“We’re happy to have people talking about vegetables. You’ll remember that the first President Bush was not a broccoli fan. The broccoli people weathered that, and they’ll weather this, too.”
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
That is a quote from Dave Kranz, a spokesman for the California Farm Bureau Federation responding to the portion of Judge Vinson’s ruling where Vinson said that if the mandate was upheld, this meant the government could force people to eat broccoli. It is a funny line and one of the bright spots in an otherwise risible New York Times piece on the Vinson decision.
The risible part starts with the very headline: “Tea Party Shadows Health Care Ruling.” They echo the belief that because the judge mentioned the Boston Tea Party and its surrounding controversy, that this was supposedly a nod toward the modern political movement called the Tea Party which self-consciously invokes that incident. They do so citing people I already fisked in the previous posts, here and here.
It’s worth remembering what the judge said there, if only because it is such a good line:
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.
But really, liberals? You are going to concede America’s revolutionary heritage to one party or movement? Now the Boston Tea Party is the property of the Tea Party? Because that would seem like a tactical error, suggesting that your views are in opposition to what this nation was founded on.
And this response from Think Progress is pretty lame:
Igor Volsky, a health policy analyst who writes on the blog ThinkProgress, also noted the judge’s reference. “It’s the kind of overreach that will do more to harm the Republican crusade against the law than help it,” Mr. Volsky offered.
On the contrary, Volsky, you are doing more harm than good to your cause. I have yet to hear a single liberal provide a good answer to that argument. And it is the kind of stark, punchy argument that makes most people pause, and very often wins them over. Indeed, one has to suspect that is why Think Progress is trying so hard to tar that particular line as somehow wrong or bad, because it mentions the Boston Tea Party and the surrounding controversy. Because they know in their hearts of hearts that this argument drew blood.*
Keep attacking this line, liberals. Please, talk about it as much as possible. I want as many people as possible to read that line from the opinion. It is a really good line, and a really good argument. And every time it is repeated, more people are convinced. I will go as far as to say that if the law is struck down, Judge Vinson’s words will be quoted in the Supreme Court’s opinion. It is that good.
————————
* Oh, there I go again with those scary, violent metaphors. Call Charles Johnson!
————————
I am also reminded of the controversy that erupted when… gasp… the Republicans decided to start off Congress with a reading of the Constitution. As I wrote back then:
Finally, I have to say that all this hand-wringing over reading the constitution is just lousy politics. I am really stunned that so many liberals get so worked up over this. The left may think they are getting in lots of cute digs at the right, but to the American people, this all sounds more like [Phil Hare saying he doesn’t care about the constitution.]
The correct response was from Rep. Gabrielle Giffords:
“I just read the First Amendment!” Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, said gleefully as she exited the floor.
“I wanted to be here, I think it’s important,” Ms. Giffords said. “Reflecting on the Constitution in a bipartisan way is a good way to start the year.”
We’re still pulling for a full recovery, Ms. Giffords.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Limbaugh called reading the Constitution on the House floor an exorcism. I think he was right.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:11 am#1:
The power of tea compels you!
Mitch (890cbf) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:19 amWith ObaminableCare, the federal government becomes ultimately responsible for paying for your health care. Oh, it may be mostly indirectly, but it exists, given that the federal government will subsidize or even completely pay all of your health insurance premiums if you can’t afford it.
In her White House blog, Stephanie Cutter argued that:
Why, then, couldn’t the government argue that if you don’t eat your broccoli — or, more practically, don’t follow the FDA guidelines for a healthy diet — you are increasing your eventual health care costs, which will come back on the insurance pool as well as the government, which means you are “actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us?”
We already have the lovely Mrs Obama out there, telling us we have to lose weight (are there no mirrors in the White House?), and the government is already trying to issue regulations to force food processors to lower sodium content.
Remember: our friends on the left just know better than we do what’s good for us.
The Dana who likes broccoli (3e4784) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:21 amThinkregress Is a pile of putrid cow dung.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:28 amI am not a liberal, and I liked this and other engaging phrases the judge made in his ruling (being the non-lawyer who doesn’t need to worry about what was “appropriate” or not). But, I do believe there is a logical flaw in the judge’s reference/analogy. One could also say that the colonists were not against a mandate to buy tea as much as they were against a mandate to buy tea that they did not decide on, from a source they had no control over. So then you are left with the argument whether the fact that our elected representatives voted for the law is the differentiating factor, or whether the fact that public opinion was agin’ it but Congress passed it anyway makes it the same as the complaint against the British.
But I prefer to realize that analogies are just that, imperfect references to bring a certain perspective to bear on a situation, which can be useful if not presumed to prove more than they do.
I think trying to somehow tie the original Tea Party into contemporary political nomenclature is a loser (for the left). Linking the original colonists and the fight for American freedom with the “Tea Party” movement of today legitimizes today’s movement in a way that is counter to their own cause. But when you do things reflexively oppositional without thinking (yes, a bit redundant), that happens.
I hear Chicago’s Lakeshore Drive was covered with car-shaped ice-sculptures…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:32 am“I hear Chicago’s Lakeshore Drive was covered with car-shaped ice-sculptures…”
MD in Philly – On the roads that are open, driving conditions are pretty sporty.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:36 amWinter sucks. I blame algore.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:38 amThe problem with mandating the eating of vegetables is that it would increase our trade deficit, since the EPA and others have decided that making large swaths of California non-productive is better than potentially risking, but actually not really, the population of some little fish.
Now, if
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:40 amDavis(wrong ex-governor) Brown can reverse that nonsense and get California growing again, looking at their financial situation will make him look like a brilliant miracle worker.I don’t think the government can force you eat broccoli. They can only force you to buy it.
kansas (313837) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:41 amI said before, Minnesotans 4 Global Warming (M4GW) need to branch out to make sister organizations in other states.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:42 amComment by kansas
Spoken like a true parent. Yes, one can only make the consequences of not eating it so burdensome that eating seems easier (“If you don’t eat it now, it will be waiting for you at breakfast!), except for the truly stubborn person who would rather die than give in. I’ve
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:45 amknownraised some like that.According to their logic, if any action or inaction can be proven to impact the world around you, that action or inaction can be regulated, mandated, or penalized. This, of course, gives them complete authority over every aspect of your life since, by definition, actions and inactions are intended to affect the environment surrounding the actor.
Given the path their logic requires we take, I can’t think of a valid argument against the following statement:
Those who claim that the “conservative re-education camp” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “free speech” are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to deny the benefits of redistribution are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us.
And, in case any of you liberals think I’m being overwrought, try this future on for size:
Those who claim President Palin’s statement that “the disease of progressivism must be corrected by our healthcare system” exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “free speech” are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to deny the benefits of conservative thought are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us.
Cooter (f1ab34) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:48 amBroccoli is getting a bum rap. Why don’t they pick on rutabagas or turnips–vegetables lotsa people really do hate?
elissa (c3c53b) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:48 amThis isn’t as far fetched as you might think. In medieval France there were places that did in fact require all residents to buy a quota of wine from the government; what they did with it afterward was their own business. This outraged at least one rabbi, who ruled that it was permitted to do whatever one could to evade this law because “this is not the king’s law but the king’s robbery”.
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:59 amActually, I just wonder if it’s practically possible for America to switch from processed starchy, low fiber foods to healthy food.
If the federal government mandate everyone buy fruits and veggies, I suspect we’d see prices soar. Food prices are more important to D.C. than healthy eating.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/2/2011 @ 10:02 amThat’s because their “views are in opposition to what this nation was founded on.”
Actually, the government does force you to buy veggies. The school lunch program is actually a federal farm program. (Not that I have anything against broccoli and mystery meat with a side of powdered mashed potatoes.)
ukulele dave (e546ca) — 2/2/2011 @ 11:13 amukulele
i have never been forced to buy a school lunch. and indeed, i hated them enough not to do so except on really rare occasions.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/2/2011 @ 11:26 amAaron,
Our tax money buys those lunches.
ukulele dave (e546ca) — 2/2/2011 @ 11:43 amAaron, I’ve no doubt bought many school lunches, just not for myself. Likewise I’ve been forced to buy many other things that I thought foolish, like California homes built on cliffsides which get washed out every five years and burned out in brushfires every 3 years. I wish I could get excited about the chunk of GM the government forced me to buy, but I just cannot.
Oh wait, I forgot that the US is no longer a republic, so instead of being an owner of the US instead I am a subject of it, darn. Uke, that throws cold water on your point.
max (2f2a28) — 2/2/2011 @ 11:49 amelissa #13 – hstorically, I seem to recall only one major problem that had an unambiguously-identifiable root cause …
The Potato Famine of 1845-1849
And, properly prepared, turnips, swedes, rutabagas, and parsnips are all delicious !
EricAzzWJohnston (e7cb73) — 2/2/2011 @ 11:49 amACK ! I apologise for my unWorthingness !
#20 is Alasdair
(blush)
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 2/2/2011 @ 11:51 amAlasdair – I am also a fan of rutabagas and turnips, but seldom prepare them.
I prefer cauliflower smothered in cheese to broccoli.
