from the menu description the general calorie content of something, but that requires some thinking and education. Who needs to think when Teh Gummint can do it for me!
DEPENDENCY NOW!!!
“I really would prefer it if people would stop proclaiming that I hate Christians”
Want to explain this then:
“far more likely to believe in witches”
and:
““you’ve got plenty of Biblical literalists over here, including, as I recall, folks who believe Thomas Jefferson was the most religious of the Founding Fathers ”
Because to me, that sounds like you have a problem with Christians. At least the cartoon ones in your head.
#80 The truth is, I don’t know much about the trials, or what the women were accused of or confessed to. I assumed a lot of our “witch lore” came from Shakespeare or similar sources.
I’m just a bitter clinger, of course, ignorant in the ways of civilized folk.
I wonder what the combined cost of all this new signage will be? You’d think the government would try to waste less of the public sector’s money now that they’re going to need every last penny of it.
“Did I miss something since then?”
Yes. March 13th. “The Demon Butcher of Capitol Hill.” Even the co-editor of your site talks about me, although she sticks with silly insults instead of made-up nonsense. She was a lot nicer when I was helping her get in touch with a magazine editor for potential work. A lot of people here are quite nice to me via e-mail, incidentally, as long as no one’s looking.
“folks who believe Thomas Jefferson was the most religious of the Founding Fathers ”
That seems to me less a Bible literalist than ignorant of history. Which is not to say that you can’t be both.
#87 It’s funny when a computer guy like me wouldn’t realize that a recipe program would do that for you. Sigh. Well, I guess such a regulation wouldn’t be that onerous after all. Bring on the nanny state!
did you see that article I linked yesterday about the fecklessness? brb
We get it BB, we’re all pig-ignorant god-bothering fools. It’s a tired trope. Feel free to leave this cesspool behind.
Fly free, BB!
“I wonder what the combined cost of all this new signage will be?”
What’s wrong with you? I can’t believe that you would be so callous as to begrudge a few extra cents to make sure everyone eats healthy.
here…
I remember talking about this before and the very real possibility that people feel ripped off if they get less calories for more or the same monies.
People are funny.
Does anyone know the caloric content of a pint of Victory gin? Just checking.
That’s right, people! Stop lying about White Supremacist Blogger Barrett Brown!
Fuck off, twat.
That makes perfect sense to me, ‘feets.
BB Argument 1: Yeah, well, conservatives believe in the drug war! Tu Quogue!
BB Argument 2: Yeah, well, conservatives are a bunch of godbothering rednecks! Ad Hominem!
BB ARgument 3: Yeah, well, you guys need to stop telling lying lies about me! I heart Christians! Hasty Generalization!
Trifecta!
“They can drape the BigMac with gruesome photos of the slaughtering process Lee”
I was thinking fat chicks in thongs, but your idea is a possibility too!
Mentions on January 22nd and March 13th. Yep, Protein Wisdom clearly obsesses over Barrett Brown.
You really do have a massive ego, don’t you Barrett?
I think every square of sidewalk should be labeled with the fraction of the calorie you burn when walking across it. Likewise, all public transportation tickets should inform you of the calories retained because you didn’t walk or ride a bike.
Hey, BB, quit being such a fucking tool and maybe people will stop spreading the truth about your toolness here and elsewhere.
I stand corrected, Barrett. My apologies.
In our defense, I believe we are merely trying to be true to your political rules. If I understand you correctly, we need to confront you at every turn, lest we lose our standing to confront you in the future.
“That’s right, people! Stop lying about White Supremacist Blogger Barrett Brown!”
That must be a reference to Robert Stacy McCain, who was found to have written for the white supremacist publication American Renaissance under an assumed name taken in part from a Confederate theologian known almost exclusively for his defense of African slavery, and whose other blatantly racist affiliations and journalistic conflicts of interest – for instance, writing a story about a conflict between Professor Jonathan Farley and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, some members of which sent him racist taunts, without disclosing that he himself was a member of the SCV, and who a few months later gave a talk before that organization in which he proclaimed that they must all stop those who “insult the memories of heroes.” Yeah, I can totally see why it’s ethical to claim repeatedly in a variety of forums that I hate Christians on the strength of my opposition to certain aspects of organized religion and my atheism.
“Fuck off, twat.”
I apologize in advance for having forced Pablo to lower the level of discourse here.
