January 5, 2012

"Cleveland Sues Ohio to Keep Its Trans Fat Ban."

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson says:
"The health and well-being of Cleveland is the responsibility of the City of Cleveland, and we are taking proactive steps to help make everyone in Cleveland healthier...

"The state's subsequent amendment to the Ohio Revised Code taking away our ability to enforce this important health regulation is yet another attempt by the state to erode the Home Rule Authority that we have a constitutional right to"...
Is this an issue for decentralized decisionmaking or not? Whatever you think of this kind of nanny-state — nanny city? — law, the issue here is what level of government should make the decision. Why can't Cleveland be a laboratory of democracy? Why shouldn't "a single courageous state city... if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country state?"

You may think it's a stupid idea, but the effect of the stupidity is visited on the people of the city who have voted for the elected officials who chose it. If you oppose paternalism, shouldn't you oppose the paternalism of Ohio officials telling the locals what stupid ideas they can impose on themselves? And what if we're wrong about the stupidity of the law? We may learn from the experiment Cleveland has chosen to perform on itself.

89 comments:

damikesc said...

Given that the idiots of Cleveland voted for these nannies, let them suffer.

Want freedom? Vote for people who support the concept. If you don't do that, don't whine that they are oppressing you.

Make your bed. Sleep in your bed.

I will say the mayor of Cleveland has a point in saying that the city has to protect their voters from themselves. Given the candidates they apparently vote into office, they clearly lack judgment skills.

MikeR said...

To me, 100%. Let the good people of Cleveland do as they wish. What is the counter-argument?

toby said...

"Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it." The same handwringers who said trans fats were the way to go as opposed to butter, animal fats, etc. just a couple decades ago are now trying to ban them. They were wrong the first time. Americans have lost their souls regarding food. We need to eat like Mediterranians and stop letting politicians and bad science tell us what to eat and what fucking light bulb to use.

This shit is why a twirp like Ron Paul is so appealling to people, particularly youth. Think of what a dynamic politician w/ a libertarian message could do in this enviroment.

GMay said...

If Clevelanders want to enshrine their stupidity into law, more power to them.

dbp said...

What if the voters of Cleveland decided to re-segregate schools? One of those laboratories of democracy and all that.

Rights of minorities you say? What about people who want to consume tasty trans fats at their local diner?

wv meaters really.

knox said...

Think of what a dynamic politician w/ a libertarian message could do in this environment.

Really. Too bad Rand isn't running instead of Ron.

bagoh20 said...

It has nothing to do with what level of government it comes from, what my kid chooses to eat is not government's business, period. Protecting that freedom IS the job of government at all levels. All levels should be against it. It should simply be illegal for government officials at all levels to legislate diet.

John M Auston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John M Auston said...

"The health and well-being of Cleveland is the responsibility of the City of Cleveland, . . .

What a truly astounding assertion!

Is it OK now to just fearlessly declare anything you like, as long as it grammatically holds together as a sentence?

tab said...

Aside from the nanny-state problem, the city-state relationship is not the same as the state-federal relationship, the latter raising issues of sovereignty and federalism (and "laboratories of democracy"), while the former does not (local units of government are creatures of the State).

Bob Ellison said...

File under: Tyranny of the Majority.

ElPresidenteCastro said...

Good thing they aren't consuming the wheat that they grew.

AJ Lynch said...

This is good work for the lawyers for both sides.

And to answer your question, the city should have the right [if it follows the US and the state constitutions] to enact whatever dumb laws it wants.

S said...

<< If you oppose paternalism, shouldn't you oppose the paternalism of Ohio officials telling the locals what stupid ideas they can impose on themselves? >>

Themselves, or each other?

I generally support subsidarity, and have mixed feelings about whether Ohio should let Cleveland do this or whether, under the principle of subsidiarity, they should require that decisions about eating be made at a "more immediate or local level" such as the family or the individual.

Mind you, I oppose Cleveland's policy; I'm just undecided about whether Ohio should allow it.