Plus, you could go for asparagus to put some stinkle in your tinkle.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 12:05 pmParsnip puree is very good, when done right.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/2/2011 @ 12:09 pmI heard on the radio that Obamacare raises the percentage of gross income from 7.5% to 10% before medical expenses can be deducted. They will also limit pre-tax medical savings accounts to $2,500. Also, they added 3.8% tax on all real estate transactions. I thought that they weren’t going to raise taxes on people who make less then $250,000 a year which those items effectively do? I wonder what other tax burdens were to Obamacare?
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 2/2/2011 @ 12:12 pmWell, I still think broccoli is getting a bum rap and daley and Alasdair are dimbulb wackadoodles if they don’t agree with me. (I read that line somewhere and thought I’d try it out.) And don’t try to change the subject by bringing up the potato famine.
elissa (c3c53b) — 2/2/2011 @ 12:15 pmFanny – you should enjoy this …
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758#
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/2/2011 @ 12:17 pmelissa – Go eat some prunes. Heh!
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 12:18 pmMD in Philly said, “One could also say that the colonists were not against a mandate to buy tea as much as they were against a mandate to buy tea that they did not decide on, from a source they had no control over.”
One could say that, but then I think one would be wrong.
From my recollection of the matter, not only were the colonists were forced to buy tea from a source not of their choosing, but as Patterico points out, they were also being forced to pay a tax on that tea, a tax from which they received no benefit, to their minds. “Taxation without representation” is a phrase that springs to mind.
IMHO, that is big part of the objection people have to the mandate. People being forced to buy insurance they don’t want, and perhaps don’t need, being otherwise in very good health. A ‘tax’, if you will, from which they receive no benefit. The fact that it is also unconstitutional, to many, is a fortunate side effect.
Bugz (22f877) — 2/2/2011 @ 12:18 pmBugz, you are correct, and I guess I did not myself clear. Let me add in italics.
“One could also say that the colonists were not against a mandate to buy tea as much as they were against a mandate to buy tea that they did not decide on (because the British told them to buy tea), and from a source they had no control over (because the British told them who to buy tea from).”
you could go for asparagus to put some stinkle in your tinkle. –
Comment by daleyrocks
You do know, don’t you, that there are many people who have no clue what you are talking about. I don’t know who has or is lacking the enzyme, but there is a genetic reason some people metabolize asparagus different from others. Not everybody gets the “characteristic” odor in urine after eating asparagus.
And don’t try to change the subject by bringing up the potato famine.
Comment by elissa
It is my understanding that even during the potato “famine”, there was plenty of food growing in Ireland, it’s just that wheat and whatever else was growing was sold to the English. Just a reminder that oppression and injustice are not inherently linked to color, but essentially “otherness”, however that may be defined in a particular time and place.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:23 pmguys, buying something out of tax payer funds is not the same as forcing you to buy something with your own money. sheesh.
does that mean i bought a prison? and a courthouse?
No, i was taxed by the government and the government bought those things. i don’t own any part of them.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:25 pmSo it’s like buying something insofar as your money went away, but not like buying something insofar as you don’t have control over it?
Hmmm.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:27 pmIf someone doesn’t like broccoli, let them eat arugula.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:27 pm“Now the Boston Tea Party is the property of the Tea Party? Because that would seem like a tactical error, suggesting that your views are in opposition to what this nation was founded on” Great line Aaron! Too bad liberals are irony impared. I still want to know if Chucky Cheesy Schumer was present for the reading of the Constitution. If he wasn’t, why is he still sitting on the Judicial comittee? Just sayin’.
Nick Shaw (71b010) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:40 pmMr Shaw asked:
Almost certainly not, since it was read in the House and the Distinguished Gentleman from New York is a Senator.
The helpful Dana (132cf8) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:14 pmdaleyrocks #27 – I suspect that elissa already does so, since she is is clearly a regular commenter …
(innocent grin)
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:28 pmMD in Philly. I think you are still mistaken. I don’t think the original colonists were being compelled to buy tea by the British. They could buy it, or not. Their choice. If they did buy it, however, they were compelled to pay what they felt was an unfair tax. It was the tax that prompted the residents of Boston to throw the tea into the harbor, not the fact they had to buy tea they didn’t want. Again, the rallying cry was, “No taxation without representation”, not “we want Folgers instead of Lipton”.
So it is for many with the mandate. People don’t like being forced to buy a service (insurance) that they feel they don’t need, which many view as a tax in disguise. Conservatives don’t like the expansion in big government that Obamacare represents. The means being used to oppose the act is both legislative (repeal) and judicial (constitutionality).