“I think every square of sidewalk should be labeled with the fraction of the calorie you burn when walking across it. Likewise, all public transportation tickets should inform you of the calories retained because you didn’t walk or ride a bike.”
Blog postings cost us. We must be told!
Didn’t you write for the Huffington Post, Barrett?
PROGRESSIVE!
“BB Argument 1: Yeah, well, conservatives believe in the drug war! Tu Quogue!
BB Argument 2: Yeah, well, conservatives are a bunch of godbothering rednecks! Ad Hominem!
BB ARgument 3: Yeah, well, you guys need to stop telling lying lies about me! I heart Christians! Hasty Generalization!
Trifecta!”
I think there’s another logical fallacy that entails caricaturing an opponent’s arguments and then criticizing the resulting caricature.
“Mentions on January 22nd and March 13th. Yep, Protein Wisdom clearly obsesses over Barrett Brown.
You really do have a massive ego, don’t you Barrett?”
I didn’t say PW obsesses over me. I said that certain members tell lies about me here and elsewhere, someone objected to the possibility, I pointed to a recent example, that person acknowledged that I was right because that person is intellectually honest.
Vanity Fair, too!
NARCISSIST!
There’s a great way to make up for it while solving the problem: Fuck off.
The preening twit is still preening.
Isn’t that just precious?
Barrett Brown rapes minority puppies.
Barrett Brown is a narc.
This post wasn’t about you Barrett. I just thought you should know.
Barrett Brown endorses Darleen’s cartoon.
“Didn’t you write for the Huffington Post, Barrett?
PROGRESSIVE!”
That thing that doesn’t exclusively publish the work of progressives and which in fact was developed by Andrew Breitbart? Yeah, I do write for that, under my real name, unlike a certain someone who used a fake name only in this instance (I mean professionally; he used the blatantly telling pen name in certain undesirable message board postings, too).
You know, I asked Donald Douglas of American Power to answer a few questions about McCain in light of the revelations; he passed the duty off to another blogger friend of his whom it turned out was formerly a subscriber to American Renaissance himself. That was unfortunate.
Barrett Brown once slaughtered six nuns in El Salvador.
Let’s not forget Daily Kos, Jeff. Because of the Libertarianism.
Preening twit is mendacious as well: I didn’t say PW obsesses over me. I said that certain members tell lies about me here and elsewhere, someone objected to the possibility, I pointed to a recent example, that person acknowledged that I was right because that person is intellectually honest.That’s not what Squid wrote and you know it. Here:
This is what you claim he wrote:
Look at Squid’s statement again and show me where he mentioned these so-called “lies” you are whining about?
The first rule of Barrett Brown is “You will talk about Barrett Brown.”
Barrett Brown raped and murdered a girl in 1990.
We should call him Elizabeth, because he insists on Barrett Browning all over the place.
By the way, Barrett, the “level of discourse” here has been reduced to mocking you because you’ve earned it.
Oh, McGehee, I like it. Well played, sir.
Canada Dry Diet Ginger Ale is tasty and North Korea will blow you up and calories are a marketing issue now in a different way than before. You have to make sure calories are perceived as having value. It’s like on my Silk light Chockit Soymilk carton where it says it has “90 powerful calories.” That really sells it I think. Who doesn’t want powerful calories?
Twats sure can be fascinatin’ can’t they? Even in a time of Brazil.
“This post wasn’t about you Barrett. I just thought you should know.”
Neither was the last one in which I was lied about repeatedly despite not having posted here in quite a while, nor the one before that, etc. Maybe your own readers should know.
Again, it’s your blog. You control who can post here. You’re fine to allow people to post lies about me hating Christians that interfere with my professional relationships insomuch as that they also post those lies elsewhere and then come here to brag about it. You’re totally free to continue letting them do that and you’re totally free to ban me for coming to the forum from which these lies originate and pointing out that they are lies and that they are damaging to legitimate projects that I’m working on and which many of you would support were it not coming from a guy who’ve they been told hates Christians.
McGehee! I doff my cap to you, sir! Well done!
Oh, and Barrett Brown smokes joints that use Leviticus 18:22 as rolling paper.
Barrett Brown introduced crack into SoCal.
I just ate some kettle corn popcorn for lunch, do I need to report my caloric take to the IRS yet?
Jeff, Maybe you could do Mr. Ego Brown a favor – delete him, en toto, from the site. That should make him happy – he would never have to be associated with us lowlifes again!
Do tell, BB. Who lied about you? And where and when? And legitimate projects? How much Federal funding involved? If so, not legitimate.
He’s complaining about who Jeff “associates with” and what is allowed to be posted here, yet he posts at Daily Kos and Huffington Post.
As Allahpundit was say…
Dude.
Maybe you should tell me in advance who the bad ones are. You know, in case I don’t read every comment or every post when I’m not around.
Just in case.
“Do tell, BB. Who lied about you? And where and when? And legitimate projects? How much Federal funding involved? If so, not legitimate.”
Really? I’ve pointed out the exact lie several times and pointed to the most recent thread in which it appears. I’m intentionally not mentioning names. It will take you literally ten seconds to find this information.
But I’ll tell you a certain name straight out if you answer me something. Earlier in this thread, you said “Name one” in reference to regular posters here who think the Founders were all very religious and that one even proclaimed Thomas Jefferson to be the most religious of the Founding Fathers. If I do “name one,” what will you do? Will you say, “Gee, I guess you were right”? Please let me know and I will name that person for you. Bonus question: Since you think it important enough to ask me to prove my assertion, do you think my assertion is of significance if true?
I wonder how many calories are in one of Obama’s average ejaculations.
What? I’m just trying to help our media personalities make informed decisions on whether to spit or swallow.
Maybe you should tell me in advance who the bad ones are. You know, in case I don’t read every comment or every post when I’m not around”
Maybe you should stop pretending that you’ve never seen the sort of comments I’m referring to insomuch as that many of them were posted in threads in which you’ve posted a great number of comments yourself, and that this has happened enough times that it is pretty much impossible that you have not seen such comments. Just maybe!
Well, serr8ed said that BB was a hateful secularist who was banned from PW. That’s at least half wrong, depending on who you ask.
I don’t have a problem with requiring producers to provide useful information to potential consumers, as the decision to use or pass on the product in question is still left to the individual and the information which he has to help him make that decision has now been improved. The real problem here, and Jeff points this out, is that it is being applied selectively where those restaurants of the “lower class” have to do this while those higher end joints are exempt.
From this point on meth will remain illegal but powdered coke will be legalized. Those who can afford coke are to be considered smart enough not to abuse it, while the trailer trash meth tweakers shall be considered that trash we all know them to be.
The DEA
Here’s the “Lies, Lies, Lies!” thread BB referenced, but didn’t link.
Jeff, are you really going to allow people to post hateful
liesstuff like this? on your site?thompson twins!
Well, I went and read that confused screed of his that Pablo linked at #120.
Barrett, you have no leg to stand on. Besides being full of pompous vitriol and yes, hate, you write like a 12-year old. You should be embarrassed.
“Do you know how many calories are in that bacon burger?”
“No. How many do you think there are in my fist, Mr. Nosy?”
Incidentally, and this is off topic, but I reached my old writing professor Brian Kiteley by phone. He let out a forced “laugh” when I reached him — I presume to show his bemused exasperation with my gall for contacting him — then called me a “jerk.”
He went on to say that allowing Darleen’s comic to stand — the President raping lady liberty “is not a political cartoon and you know it,” he told me — was sick and irresponsible. When I countered that I thought we were always taught to answer speech with more speech (I also noted that I found the specific question of how exactly the cartoon was “racist” an interesting one, and I that I found the rather heated discussion on that point intellectually useful), he told me that I have his phone number and that he doesn’t have mine, and that we should keep it that way (whatever that means). He then hung up on me.
In between, his argument seemed to be that joking about guns and the President raping liberty is playing into the hands of the “extreme right wing” types, many who presumably still live in the hills and marshes of “the deep south,” who want to do the President real physical harm. When I pointed out that those same types likely wouldn’t frequent a “Goldstein”-run blog, he agreed, at least momentarily, before returning to the theme of the danger my ideas represent: this idea of a “civil war” revolted him, even though it was clear that I was speaking of a kind of culture war in which the power of the federal government is challenged by states based on concentrations of voters — a kind of libertarian idea of how those who believe in smaller government and states rights over and beyond the ever-growing reach of federal government bureaucracies. In fact, I pointed out that we are seeing that dynamic at work in the lawsuits states are threatening over Obamacare.