Roman said...

Remember, these are the same people who elected Dennis Kucinich Mayor, then to the House of Representatives. Implied consent to be told how to live.

rhhardin said...

There's a busybody and hysteric bias in local government, which means that the consequences do get visited on people who haven't chosen them.

Busybodies and hysterics run for office, normal people don't.

Locally, they're not vetted and then it's too late.

The Wasp said...

The thing I learned in one of my public administration classes was that local governments (villages, towns, cities, counties) essentially exist at the whim of the state governments. There is simply no provision for them in the constitution.

In New York, home rule only prevents the singling out of individual places for specific treatment (and then there are ways to get around that).

I sympathize with the nannies of Cleveland but that's how it goes.

toby said...

In Chicago chefs just said "fuck you" to the nanny aldermen on the foie gras ban, and the political hacks backed down. One must always stand up to bullies.

Jay Fellows said...

Sadly, Cleveland has a history of passing ordinances that are intended to counteract state law. Recently they refused to recognize concealed carry permits and continued to require gun owners to register their weapons. This was slapped down by the state supreme court. Yet they continue to hassle gun owners. As a result they are supporting the livelihood of a number of Second Amendment lawyers through out the state!

edutcher said...

Since Cleveland is the poorest big city in the country, maybe it really shouldn't be trusted with this kind of decision.

That said, I'm inclined to agree with MikeR, Roman, and S, but Johnson sounds like a Bloomie wannabe.

Big Mike said...

You may think it's a stupid idea, but the effect of the stupidity is visited on the people of the city who have voted for the elected officials who chose it.

Yup.

If you oppose paternalism, shouldn't you oppose the paternalism of Ohio officials telling the locals what stupid ideas they can impose on themselves?

Yes again.

And what if we're wrong about the stupidity of the law?

Not a chance in Hell.

traditionalguy said...

I smell a kickback from the Attorneys hired by the City.

Politics has reasons and they are called public money for friends of the City Council be they Attorney friends or the Director and staff of the Trans-fat police.

MSG said...

It's bad enough that at any level, 51% of the population dares to dictate the eating habits of the other 49%. But at least at the federal or state level, there is some confidence that the politicians will have access to competent scientific opinion and will themselves have the sophistication to understand it.

cubanbob said...

This kind of local idiocy begs for a constitutional amendment that puts the states and their local governments fully under the constitution and strips them of plenary powers and limits them to enumerated powers. Indeed such an amendment should more clearly define the enumerated powers and everything else is left to the individual to decide on how they conduct their lives. It's a hard concept for some, personal responsibility and personal liberty. But that was the founding principal of this country.

Scott M said...

It's bad enough that at any level, 51% of the population dares to dictate the eating habits of the other 49%.

An interesting side issue is whether or not childhood obesity is child abuse. A couple of education administrators I know believe it is and have said that in all cases, an obese kid (morbidly) is being raised by fat parents that feed the kid the same crap they are eating.

cubanbob said...

Also isn't this a commerce clause issue? How can Cleveland ban a product sold throughout the country?
Suppose the margarine was made by an Indiana based company. What right does Cleveland have to ban that product? If we are lucky next November the judges to be appointed may very well give the nanny left a real lesson in what the commerce clause really means.

Richard Dolan said...

Ann: "You may think it's a stupid idea, but the effect of the stupidity is visited on the people of the city who have voted for the elected officials who chose it. If you oppose paternalism, shouldn't you oppose the paternalism of Ohio officials telling the locals what stupid ideas they can impose on themselves? And what if we're wrong about the stupidity of the law? We may learn from the experiment Cleveland has chosen to perform on itself."

By the same token, the effect of the state law is visted upon the people who voted for the officials who passed it.

If you oppose paternalism, shouldn't you support the right of the people, by their elected representatives, to adopt laws of general applicablity within their constitutional competence? That principle necessarily presupposes the majority-rule feature of any democracy, which is not subject to veto by a minority that disagrees (even if the minority is geographically concentrated).

There is always a possibility of error in every judgment that elected representatives (municpal, state or federal) make, human fallibility being a universal condition. That fact just underscores the need to make a judgment, and so adds nothing.

You can learn something from the "experiment" the State has chosen to perform on itself, too. No a priori way to tell which form of experiment or education is better.

There are two ideas of 'federalism' at play here. The first is the poli sci idea that decisions are best made at the smallest unit of government capable of making them efficiently. The second is the legal idea about how the different levels of government relate to each other. Ann's observations/questions are mostly of the poli sci variety. They don't seem all that weighty in this context.

RC3 said...

If decentralization / localization is better for deciding trans-fats policy, why stop at cities? Neighborhood councils should decide.

Cleveland wants to enact a policy contrary to the default Ohio rules? Maybe if they allow neighborhoods to opt out of the Cleveland default.

But why stop with neighborhoods. What about households? Or even, say, individuals?

Oh, that is exactly what Ohio has done. Decentralized the decision all the way to individual liberty. Perfect. Instead of whining, Cleveland should deal with intrinsically local public policies and services, like fixing their roads and operating their schools.

Michael Haz said...

How do trans fats identify themselves on ID cards and drivers licenses?

cubanbob said...

RC3 said...

Your point is spot on. Having utterly failed to perform the tasks which they are charged with, nanny cities pass this crap to look like they are doing something useful. A distraction is all it is.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Keying on Richard Dolan's point about federalism...

As I understand it (perhaps our genial hostess will expand on this, given her expertise), the intended relation of federal to state power is not necessarily replicated when the state or commonwealth relates to municipalities. That depends on what each state constitution provides for.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if municipalities or counties within a state had that sort of relationship to the state capital.

For one, I would be very much in favor of state legislatures being apportioned the way the federal legislature is: with the house being by population, and the senate by unit, apart from population. And, I believe that was actually the case, or at least could have been the case, until the Carr decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The virtue of such a system is that it creates institutional tension between the desire for someone far away to act in a Jupiterian fashion and solve my problems, vs. those who suffer if that happens.

That is to say, when U.S. Senators were chosen by state legislators, there was at least hope that they would be mindful of how federal action encroached on state power, balancing the House being elected to make all problems go away. Now we have two houses of Congress, plus a president, who win elections promising to deliver us from all problems, and what restrains federal growth.

Obviously the same issues arise within a state.

However, our original federal notion was that the state was a sovereign unit, and the states created the federal government. Should state governments be seen that way in relation to subordinate units? Should counties be able to secede?

Take a look sometime at recent presidential election results by county (even 2008, the high-water mark for blues), and imagine if every red county in the country could secede from a state where the blue jurisdictions outvote them.

In my spare thoughts, I've imagined such a scenario unfolding--say if the federal government really does run out of (real) money and all the goodies stop flowing and all we have is mountains of debt. Under such a scenario, why wouldn't all the red states say "see ya!" and let the blue jurisdictions be responsible for the debt; and in like fashion, the red counties could do the same from, say, California or Illinois, and other places where the blue majority is pretty geographically constrained.

Whether local jurisdictions ought to share sovereignty -- if that's the way to put it -- with the state, I'd be curious to know if there is any state constitution actually constructed on that basis, or ever was?

damikesc said...

If somebody sells transfat, on what grounds could the city actually arrest or fine them?

The product is not illegal. At all. Whether they have the authority to pursue this seems sketchy at best.

I'm shocked NYC didn't rebel over the salt crusade...but NYC has been pussified since Giuliani left office.

MadisonMan said...

I think Cleveland can do whatever it wants to its citizenry, as long as the restrictions are the same across the board.

The state of Feds can and should intervene if, say, only Whites can have crisco and incandescent bulbs.

@cubanbob, for years, Wisconsin banned the sale of oleomargarine. It was a legal product everywhere else.

raf said...

What if the voters of Cleveland decided to re-segregate schools?

Of course, they pretty much have -- by voting with their feet.

Mr. D said...

Sounds like an excellent opportunity for potential restaurauteurs who want to open eateries in the suburbs.

Sigivald said...

I agree with letting the good people of Cleveland do as they wish, as MikeR says.

But I want them to do as they wish in the classical liberal sense of doing what they individually wish, without the State at any level telling them they can't or must do things "for their own good", or for any reason beyond stopping harm to others.

[And no, "trans fats will make you marginally more likely to get sick and cost tax money" is not a harm to others - it's an argument against universal health care with no questions asked and no boundaries, not for a total state.]

I want a laboratory, but not "of democracy" for the State's dead hand to be applied wherever some politician or city council wants; if people disapprove of trans fats, let them open trans-fat-free restaurants and compete in the marketplace of (dining) ideas, rather than forcing anyone to abide by it.

(In other words, the "laboratory of democracy" is for those functions which are proper to the State, which does not include arbitrary bans or requirements on any-damn-thing.

I say, in answer to our host's question, "what level of government should make the decision", that no level of government is competent or appropriate to that decision.

It's none of government's god-damn business what I eat, or what a restaurant serves me, as long as the restaurant isn't literally poisoning me - and without my knowledge.)

(Also, contra "the people of Cleveland" argument, did the politicians who pushed this ban run on a platform of doing so?

Primarily or exclusively?

The People have limited choices in who they elect - and the fact of being elected is not a popular mandate for everything the politician then does; at best it can be a mandate for the issues that they campaigned on.

A 19 person City Council is not The Voice Of The People.)

Paul Zrimsek said...

If corporations can't have free speech because they're not natural persons, surely cities can't have health for the same reason.

Chip Ahoy said...

I'm sorry. It seems a halting recurring feedback loop is encountered at "proactive steps." Everything that followed already went poof

I must recuse myself.

ken in sc said...

Winston county seceded from Alabama during the Civil War. So did parts of eastern Tennessee secede from that state. Both were occupied by the Confederate Army. Later they were both pillaged by the Union Army, with no consideration for the fact that they were not Confederate supporters. It's still a sore point. Some people have long memories.

Crunchy Frog said...

In Chicago chefs just said "fuck you" to the nanny aldermen on the foie gras ban, and the political hacks backed down. One must always stand up to bullies.

Those chefs carry big knives.

wv: whellous - What the Cleveland City Council wants its people to be

Thorley Winston said...

This shit is why a twirp like Ron Paul is so appealling to people, particularly youth.

I’m not sure I follow your meaning – Ron Paul IIRC is the sort who would say that it’s a matter of local control and defend the right of States/local governments to set these sorts of standards even if he personally thought that they’re foolish. That may not necessarily be a message that appeals to people who think that it’s an inappropriate thing for government at any level to do. While federalism/local control may generally lead to more libertarian outcomes than centralizing power, that’s not always the case.

Thorley Winston said...

Also isn't this a commerce clause issue? How can Cleveland ban a product sold throughout the country?


So long as the law doesn’t overtly discriminate against interstate commerce (even if that may be the effect) or the courts don’t believe it’s really just an attempt to discriminate against interstate commerce, barring a federal law to the contrary, they can probably do it under their police power.

t-man said...

I fully concur with RC3's 11:22 am post.

Class factotum said...

But at least at the federal or state level, there is some confidence that the politicians will have access to competent scientific opinion and will themselves have the sophistication to understand it.

More proof that crack doesn't smoke itself. I have no more confidence in federal and state politicians than I do in municipal ones.

gadfly said...

Since when did Cleveland begin employing scientists capable of discerning the validity of a single study on trans fats?

This question is pertinent simply because "there is no credible evidence that trans fats cause heart disease."

John Burgess said...

As constitutional federalism only serves to separate the powers of the federal government from that of the states, it's up to state constitutions to draw lines allocating power between the state and the municipalities and/or counties.

Not being expert on the Ohio constitution, I can either assume the state knew it was within its own constitutional rights OR it was involved in a power grab.

As this is just a whiny city council, I'll go with the first.

'Laboratory for democracy' is a nice and useful phrase. It does not, in itself, describe any particular level of granularity, however.

Mattman26 said...

I don't think a city in a city-state relationship is analogous to a state in a state-federal relationship. States and feds are dual sovereigns; I think cities and states are more analogous to subsidiaries and parents, at least as a legal proposition.

There may be practical reasons, too; if I own a statewide chain of donut stores, it could be onerous to require different recipes in different cities. (I'm a low-carb guy, but if I'm gonna have a donut, I want it brimming with trans-fats for that melt-in-your-mouth quality, not that jive-ass Dunkin' Donuts crap.)

Blue@9 said...

I say let them do it. Voters in nearly every major city elect nanny-state Dems, but they're insulated from their stupidity by courts and state govts. I say let em go down the road they chose.

Dr. Zaius said...

Curious that cities regularly ban and regulate strip clubs and porn shops which cause much less damage (read the research on "secondary effects") than the exploding hearts and diabetic amputations of obese imbeciles slugging down Big Macs, yet nobody rallies against those regs as nanny state action. In sum, people are dumb.

Michael Haz said...

Maybe Cleveland should devote its attention to enforcing the already in place bans against crack, weed, heroin and meth.

Once thase problems are licked, it can devote its time to Crisco, unless it wants to tackle something meaningful like fixing its broken public school system.

Maybe it's okay to have illiterate children as long as they aren't fat.

purplepenquin said...

Kinda funny how the same folks who are upset about the ban on TransFat (and light bulbs for that matter) seem to be the same group that supports the current ban on an all-natural herb.

Precedent has been set for several decades now. If Big Brother can put you in jail for growing a God-given plant, then it stands to reason that the gov't can also punish a citizen for possessing a man-made chemical or item.

Scott M said...

Kinda funny how the same folks who are upset about the ban on TransFat (and light bulbs for that matter) seem to be the same group that supports the current ban on an all-natural herb.

Kinda funny how you generalize so broadly like that. What are you smoking?

Pogo said...

"...seem to be the same group that supports the current ban on an all-natural herb."

There's a long tradition, and reason, behind restricting psychoactive drugs.

Nothing exists to support banning trans fats. Nothing.

Worse, it's the usual socialists who want to control what we eat, drive, light rooms with, pee into, say on the internet (or anywhere), plant on the curb, repair in our house, keep from a paycheck, do for a job, and choose for health care.

The only freedoms they ever grant are: who you have sex with, who you marry, and smoking pot.

Fucking collectivist assholes, all.

Pogo said...

And banning trans fats is just for haters.

I mean, chubby crossdressers have their rights, too.

Such a law is based on an obsolete understanding of sexual identity.

Craig said...

Is it OK now to just fearlessly declare anything you like, as long as it grammatically holds together as a sentence?

"health and well-being is"?

It doesn't even meet the grammatical standard.

tdg said...

The mayor's name is Frank Jackson, not Johnson. Would be nice to get that right.

tdg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick said...

Let these city governments continue to run wild. They are contributing to the general outrage, which is a good thing.
I suppose the legal answer to the question may be found in the Ohio constitution.

Pogo said...

"The mayor's name is Frank Jackson, not Johnson."

I object. I feel he should be called 'Johnson', and your normative tyranny is based on an obsolete understanding of surname identity.

Tomorrow I shall call him "Marmoset Ribeye Tomahawk the IVth", and he shall like it.

dbp said...

A small, lame joke for those who still remember a bit of college organic chemistry:

Q: What do you call people who are afraid of trans-fats?

A: Cis-ease.

I apologize in advance.

purplepenquin said...

There's a long tradition, and reason, behind restricting psychoactive drugs

Well, there is ALWAYS a reason for something...but not all reasons are valid.

For example, one of the main reasons Uncle Sam decided to ban an all-natural plant was that when black men smoked it they would get uppity and actually dare to look white men in the eyes.

Same thing with the TransFatBan...they surely have reasons for enacting that law, but they ain't necessarily "good" reasons.


Like I said before, the precedent has been set for quite a while now. If the gov't can ban an all-natural plant then they can surely ban a man-made chemical.

Methadras said...

The health and well-being of Cleveland is the responsibility of the City of Cleveland

This tells you right here that you are not the master of your own destiny. Fuck you Cleveland.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Does the state of Ohio fund hospitals that treat residents of Cleveland for heart disease? Then of course it has every right to regulate the risks for heart disease. To pretend otherwise is to fuck up the entire foundation upon which basic economic principles rest: That an organization has a right to regulate the risks for which it is held financially responsible.

Your inability to grasp this is why the nation's economy is in the gutter.

The part of illness is showing just how empty and useless it is. They're reduced to arguing for the right to perpetuate disease and to have poor health. Good luck with that.

Alex said...

Actually trans-fat is literally a slow-acting poison that literally builds up artery plaque and should be banned world-wide.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Nice to know that Pogo is too much of a crank to listen to what his employer knows regarding the dangers of trans fats:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/trans-fat/CL00032

But why take Mayo Clinic's word for it? Here's NEJM, summarized as follows:

A comprehensive review of studies of trans fats was published in 2006 in the New England Journal of Medicine reports a strong and reliable connection between trans fat consumption and CHD, concluding that "On a per-calorie basis, trans fats appear to increase the risk of CHD more than any other macronutrient, conferring a substantially increased risk at low levels of consumption (1 to 3% of total energy intake)". This study estimates that between 30,000 and 100,000 cardiac deaths per year in the United States are attributable to the consumption of trans fats.

Where's Pogo's evidence to the contrary?

Mayo should fire him.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Does the human body even have an enzyme or metabolic pathway capable of efficiently breaking down this artificial substance? Has anyone sought to figure that out? Does anyone care? Natural fats have ways of being broken down and metabolized that may not apply to synthetic, phony fats. So how is it a good idea to inundate your body and load up your diet with an imitation product if you can't even be sure that it can be catabolized properly? Especially given the dangers of fats in contributing to disease.

Phony foods for a phony political party in the process (lol) of nominating a phony, plastic political leader.

How appropriate.

Republicanism is nothing more than a way to make you sick. It's the only freedom they care to defend any longer.

Blue@9 said...

Does the state of Ohio fund hospitals that treat residents of Cleveland for heart disease? Then of course it has every right to regulate the risks for heart disease.

What about alcoholism? What about lung disease? Should Cleveland ban booze and smokes? Kids tend to get hurt on bikes and playgrounds, and they too get treated in Ohio hospitals.

Pogo said...

The trans-fat data are not clear and convincing, but as you have a decided history of arguing in bad faith, I will not discuss it further with you.

Suffice it to say, the data do not support government intervention, which is the question here. Even if it were worse than smoking, it should not be banned.

Liberty is the only issue to be concerned with here.

Science gloms onto fads all the time. The global warming science was similarly 'settled', you may recall. Hell, not too long ago, medical science favored the low fat diet.

Pogo said...

I mean, fer chrissake, the "texting while driving" data were also bullshit, yet it leads to laws.

Science is easily manipulated by politics. Always has been. You need to be more skeptical of what you read.

You seem quite credulous.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

What about alcoholism? What about lung disease? Should Cleveland ban booze and smokes? Kids tend to get hurt on bikes and playgrounds, and they too get treated in Ohio hospitals.

All of which are regulated by either the federal or state governments or both.

So yes, what of it? Or was I wrong to entertain the notion that you actually had a point?

Pogo said...

Alcohol causes far more deaths than trans fats are claimed to do.
Yet it is not banned.

Smoking, too. Not banned.

Cars kill many thousands more than trans fats ever will.
Not banned.

Bicycles, trampolines, and motorcycles are dangerous.
Not banned.

Pogo said...

And AIDS. Kills a bunch of gays.

Why isn't gay sex banned?

Pogo said...

Noooooooo, we'll ban a food additive.

Tough guys in Cleveland.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

The trans-fat data are not clear and convincing,

This is called an "opinion". Clear and convincing to whom and based on what facts?

but as you have a decided history of arguing in bad faith, I will not discuss it further with you.

That's a good idea, seeing as how I've not been deleted once since the clampdown.

But feel free to issue more opinions devoid of any factual analysis.

Suffice it to say, the data do not support government intervention, which is the question here.

The natural science of digestion, inflammation and circulation is not a political issue.

But you are obviously shifting ground to a normative debate because you have no facts regarding the science to offer.

Not a good way to demonstrate "good faith".

Even if it were worse than smoking, it should not be banned.

Wow. More opinions. How old does a doctor have to be before his opinion is worth more than what the facts show? No one cares about a physician's politics.

Liberty is the only issue to be concerned with here.

As you've made clear. Funny definition of it, but you're entitled to it - as long as you don't lie to make your point.

Science gloms onto fads all the time. The global warming science was similarly 'settled', you may recall. Hell, not too long ago, medical science favored the low fat diet.

Science is not about transcendent truth, but about the preponderance of what the most heavily investigated studies to date cumulatively demonstrate. Now, you might not like that, but then you are always free to pick an alternative career in a theological field.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

It looks like offending gays and not understanding that bans (in certain establishments) are only one form of regulation has not entered the radar screen of someone who fears that communists might be lurking underneath his bed.

Pogo said...

"The natural science of digestion, inflammation and circulation is not a political issue. "

Ahhh, a true believer.

Good luck with that.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Wow. What a riposte. I feel soooo smacked down.

Thanks for that! But you might want to consider making your wrist less limp when you beat me up, or someone could get the wrong impression about your interest in gay sex.

Pogo said...

See what I mean?

Bad. Faith.

Not worth the time. Simply not possible for you to have a constructive dialogue. Ever.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

So says you.

Learn the difference between opinions and facts before you talk about what constitutes "constructive dialogue". Your opinion is not universal truth. It might take less of an elitist attitude on your part to accept that, but it's worth it.

Also, it wouldn't kill you to get a sense of humor.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Simply not possible for you to have a constructive dialogue. Ever.

If that's the case, then why do I have comments threads on my blog and others that are dozens of posts long, whereas on your own blog there are never more than 2 comments per entry?

Pogo said...

If it did, even once, you guys would surely ban it.

Pogo said...

Dozens? Great.

May it soon be a hundred!

Pogo said...

I think on my long defunct blog there are no more than two comments in total.

el polacko said...

so the city whose river burst into flames wants to protect its citizenry from donut shops? ya can't make this stuff up.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Ok. I see you're trying humor now. Ha ha. I get it.

But humor doesn't kill or hurt but tends to instead heal, so the point stands.

I'm not as mean-spirited as you think. I'm not perfect but I try my best to accommodate your sensitivity, lil guy!

David R. Graham said...

A nanny state/city is a materialism.

David R. Graham said...

IPad override typo: maternalism.

JAL said...

"The health and well-being of Cleveland is the responsibility of the City of Cleveland"

Then keep its pipes clean and its buildings upright and the sewage flowing. That's keep it healthy and well.

As for the *citizens* of Cleveland ... did these guys run on the platform of banning trans fats? If not, they need to keep *their* laws off their consituents bodies ...

Oh. Wait. Wrong issue.

Scott M said...

If that's the case, then why do I have comments threads on my blog and others that are dozens of posts long, whereas on your own blog there are never more than 2 comments per entry?

Careful. Your epeen is showing.