I’ve been thinking about Germany in the 1930s as the Nazis built their police and surveillance state. Most Americans aren’t familiar with that history, so they don’t know that many people opposed the Nazis, especially from the Church. Nor do folks realize how careful the Nazis were to push only hard enough to make progress, but not to provoke any pushing back. Then one day, it was too late to try to oppose them. They had built the police state brick by brick, & the trap was shut. Then the war made it easy to brand anyone who opposed the regime a traitor. War offers that cover for totalitarian states.
An even more thorough police state is being built in the US today, with capabilities the Gestapo could only dream of. Many complain, but few oppose at any risk to themselves — I mean principled opposition that is willing to stand lawfully on the constitution and the law in court and even risk jail. I don’t mean morons who think that shooting up a post office will change anything.
Until somebody says, “No, that’s illegal and I won’t go along,” nothing will change. Self-government cannot be preserved by cautious people watching heroes from the sidelines, or blogging or surfing the internet. Only a “belligerent claimant in person” can enforce his rights.
More than 125 years ago Swiss philosopher Henri Amiel said, “If liberty is to be saved, it will not be by doubters, men or science, or materialists; it will be by religious convictions; by the faith of the individuals who believe that God wills men to be free.”
Franklin Sanders, 9 June 2014
First they came for the gun owners, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a gun owner.
Then they came for the photographers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a photographer.
Then they came for the cheesemakers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a cheesemaker.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
What will our loving, benevolent masters choose to protect us from next?
A sense of disbelief and distress is quickly rippling through the U.S. artisan cheese community, as the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week announced it will not permit American cheesemakers to age cheese on wooden boards.
Recently, the FDA inspected several New York state cheesemakers and cited them for using wooden surfaces to age their cheeses. The New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets’ Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services, which (like most every state in the U.S., including Wisconsin), has allowed this practice, reached out to FDA for clarification on the issue. A response was provided by Monica Metz, Branch Chief of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s (CFSAN) Dairy and Egg Branch.
In the response, Metz stated that the use of wood for cheese ripening or aging is considered an unsanitary practice by FDA, and a violation of FDA’s current Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations. Here’s an excerpt:
“Microbial pathogens can be controlled if food facilities engage in good manufacturing practice. Proper cleaning and sanitation of equipment and facilities are absolutely necessary to ensure that pathogens do not find niches to reside and proliferate. Adequate cleaning and sanitation procedures are particularly important in facilities where persistent strains of pathogenic microorganisms like Listeria monocytogenes could be found. The use of wooden shelves, rough or otherwise, for cheese ripening does not conform to cGMP requirements, which require that “all plant equipment and utensils shall be so designed and of such material and workmanship as to be adequately cleanable, and shall be properly maintained.” 21 CFR 110.40(a). Wooden shelves or boards cannot be adequately cleaned and sanitized. The porous structure of wood enables it to absorb and retain bacteria, therefore bacteria generally colonize not only the surface but also the inside layers of wood. The shelves or boards used for aging make direct contact with finished products; hence they could be a potential source of pathogenic microorganisms in the finished products.”
The most interesting part of the FDA’s statement it that it does not consider this to be a new policy, but rather an enforcement of an existing policy. And worse yet, FDA has reiterated that it does not intend to change this policy…
“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”
– James Madison (Constitutional Convention, June 29, 1787)
This is a great article on speeding and how in the name of “safety” our independence and personal responsibility are being “safey-safed” away from everyone, even those who are not “unsafe”. From EricPetersAutos.com:
Yesterday I took one of my motorcycles out and rode it three times faster than the posted speed limit. According to the Clovers of this earth (read more about them here) I shouldn’t be sitting here at my keyboard typing this. I should be dead – since “speed kills.”
Yet, I did not die – or even scratch the paint. I have done this – “speed” – numerous times over several decades, without once dying. Or causing anyone else to die, either.
Logically – and despite what we’re constantly told – “speed” apparently does not “kill.” At least, it did not kill me.
Well, why not?
The Clovers of this earth will inevitably retort with their usual control freak authoritarian jibber-jabber about the increased risk that attends “speeding.” But, take note. They have conceded the point, much as they will recoil once they realize it.
