Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Null

Null

So, after killing people with contaminated ice cream, Blue Bell creameries are asking to be allowed to go back to cheaper, less stringent product standards. Like the ones they were supposedly following when they killed people with listeria.

I guess the invisible hand of the market doesn't want to have to wash off listeria bacteria.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Null said:
So, after killing people with contaminated ice cream, Blue Bell creameries are asking to be allowed to go back to cheaper, less stringent product standards. Like the ones they were supposedly following when they killed people with listeria.

I guess the invisible hand of the market doesn't want to have to wash off listeria bacteria.
Click to expand...
Why are their competitors allowed to use these horribly unsafe standards?
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Context:
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/...return-testing-to-industry-norm/#.WGgnEX1JdMs

Blue Bell is requesting that it be allowed to return to normal levels of testing - testing levels used industry-wide. The fatal listeria outbreak that killed 3 in Kansas was in 2015, more than a year ago. There was a second listeria scare this year, but it turned out to not originate from the blue bell plant, but rather their cookie dough supplier, and Blue Bell caught it and recalled the product before there were any illnesses.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Null said:
Because they haven't killed people with contaminated ice cream within the last year?
Click to expand...
So we should let all the other manufacturers roll the dice, and progressively move them to the more stringent regulations permanently as they screw up? Unless all new manufacturers fall directly to the more stringent standards, this seems like it would encourage shell games.
 
Null

Null

GasBandit said:
Context:
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/...return-testing-to-industry-norm/#.WGgnEX1JdMs

Blue Bell is requesting that it be allowed to return to normal levels of testing - testing levels used industry-wide. The fatal listeria outbreak that killed 3 in Kansas was in 2015, more than a year ago. There was a second listeria scare this year, but it turned out to not originate from the blue bell plant, but rather their cookie dough supplier, and Blue Bell caught it and recalled the product before there were any illnesses.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, when you kill people with contaminated ice cream, you deserve to get a little bit more than a temporary time out. They fucked up hard and they should be under increased scrutiny because of it.
 
mikerc

mikerc

GasBandit said:
Context:
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/...return-testing-to-industry-norm/#.WGgnEX1JdMs

Blue Bell is requesting that it be allowed to return to normal levels of testing - testing levels used industry-wide. The fatal listeria outbreak that killed 3 in Kansas was in 2015, more than a year ago. There was a second listeria scare this year, but it turned out to not originate from the blue bell plant, but rather their cookie dough supplier, and Blue Bell caught it and recalled the product before there were any illnesses.
Click to expand...
2 points I came away with reading that link Gas,

1) Blue Bell were given a $850,000 fine in July 2016 by the Texas State Dept of Health Services, $175,000 payed within 30 days the rest held in abeyance to be paid if Blue Bell fail to meet food safety requirements within the next 18 months. I'd want Blue Bell to be held to at minimum the same level of requirements throughout that 18 months, not get less stringent standards after 6 months. If Blue Bell wants to go back to the normal standards let them wait until this Texas fine is dealt with.

2) Blue Bell have had to destroy hundreds of thousands of cartons of ice cream due to pathogens being discovered in the plant, whereas under normal regs they would test the cartons & only destroy the cartons that failed. I admit I don't know how common these pathogens are in food production plants, the article doesn't say if they were in the areas of the plant where food production is actually happening, or if they are in high enough quantities to be considered hazardous to human health. I do know that Blue Bell want to go back to the normal standards because they admit to being unable to meet the standards they are currently under. That worries me.
 
Null

Null

mroosc1979 said:
2 points I came away with reading that link Gas,

1) Blue Bell were given a $850,000 fine in July 2016 by the Texas State Dept of Health Services, $175,000 payed within 30 days the rest held in abeyance to be paid if Blue Bell fail to meet food safety requirements within the next 18 months. I'd want Blue Bell to be held to at minimum the same level of requirements throughout that 18 months, not get less stringent standards after 6 months. If Blue Bell wants to go back to the normal standards let them wait until this Texas fine is dealt with.

2) Blue Bell have had to destroy hundreds of thousands of cartons of ice cream due to pathogens being discovered in the plant, whereas under normal regs they would test the cartons & only destroy the cartons that failed. I admit I don't know how common these pathogens are in food production plants, the article doesn't say if they were in the areas of the plant where food production is actually happening, or if they are in high enough quantities to be considered hazardous to human health. I do know that Blue Bell want to go back to the normal standards because they admit to being unable to meet the standards they are currently under. That worries me.
Click to expand...
Thank you for expressing it better than drunk and angry me could.
 
Shakey

Shakey

His tweet doesn't say it shouldn't be done, and even specifically says the committee is unfair. He just thinks other things should be done first.

So don't expect him to be a champion of the ethics committee. He just wants the stuff he cares about done first.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
To me reasons don't matter as much as the results. If he goes back to it later I'll bitch but for now it's good.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Of course he doesn't want it gone. He thinks he needs it to target Congress members who go against him without reprisal. If he can't investigate, blackmail, or otherwise bully his "peers" into obedience, he can't get his agenda done.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

blotsfan said:
Banning anyone over 60 from participating in politics in any capacity would be a good idea.
Click to expand...
And anyone under 25, too.

Also, anyone pregnant or intending to become so.

Also, anyone without a college education.

Anyone with a genetic disposition towards early onset Alzheimer.

Anyone who hasn't served in the military.

Anyone who, through having a BMI over 35, has demonstrated bad long-term decision making.