Let me say this: when Brian first wrote me, I was hurt. Now, I’m just angry. The idea — coming from a fiction writer, teacher, and university professor who instructs on creative endeavors — that a cartoon or comic needs to be removed as potentially incendiary and harmful, flies in the face of everything we have ever been taught about free expression, art, political speech, and the exchange of ideas (often heatedly) in the public square.
It is an Orwellian world in which we live in when novelists want to distance themselves from those who criticize the government — with the attendant disgust about the way that criticism is offered.
When I noted that people were free to comment on the site and voice their opposition, Kiteley told me of my propensity for stifling opposition — which would come as a surprise to the commenters in that thread calling Darleen a racist, etc.
Evidently, the only time it’s okay to “remove” something is when it attempts to make a political statement. Removing comments that call for me to die of cancer or some such? CENSORSHIP!
This is our modern academy. And make no mistake: the university where Kiteley teaches is NOT on the far left, by university standards.
But the fact remains that we have an example of a novelist — a person trafficking in the production of the most personal of ideas and expressions — demanding a form of political censorship that, when it is reversed, and the object of derision is, say, a black faced Joe Lieberman or Michael Steele, is somehow not quite so in need of enforced correction.
Shame on Brian Kiteley.
No wonder our institutions of higher learning have become cauldrons of conformity and anti-intellectual group think.
I’m a jerk? Perhaps. But at least I don’t pretend to champion creative expression and individuality of thought, then turn around and agitate for the silencing of speech I don’t like.
I’d rather make my living, such as it as, as a poor jerk than as a tenured hypocrite.
****
and yes, this will soon be its own post.
I feel bad for Kyle. Poor little guy is forced to eat at corporate chain restaurants. With flair!
I think reaching for rape language with respect to the little president man and what he’s doing on our little country is the most natural thing in the world.
He’s violating America and causing vaginal tearing.
Except I never said, “name one”. I don’t think so, anyhow. I haven’t been drinking yet, but I am dead tired, so who knows.
Would it be presumptuous of me to speculate that Professor Brian Kitely likely believes that the Danes “should have known better” than to allow the so-called “Mo-Toons” to be published?
I think there’s another logical fallacy that entails caricaturing an opponent’s arguments and then criticizing the resulting caricature.
There’s also one involving treating questions of fact (e.g. using or not using a fallacy) and treating them as matters of opinion.
Knowledge is power!
Maybe Mr. Kitely is unfamiliar with weblogs or “blogs.”
Oh, the comment has been updated. I guess I should have saved my snark for that post…
Gonna hold my Kiteley comments for the post. But as a standin:
Hamburger!
Everyone we know will eventually let us down somehow. All we can hope for when they do is that it’s something unimportant.
I live in the hills of the Deep South. Oddly enough, in a swim-and-tennis community. I’ll keep an eye out for the racist teabaggers at the next bunco party.
I wonder what Kiteley thought of all the Bush assasination porn. Actually, I don’t. Just sounds like another hypocrite to me. But, like you said, it’s worse being pushed by a man in his line of work.
To be fair, though, happy. America’s hymen had been torn to shred manyyears ago. Obama’s just really and truly over doing the whole sloppy seconds thing.
OI-love the qualifier “I haven’t been drinking YET”
We already have such requirement in Washington state. A number of restaurants have produced a ‘separate menu’ that tracks nutritional information – some of the others have produced ‘in-line’ menus where the nutritional information is added as a ‘100/10/4/1700/10’ sort of ‘line item’ – see the legalese index for explanation. McD’s has posted additional signs, etc. In subjective personal experience, I do not observe others utilizing, nor have I received any value from such information produced at great cost to these businesses at the end of the gov’t gun.
Barrett Brown can write the Lord’s Prayer on the head of a pin.
At least, I’m sure his tattooist can.
Perhaps it’s reached the point where having his name on your About page undermines you even more than he thinks it does him. Yeesh.
One more thing that will be ignored.
I’m the person that said name one.
I’d still like to know who the “plenty of Biblical literalists over here” are, but I will settle for just one.
Wonder what the Schechter’s would have thought about having to append nutritional information to the chickens the Government was kindly price-setting for them?
This little small pathetic egotistical douchenozzle was, is, and will forever be a mendoucheous twatwaffle. That is all.
RACISTS. GODBOTHERERS!!!
Many of those who affect the “skeptic” pose today do so as a substitute for religion.
And those who claim not to be religious are more likely to believe in UFOs, astrology, and the occult than those who profess an Abrahamic religion.
But do tell us how your skeptics magazine managed to embrace AGW skeptics such as Steve McIntyre, and how you assisted him in debunking the corrupted data, presto-chango math, witch-hunting, and out-and-out lies of the AGW promoters.
Well?
404 Not Found
Barret Brown can de facto himself.
The witches who thought they were witches or thought they did “witchy things” were most likely drug users of some kind, perhaps inadvertently.
I saw a documentary on a type of smut that grows on rye when there’s just the right humidity, rain, and temperature conditions. The smut spores induce hallucinations in humans.
The sites of witch trials were near rye fields during weather conditions that were suitable for the smut.
So people were being tormented by something that seemed otherworldly and evil; it just wasn’t witchcraft, though I can see why they’d interpret it that way.
And yeah, I’m sure they targeted uppity single women who had no business being independent.
Well, I’m agnostic and no one here has given me the slightest bit of grief.
Damn! I KNEW was forgetting something.
Uh-oh, I misspelled his name.
I like religious people and for that matter, their religions too. Smutty or no.
I’m a bit of a fan of smut myself. Also religion.
Barrett Brown can divide by zero.
Wha…?
Oh!
Barret BrownJeff Goldstein can divide by zero.hComment by Jeff G. on 3/26 @ 12:30 pm #
So we’ve gone from Mohammed cartoons to Darleen cartoons?
The pharisees and scribes of the temple are not amused.
cranky. I think you’ve got the wrong incrementation down.
Once it’s been in place for a while, and if it’s nto having a “fast enough” impact on the menus themselves, they’ll treat it like alternative fuels and CAFE.
The next thing is either exemptions to the postings so long as you are offering a suitable number of “healthy” alternatives, or cerify switching to all organic foods. Or, especially if it’s not affecting how people are eating, set a Calories Per Menu average that may not be exceeded (with credits for healthy alternatives or use of organic foods).
I strayed from faith a long, long time ago. Yet I’m surrounded by the faithful, and by and large they’re really good people.
My only problem with religion is when it grows big enough to wield political power, and at that point, my problem isn’t religious; it’s political.
Barrett Brown can go 404 not found himself.
Blast.
Barrett Brown can 404 himself.
Sorry, ‘beeb.
whatevz
Friggin frones.
dicentra, one of the most interesting things about that whole “witchcraft” episode is the correlation between the 16th century version of asset forfeiture laws. In jurisdictions which had the respect for private property based on English common law, the number of witchcraft persecutions was 1,000 times less than it was in jurisdictions, such as France and the Germanies, that didn’t have it. Source: Robbins, Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology.
In other words, where the legal tradition says YOU own your own property, it’s much less profitable to persecute than the system we’ve moved to, which says everything is really owned and controlled by the government which graciously allows you to keep some.
Oh, and Barrett, just from what I’ve seen today, it would be impossible to lie about you because the most deluded ravings fall far short of the reality.
the audio is priceless.
Sounds to me like Rep. David made a small-government argument on the fly.
Let’s not let this get out. People will call her an oreo.
Shorter BB: “It sure is hot in this kitchen.”
@70
The one I have now depicts a cigarette that looks like a limp dick. I just put smiley face stickers over them.
Barrett Brown can 404 found himself.
“You do not license a Chinese person to sell Chinese food. You do not license a Latino to sell tacos.”
But you do make them get a food-handler’s permit.
Duh.
“But you do make them get a food-handler’s permit.”
Also handicapped access, stickers everywhere telling you to wash your hands, don’t smoke, wear hairnets, etc. etc.
Also clearly posted pay scales, workers rights info, and the like.
And don’t even get me started if you sell alcohol…
So, informing consumers of what they’re eating is bad? But not incurring the costs of new signage & menus to small businesses (with relatively few customers anyway) is also bad? If you’re craving it, you’re going to eat it anyway. But people on the run, or those choosing a quick meal for hungry children, might want their options clearly labeled. If it doesn’t matter to you, just order what the hell you wanted!
You all just *want* to be angry about something. This is a non-issue. It’s been law in NY (and I believe some other states as well) for some time.
This reminds me of the breathalyzer a local bar had installed many years ago. The novelty of just how high of an alcohol level one could acheive was far from behavior altering. Some will care, most will not.
People can’t be trusted.
Well, those people. Luckily, other, better people can be.