The point illustrated by the Judge in the ruling is valid, then. The Judge points out the the original Boston Tea Party occurred, at least in part, as a result of the tax on tea. With respect to Obamacare, then Judge says that if the founders rebelled against the tea tax, how much more would they have rebelled against a ‘tax’ (the mandate) that is not only levied, but made mandatory?
I think he has a valid point.
Bugz (22f877) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:33 pmI’ll eat my broccoli when you force it down my cold, dead throat!
malclave (4f3ec1) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:34 pm@34
Almost certainly not, since it was read in the House and the Distinguished Gentleman from New York is a Senator.
True, a completely different branch of government.
malclave (4f3ec1) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:35 pmAlasdair @35 – Oh my.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:39 pmMD in Philly #29 –
Actually, I remember reading research a few weeks ago (I think Instapundit linked it) that showed that everybody metabolizes asparagus the same way and has that characteristic odor in their urine, but only a quarter (roughly) of the population has the genetics required to detect that odor. They determined this by getting volunteers to smell urinals and see whether the asparagus odor lingered after various people, who had or had not eaten asparagus recently, had used it. (I hope those volunteers got hazard pay!) It turned out that everyone produced the odor, whether or not they were able to smell it.
And for what it’s worth, I seem to be in the group that can’t smell it — I’ve eaten asparagus plenty of times before, and reading that paper was the first time I’d ever learned that it produces a distinctive odor in urine.
Robin Munn (1bccbe) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:40 pmThe government can make you buy health insurance.
It’s quite simple really.
By withholding your purchase, you are participating in a commercial health insurance activity .
No one denies health insurance can be regulated by the government.
Therefore, your failure to buy can be mandated in order to ensure full compliance with the government’s authority to regulate.
I cite the case of Cat v. Dog (2011)
Legally speaking, Cats are dogs.
Cats crap in a litter box, dogs don’t.
By withholding their crap from the cat box, dogs are participating in the use of the cat box (see Wickard v. Filburn)
Cat litter box activities are subject to cat litter box regulation
Because dogs never crap in the litter box, they are always using the litter box and are always subject to cat box regulations
Because sometimes cats do not use the litter box, they also are always subject to kitty box regulations
Any animal subject to cat box regulations deserves treatment equal to that of cats
To avoid discriminatory application of cat box regulation, it is necessary for dogs and cats to be considered equally
Since dogs and cats are equal in all ways, there can be no distinction recognized between cats and dogs
Since no distinction can be made, legally speaking, cats are dogs.
It’s a fun game, try it. Any two opposites can become the same using something I’ve termed “Progressive Absurdity.”
Cooter (f1ab34) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:46 pmRight. Because defending them from the French and Indians was of no use to them. Of course at the time they’d been screaming about how they’d all be murdered in their beds, and the British must come defend them immediately, but for some reason they thought it was right and proper for the British taxpayers to be bled white to pay for it while they could not be required to contribute even a symbolic amount.
“No taxation without representation” is a pretty slogan, but giving them 13 MPs wouldn’t have changed a thing. Even if they voted against the tax, the other few hundred MPs would have voted for it, and rightly so.
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:58 pmCooter, Filburn was not penalised for failing to buy wheat. He had no obligation to buy even one bushel, and if he wanted to do without wheat, or live within his quota, he was free to do so. His offense was to grow more than his quota.
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/2/2011 @ 3:03 pmLeading up to the Boston Tea Party, the Massachusetts governor had the monopoly to import tea to Massachusetts. So they were not only charging a royal tax, but the governor was charging monopoly prices on what was nearly the only available non-alcoholic beverage.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2011 @ 3:16 pmCan a lawyer please tell me if the failure of Vinson to issue a specific injunction against implementation of Obamacare means that Obamacare remains the “law of the land” and can continue in force despite his ruling?
Is this arguable, or ambiguous?
raven (9f94be) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:04 pmyou know at first glance this looks like it’s gonna be a thread about vegetables but
nope
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:18 pmhey did you know the thing about parsnips is they need a touch of frost.. this is why I never had em down in the south … in fact I still never had em unless you count the terra chips ones
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:23 pmraven, Vinson in his opinion addressed this. He stated that since a declaratory judgment of the legislation’s illegality is sufficient to inform the government, and since the government is assumed to act upon court judgments without the need to have a formal injunction with the contempt power to enforce, he did not need to issue an injunction.
It does not mean that the legislation is “the law of the land”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:24 pmRaven, see this post. According to Judge Vinson the law is void, and therefore not the law of the land. As far as he is concerned the legal situation now is exactly as it was before the law was passed in the first place. He saw no need to enjoin the government from enforcing it, any more than it needs to be enjoined to prevent it from enforcing all sorts of fantasy laws that don’t exist. Should the government attempt to enforce it anyway, you can be sure he will issue an injunction.
Of course the executive branch is entitled to its own view of the constitution, and may disagree with that of the judiciary. So long as it doesn’t need the cooperation of the judiciary it can continue to enforce the law on the basis that the President still believes it to be constitutional. Should it do so, if I were in charge of the Republican response I would loudly applaud the President for having the guts to assert the rights of the executive branch against the judicial one, and get it on the record as firmly as possible that the GOP wholly approves and hopes the next GOP president will take the same attitude. Of course the chance of any of this happening is nil. The last thing the Democrats want is to entrench this position.
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:27 pmHmmm, that creates an interesting issue in Federal civil procedure that I’m going to have to think about.
Obviously an injunction can be “stayed” during appeal, either by the district court or by the appellate panel if they choose to. But a declaratory judgment is an interesting issue. Is a declaratory judgment “stayed”? I think not. I think that the declaratory judgment is effective until overturned by an appellant panel’s decision on the merits. But I’ll defer to anyone more expert in Federal civil procedure.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:30 pmMr. Feets – A grit is a good vegetable too. Mr. Joe Pesci found that out in “My Cousin Vinnie.” As long as we don’t have a shortage of them because we’re putting them in cars, I plan on continuing to like a grit now and then as well as frying up some hominy with butter and red pepper.
I will allow elissa to eat my servings of broccoli since she is a fan. Ima giver that way.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:34 pmParsnip is good in chicken soup.
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:34 pmI do not object to parsnips. elissa may not have my parsnips.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:37 pmI am trying parsnip puree and celery root puree this evening. And butternut squash soup.
JD (b98cae) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:41 pmThanks, Milhouse and SPQR. I read the decision and understood his closing comments that his judgment was the “functional equivalent” of an injunction to be simply efficient and decorous with respect to dealing with the executive branch. But I’ve had arguments with some who claim, shrilly and monotonously, that the absence of an actual injunction allows Obamacare to continue in force with no legal consequence. It has become annoying.
raven (9f94be) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:47 pmhominy I eat a lot of… is very healthy and it goes back like a thousand million years … I think it’s corn soaked in lye for so the Incas or god knows who could store it … lye or just something that kills the germ of the corns so they won’t sprout
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:49 pmcelery root
no one tells me anything who knew you could eat celery roots
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:51 pmSo many vegetables to talk about. Grits and hominy. Very delicious in moderation. Why yes, I have some other thoughts….
That field of corn, would never see a plow
That field of corn, would be deserted now
A man is born, but he’s no good no how
Without a song
No subsidies though.
elissa (c3c53b) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:52 pmraven, you can respond to such silliness by asking them why they think that Obama would act in a lawless fashion … as the Democrats always accused Bush.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:00 pmRobin at #40
That would be an interesting clarification; however, it could also be a story put out by some biochem grad student who was told by his/her advisor to isolate and characterize the offending chemical who failed to find a difference in odiferous vs. non-odiferous urine.
It has been told my father never knew what people were talking about with smelly urine and asperagus, but he won’t eat it anyway so he’s not a good test subject.
So, we could do a Google search and try to get more information, or you could engage the assistance of someone who knows first hand of the pungent properties of post-asperagus urine, and between the two of you decide if the issue is in the pee-er or the smell-er. No, I am not providing any funding for this research.
Bugz- I never said the judge didn’t have a point, but I did say that analogies are good only for as far as you can take them. Yes, there is the difference whether they (the colonists) were mandated to buy tea, drink tea, pay monopolistic prices for tea, or a tax on tea. But the other difference, as you pointed out, was the issue of “taxation without representation”. I was simply pointing out, that as a matter of logic, it coulkd have been possible for the colonists to have as their main objection the fact that it was those folk in Britain over the sea that were dictating to them, and perhaps they would have been in favor of all kind of things as long as they (the colonists) were deciding for themselves. Again, I do not say that to suggest the judge doesn’t have a clever point, I think he does. I just don’t want us to practice “epistemiological closure” prematurely.
FWIW, I heard once that the tea tax was the idea of somebody in the English govt. to try to do a favor for a friend who was a merchant and was suffering from business miscalculations.
There was also a “Philadelphia Tea Party” that had a more peaceful and civil resolution than those uncouth barbarians in Boston. 😉
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:17 pmfeets, they’re especially good with sammin.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:18 pm“no one tells me anything who knew you could eat celery roots”
Mr. Feets – You could go with fennel. It tastes sort of like licorice chicken ony wifout the chicken.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:23 pmMD in Philly – I think you should propose a study to determine if white asparagus winky tinky is as odiferous as green asparagus winky tinky.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:27 pm__________________________________________
Judge Vinson’s ruling where Vinson said that if the mandate was upheld, this meant the government could force people to eat broccoli.
Such mandates, real or hypothetical, also require that the government hire thousands and thousands — and thousands — of new bureaucrats (such as those in the IRS) to manage the force feeding or force debiting of people.
Of course, that’s offset by the fact that government employees — overseen by their humble, docile, non-greedy unions — make modest wages and have modest, miserly healthcare and pension plans.
Mark (411533) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:29 pmfeets, there are two kinds of celery: the normal celery that you eat, and whose roots are not good for much; and celery root, which is grown for its large root but whose stalk and leaves aren’t much good.
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:33 pmFennel is yummy. Raw in a salad, or roasted.
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:34 pmIs asparagus stinky tinky winky compatibility something people should deal with if they are filling out a match.com questionaire do you think?
elissa (c3c53b) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:40 pmI mean, what about the CHILdren?
who knew? Two kinds of celery. That’s 100% more celery kinds than I knew of when i woked up today.
Fennel I have sometimes and one time on a wine tour here in California our bus broke down and fennel was growing wild and we munched a little with some cheese we’d bought. We were kinda drunk.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:42 pmI expect to see a comment by Ina Garten any minute now.
PatAZ (29affb) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:57 pmOK – off topic – I need a little help here.
I keep getting people at the door for some clean water group that wants to prevent a terrible terrible new process in drilling for natural gas that will cause my tap water to become flammable. Anybody know a good website or two where I could find data to debunk this crap?
Although I’m sure it happens (well water can contain some crazy stuff, like arsenic) I am VERY skeptical of the gas drilling explanation.
Gesundheit (aab7c6) — 2/2/2011 @ 6:25 pmhere’s a page with links about fracking what debunk the alarmists’ propagandas
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/2/2011 @ 6:40 pmBut wait a minute. Wasn’t it the Republicans who liked, who wanted, who insisted on the individual mandate?
Why did everyone stop on a dime?
And, hey, Aaron, why don’t you get in Charles Fried’s face a bit? I mean he’s outta da group, or sumthin, huh.
Larry Reilly (0e1b2d) — 2/2/2011 @ 6:48 pmLarry Reilly, why do you always show up here, late, with last week’s White House talking points?
Soros is not getting his money’s worth with your cheap trolling.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2011 @ 6:54 pm@51
You mention grits and hominy. What, no love for okra?
malclave (4f3ec1) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:01 pmCelery roots, olfactory deficits implicated in asparagate, and flammable water…
Actually shows how well the US has fought pollution, as the last flammable water I knew of was the Cuyahoga River, and it hasn’t burned for many a year.
That’s 100% more celery kinds than I knew of when i woked up today.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:01 pmWe just finished watching Groundhog Day in celebration of Groundhog Day. Wife and I hadn’t seen it for years, introduced the 10 year old to it.
I had fried okra for the first time not too long ago. It tasted like fried green tomatoes, which I love but you don’t get green tomatoes to fry unless you grow your own and have a frost that kills the plants instead of letting them linger into mid-November. Thanks for reminding me.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:04 pm==Wasn’t it the Republicans who liked, who wanted, who insisted on the individual mandate?==
Exactly! That’s why they all fought tooth and nail and voted against Obamacare. And why they all ran in 2010 on the promise to repeal–and won many additional seats. Do you even read what you write, Larry?
elissa (c3c53b) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:05 pmelissa,
I’m glad you have the energy.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:08 pmMD–OKRA!!!! That stuff is nasty. I made some one time on the recommendation of a southern friend and even my dog who pretty much eats anything wouldn’t touch it.
elissa (c3c53b) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:10 pmokra is good if you don’t like it southern you should try it at a good indian place look for the word bindi … there’s several ways but they’re all very very good. Indian people and vegetables… what’s up with that? Alls I know is it’s v tasty.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:14 pmDana–it’s one and done for me. Because in truth I don’t have the energy for that Mary Reilly nonsense. But I hate liars.
elissa (c3c53b) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:15 pmBhindi is delish. So’s okra done middle-eastern style in a tomato sauce and served with rice. If you’re ever at an Israeli shnitzel-and-skewers kind of place, ask for it; they call it “bamya”.
Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:24 pmI think okra is why they lost the Civil War. Broccoli is pretty good, though.
elissa (c3c53b) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:31 pmBut wait a minute. Wasn’t it the Republicans who liked, who wanted, who insisted on the individual mandate?
No. You are an imbecile, Mawy.
As a kid, my loving mother would sauté okra, and then when it was the right texture, deep fry it. I hearted it.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:50 pmWas the okra dipped in egg then cornmeal and fried?
“they lost” – Maybe the problem wasn’t the okra, it’s that Yankees have a genetic mutation that makes them not taste it properly.
Or maybe it was okra root you tried…
“shnitzel-and-skewers”???
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:56 pmParsnips are great sliced and roasted.
I prefer to enjoy broccoli vicariously… okra in good batter can be great. The key (to me) is not to slice it too thick or too thin. Too thick and it can be slimy inside, too thin and its just some fried batter (which can be good)
I might be convinced to try a well seasoned tempura too.
I made a mexicanized chakchouka (added my homemade guajillo enchilada sauce and some chopped serranos) tonight. If I had okra around, I’d have tried to used it.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:57 pmWe tried to get our boys to eat broccoli by telling them to pretend they were dinosaurs eating trees. Didn’t work. (Though our oldest did, true to Calvin and Hobbes, once bite my wife in the thigh and smilingly said, “Dinosaur, mommy!”- Maybe boys only want to be carnivorous dinosaurs. Who wants to be a brontosaurus when you can be T. rex.)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/2/2011 @ 8:04 pm#60 MD in Philly –
I found the article I was remembering, linked from the Wikipedia page on Asparagus. It was in the British Medical Journal in 1980, and I was wrong about the urinals bit — they had test subjects smelling test tubes filled with urine samples. Key quote from the article: “It would appear that the ability to excrete (a) characteristic pungent substance(s) in the urine after eating asparagus is universal, since those familiar with the odour could detect it in the urine of anyone who has eaten asparagus (whether or not that person was able to detect it himself).”
Robin Munn (1bccbe) — 2/2/2011 @ 8:13 pm“What, no love for okra?”
malclave – I’m down with fried okra or okra in stuff like soups. Frozen okra turns into a pile of mush, but some people like that stuff.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 8:22 pm“I think okra is why they lost the Civil War.”
elissa – You might be right. I always thought it was because they talked funny and were dumb.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 8:42 pmEverybody is eating a lot better than I am. I’m pretty damn jealous about SteveG in particular.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/2/2011 @ 8:49 pmYu hef nut enkoontered zis nu-ly kreatud arm uf ze Homeland Security Forces — “ze Svallow Poliz“.
Ekwipt vis ze pate funnel, ze Svallow Poliz intend tu liv up tu zere motto:
“Yu Vil Eat Your Brocolli, Und Yu Vil Like It!!”
.
Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:00 pmFWIW, I heard once that the tea tax was the idea of somebody in the English govt. to try to do a favor for a friend who was a merchant and was suffering from business miscalculations.
It was the East India Tea Company that was in financial trouble. The British government raised the taxes on tea in the British Isles, so less tea was drunk there. The East India Tea Company soon had a huge surplus on tea. To make the tea competitive with smuggled tea, the British government did away with the 25% importation duty it had been charging, and replaced them with the Townshend Acts on the American colonies. One of these was a tax on tea. So The British government arranged for the East India Tea Company to be able to sell tea directly to the colonists. Even though the price of tea was now less than the price of smuggled tea, because it included the tax, the colonists were outraged.
(as an aside, you don’t think the fact that some of the Founding Fathers like John Hancock were making fortunes smuggling tea had anything to do with the outrage? Nahhhh….)
gahrie (ed7a50) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:02 pmTomorrow i am going to experiment with cooking on cedar planks. The parsnip puree rocked. The celery root puree was close. I will braise in heavy cream next time.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:02 pmI recall a comic strip from Mother Goose & Grimm.
A couple sits in a restaurant, with a demon in an apron acting as their waitron.
In the background you see a window painted with the sign, “Hell’s Kitchen“.
The waitron is saying,
“No, we’re out of that, too. But we do have beets. Lots and lots of beets…“
.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:06 pmBeets RAWK!
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:18 pmBorscht. I am a really adventurous eater, and I cannot bring myself to try borscht.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/2/2011 @ 9:20 pmMy dad used to make borscht… I once heard a woman define a gentleman as someone who knows how to play the accordion… but doesn’t.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 2/2/2011 @ 10:33 pmApplying that advice to borscht would have been a plus…
72. But wait a minute. Wasn’t it the Republicans who liked, who wanted, who insisted on the individual mandate? Why did everyone stop on a dime?
Comment by Larry Reilly — 2/2/2011 @ 6:48 pm
— Ah, Mawwy. You are, as always, exactly correct . . . and so adorably precious! I simply cannot possibly imagine why anyone would ever accuse you of suffering from the dread liberal disease of absolutism. Far be it from YOU to EVER falsely ascribe such a damning label (was it really ALL Republicans that once-upon-a-time advocated an individual mandate, ski king?) to an entire group. Nope, that’s not you at all.
Icy Texan (d74fb8) — 2/2/2011 @ 11:07 pmI saw a tv show where they were making beet sliders… I’d assume you’d want to wear a bibb, but I have to admit that tehy looked like the way to go if you wanted to have a slab o’ beet
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 2/2/2011 @ 11:50 pmNot even “otherness” is needed for this, just a kind of greed and selfishness that is almost unimaginable among civilized peoples these days.
There was famine in Germany in the late 1800s, not because they didn’t grow enough food, they did…. Not because pestilence destroyed the food, it didn’t. It happened because the Junkers resisted the lowering of protective tariffs on the importation of grain, even as they sold all the grains (generally rye) they were growing out of the nation at higher prices than they could get at home. No one needed to starve — they starved because the Junkers flat out didn’t give a rat’s ass.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:12 amHaggis, anyone?
How about a Vegemite sandwich?
:^D
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:22 amThe important question is why you would eat celery roots.
I mean, celery itself is the most boring “served uncooked” vegie there is.
What kinda nutjob did it take to go:
“Hmmm, this is really really incredibly bland and boring… I wonder what the roots taste like?”
.
Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:42 am“You are going to concede America’s revolutionary heritage to one party or movement? Now the Boston Tea Party is the property of the Tea Party?”
Reminds me of the way the French political class pretty much abandoned Joan of Arc to the National Front some years ago – obviously a woman believing it was her God-ordered mission to get the Limeys out of France was not welcome in a secular, europeist country. Turning a national hero into an icon of the far right is quite a feat, isn’t it?
(P.S.: I’m not comparing the Tea Party to the National Front, so please no flame)
Oplontis (0692b1) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:40 amNo flame, no problem. You are a cute and amusing imbecile.
JD (d56362) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:19 amWhy make the parallel to the National Front then, which will likely be a coalition partner in the future, like Fini’s in Italy/
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:28 amMD in Philly @ 40.
“I was simply pointing out, that as a matter of logic, it coulkd (sic) have been possible for the colonists to have as their main objection the fact that it was those folk in Britain over the sea that were dictating to them, and perhaps they would have been in favor of all kind of things as long as they (the colonists) were deciding for themselves.”
It could have been possible (although unlikely) that the colonists were resisting unreasonable demands from their new insect Overlords from Mars.
If you want to present a hypothetical argument that runs counter to historical accounts, supply supporting evidence.
“Bugz- I never said the judge didn’t have a point, but I did say that analogies are good only for as far as you can take them.”
You also said that the judge’s argument contained a logical flaw. I think you have failed to demonstrate any such flaw. Spurious references to “epistemiological closure” do not constitute a valid argument.
Bugz (22f877) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:33 amRemember the old joke from childhood:
– “My brother (or sister) and I know everything.”
– “OK, how long was the largest iguana ever raised in captivity?”
– “That’s one of the things my sister (brother) knows.”
From the history of the political-economic consequences of the tea trade to asparagus urine, if one of us doesn’t know it, someone else will. Thank you all for your contributions. (Though I will need to review the article from BMJ before I will believe it, and then I may still require additional confirmatory studies. This could be a child’s science project one day…)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:35 amBugz-
As a matter or general principle, I like to look at the strongest possible defense of a position I disagree with. I agree with the judge and thought his comments were clever. My comment about the “flaw in logic” was not referring the the historical likelihood of his comment, which would be a matter of discussion and debate, but rather whether his comment was of necessity true and beyond logical challenge.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:57 amThe Spurious reference to “epistemiological closure” was not meant to constitute a valid argument, but was a tongue-in-cheek reference to a topic previously discussed on the blog..
MD, by posing arguments contrary to fact, your approach is equivalent to saying, “If your Aunt had wheels, she’d be a wagon.”
This makes sense logically, I suppose, but like your argument, it doesn’t do much with respect the the validity of the comments presented by the judge.
Bugz (29eca2) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:11 amMD
‘The Spurious reference to “epistemiological closure” was not meant to constitute a valid argument…’
That’s good, because it succeeded in failing to be a valid argument.
In my experience, people who mention the term ‘epistemiological closure’ use it as a means of saying ‘”Shut up”, they explained.’
No doubt that was not your intent, either.
Bugz (29eca2) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:29 amIt would be very rare for me to say “shut up” in any form, even in my most contentious interchanges, which have been few. As I said, my intent (using “epistemiological closure”) was a humorous tongue-in-cheek, which obviously failed, at least for you.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:17 am