Anyone who has ever gone bankrupt.

Anyone who's ever been divorced.

Anyone....

While I agree a LOT of problems come from people too old still clinging to power, saying anyone over 60 (or 65, or whatever) should be excluded is dangerous. Not only is it a slippery slope, it also means their concerns won't be properly cared for anymore.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

I love answering phishing emails.
I never do it with my actual credentials, though.
Also, I don't answer them if the URL obviously contains a big enough blob that I can tell they'll know which email address was valid.

--Patrick
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Ron DeSantis (both republicans) submitted a filing for a constitutional amendment for term limits for the house and senate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/312571-cruz-desantis-push-for-congressional-term-limits

In related news, Mitch McConnell is a crusty old dogshit.
Click to expand...
This is going to be good. Show support for this and the political class basically kills itself and the real power of government moves to the staffers who don't get elected. Try to kill it and the populist monster they've created eats them alive.
 
Covar

Covar

AshburnerX said:
This is going to be good. Show support for this and the political class basically kills itself and the real power of government moves to the staffers who don't get elected. Try to kill it and the populist monster they've created eats them alive.
Click to expand...
Would those be the same staffers who hold all the power in the executive branch? :rolleyes:
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Covar said:
Would those be the same staffers who hold all the power in the executive branch? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You mean those staffers that left Donald Trump high and dry because they didn't want to be associated with his administration, forcing him to basically hire thousands of people on zero notice, none of which have the kind of experience that Obama's staffers did? It's no secret that many staffers stick around between administrations because replacing them basically fucks up anything they were working on beyond repair. It's actually really rare to see a total walkout like we had this time.[DOUBLEPOST=1483578324,1483578290][/DOUBLEPOST]
GasBandit said:
I'd also be in favor of forced retirement for staffers and lobbyists, too.
Click to expand...
I could agree with this too.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

As I read elsewhere - but I'm not at all sure how this works over in the USA so I could't say if this is actually true - this would open up the possibility to throw in several other amendments and changes to the Constitution, and using a "popular" idea to convince people would give lawmakers the opportunity to mess with the Amendments on several other topics as well - that is, explicitly make marriage between man and woman, all that sort of jazz. Any basis to that sort of claim?
 
Covar

Covar

Bubble181 said:
As I read elsewhere - but I'm not at all sure how this works over in the USA so I could't say if this is actually true - this would open up the possibility to throw in several other amendments and changes to the Constitution, and using a "popular" idea to convince people would give lawmakers the opportunity to mess with the Amendments on several other topics as well - that is, explicitly make marriage between man and woman, all that sort of jazz. Any basis to that sort of claim?
Click to expand...
I don't believe that its happened since the Bill of Rights, but the amendment has to be written before voted on so people could put forth an amendment that does more than one task. Most of the ones we have are very singular in focus, considering how difficult it is to amend it's unlikely for pork to show up.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Covar said:
I don't believe that its happened since the Bill of Rights, but the amendment has to be written before voted on so people could put forth an amendment that does more than one task. Most of the ones we have are very singular in focus, considering how difficult it is to amend it's unlikely for pork to show up.
Click to expand...
Ya, "omnibus" amendments don't seem to be a thing for you guys after that first burst from the "Bill of Rights" set. Quick summary from wiki.

Edit: that doesn't mean ONE amendment can't have a crapload in it though.
 
Eriol

Eriol

From the article: (any bolding/editing/etc is mine)
Chicago Police detectives are questioning four African-Americans suspected of torturing a white mentally disabled man and recording the attack, while someone yelled “F— Trump!” and “F— white people!”
...
Several videos of the incident were posted on Facebook. In one of them, on a woman’s Facebook page, a man threatens the victim with a knife. Someone tells the victim, “kiss the floor, b—-!” and “nobody can help you anymore.” At one point, someone tells the man, “say ‘I love black people.’ ”
...
The politically motivated language may have been “stupid ranting and raving,” but police are looking into if the four were sincere and, if so, that could factor into potential hate crime charges, Duffin said.
Click to expand...
If this was the opposite, 4 white guys doing this to a mentally disabled black guy would there be any shred of doubt that it would be treated as a hate crime? Of course not.

So why are they hedging here? Since when is "if [they] were sincere" a criteria? Come up with your own conclusions. This is sickening.
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

Eriol said:
If this was the opposite, 4 white guys doing this to a mentally disabled black guy would there be any shred of doubt that it would be treated as a hate crime? Of course not.
Click to expand...
If this was the opposite, I wouldn't think of the trial, conviction, and sentencing to be foregone conclusions like I do here. Justice will be served here, but reverse the races and I would throw up my arms and say "we'll see."
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Eriol said:
From the article: (any bolding/editing/etc is mine)

If this was the opposite, 4 white guys doing this to a mentally disabled black guy would there be any shred of doubt that it would be treated as a hate crime? Of course not.

So why are they hedging here? Since when is "if [they] were sincere" a criteria? Come up with your own conclusions. This is sickening.
Click to expand...
Because it's conventional media wisdom that only white people can be racist or commit hate crimes, of course.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Denbrought said:
If this was the opposite, I wouldn't think of the trial, conviction, and sentencing to be foregone conclusions like I do here. Justice will be served here, but reverse the races and I would throw up my arms and say "we'll see."
Click to expand...
While I agree with you, you are also turning the discussion around on to why that might be, rather than why this horrific thing happened, seemingly downplaying it as not a big deal.

It's still a big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top