I “speed” – and live. Therefore, “speed” doesn’t kill.
It might – but that’s an altogether different argument.
Clover is now in the position of the woman in Winston Churchill’s story who has agreed to have sex with a guy who has offered her $1 million dollars to do the deed . . . but takes umbrage at his reduced offer of $10.
They’re haggling over price – not the principle of the thing.
In Clover’s case, it’s “speed” we’re arguing about. It’s clear that it does not always or necessarily “kill.” If it did kill, literally millions of people would get killed today.
Because millions of people will “speed.” As they do every day. As cops do, routinely.
Of course, millions will not die.
The vast majority will get to their destination without incident. I speed every time I drive – or ride. You probably do, too. Almost everyone does – even Clovers. We’re still alive, most of us.
Therefore, “speed” does not “kill.”
Much less necessarily.
Which means we can throw Clover’s axiom – “speed kills!” – in the woods. It’s of a piece with other false universal statements (e.g., the Jews control the media; all blacks are violent).
Clover will fall back on “increased risk.” Youmight lose control and wreck – and cause harm.
But this is an intangible, something that cannot be definitively quantified. I ride my motorcycle at three times the posted speed limit – and nothing happens. Later that day, a driver doing 5 MPH below the posted speed limit loses control of his vehicle – for any of several possible reasons – crashes and is killed.
Did “speed” kill him?
Or was it because he wasn’t paying attention, then overcorrected after his right wheel dipped off the road?
If it is “speed” that’s the universal, all-explanatory problem, then – logically – the “safest” speed is no speed at all. All movement should cease. Or at least – for safety’s sake – a national maximum speed limit of 25 MPH ought to be imposed. Especially on highways. That would “save lives” – cue the familiar Onager refrain from the Clover chorus.
But, a 25 MPH maximum would be inconvenient.
So, we’re allowed to travel at a “speed” deemed to be “safe” . . . by the Clovers – the bureaucrats who impose these arbitrary velocity maximums, the people who supportthese arbitrary maximums and, of course, the cops and courts that enforce them.
They are comfortable with 65 or 70 on the highway – and 35 or 40 in town. So those “speeds” are decreed “safe” – and anointed as lawful. On the other hand, they feel 25 MPH on the highway is too slow – even though (using their logic against them) 25 is surely “safer” than 65 or 70.
Remember: “Speed kills.” The slower, the safer. So let’s all go really slow.
But because they’d like to get where they’re going, too – just like us “speeders” – they scoff at the prospect of a 25 MPH national maximum speed limit. They don’t want their commute to work to take an hour rather than half an hour – no matter “the children” or “safety.”
If a 25 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit were imposed, they’d ignore it – and “speed” – just like us. And they’d resent it – just like us – when they got waylaid for this “offense” by an armed costumed, lectured about “safety” by a judge, fleeced of a couple hundred bucks in fines, then hit with a “surcharge” by their insurance company on the basis of their “unsafe” driving record.
But they’re not comfortable with 75 or 80.
That’s “too fast” . . . slow down! What’s yourhurry?
Because they’re not comfortable driving 75 or 80 – because they feel it’s “too fast” – you aren’t permitted to drive that fast.
It does not matter that you’re comfortable driving at higher-than-Clover speeds. Nor that you haven’t lost control of your vehicle – or in any tangible, objective way given reason to worry that you might. You may be able to point to decades of “safe” driving; you’ve never lost control of your vehicle, never harmed anyone . . . even though you were “speeding” pretty much the entire time.
It does not matter. It carries no weight.
Clover feels that driving 75 or 80 – or whatever the arbitrary number happens to be – is “too fast.” Therefore, it is too fast – under the law.
Which, technically, it is.
Anytime one drives in excess of a posted maximum, one is by definition “speeding.”
Whether it’s unsafe to “speed” – that’s another question.
And the answer to that question is one that the Clovers of this earth are not interested in hearing.
Throw it in the Woods?
“If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too.”
– W. Somerset Maugham
“In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life and they lost it all – security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them; when the freedom they wished for most was the freedom from responsibility, then the Athenians ceased to be free.”
– Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire