Subscribe via RSS Feed

Bipartisanship We Can Believe In!!!

[ 86 ] December 21, 2011 |

Who says bipartisanship is dead? Senators from both sides of the aisle can still come together to make the lives of children more dangerous. Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) are leading the charge to reject proposed Department of Labor regulations that would ban some child labor on our farms. What kind of odious government regulations are these? These new rules would attack the freedom of our children to mix noxious pesticides, climb tall ladders, and demolishing barns on farms that are not owned by their parents. If I can’t force my 11 year old to mix pesticides, we might as well just live in Soviet Russia. Moreover, since so much farm labor is done by immigrants these days, these regulations are a clear attack on the white right to exploit brown people. I am truly outraged. My love of racism combined with my passion for child labor has led me to become a huge supporter of our next president, Newt Gingrich.

Let me tell you a story about the good old days, before a bunch of liberal do-gooders got in the way of the free market. In the late 19th century, sawmills used to have the problem of sawdust building up under the saws. Eventually the sawdust would get so high as to get in the way of the saw. Actually stopping the saws to clear the sawdust would be a clear violation of my rights as a capitalist. So my forefathers simply hired children to crawl under the saws and clean it out. While the saws were still running. If one took a sawblade in the head, well, those Finns all have 15 kids anyway. I can just hire another. And they have one less mouth to feed. A public service to all!

30 senators have signed on to this bill, including 4 Democrats.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Comments (86)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. actor212 says:

    those Finns all have 15 kids anyway

    I still miss great-uncle Mikko….*sob*

  2. c u n d gulag says:

    “…those Finns all have 15 kids anyway…”

    Jeez, I think I finally put 2 and 2 together!

    This is why they’re against birth control and abortion, and FOR child labor!
    More grist for the mills! Literally.
    And farms.

    How could I have been so stupid?
    Don’t answer that!

    • Holden Pattern says:

      I bet you think you’re making a joke.

      http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/050824
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/abortion-immigration-dynamic/?page=all

      Once again, American conservatives have killed satire and are gleefully humping the corpse.

      • Spud says:

        Once again, American conservatives have killed satire and are gleefully humping the corpse.

        Holy shit, its for reals.

        Conservatives are truly either the most evil or the stupidest bastards on the planet. Maybe a bit of both.

        • DrDick says:

          I generally go for “all of the above” on that one.

          • R Johnston says:

            I generally go for “it doesn’t really matter because the proper response–cutting them out of the policy making process altogether and completely discounting everything they say–is the same whether they’re stupid, evil, or both.”

            The stupid vs. evil question is just a distraction.

            • JohnR says:

              The truly amazing thing is that incrementally we have reached a point where GOP lawmakers operate in a stew of mind-numbingly stupid mixed with a level of heedless, shrieking evil and depravity that would make John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Salacious Crumb eye each other in appalled disbelief. This has become normal to us, and passes without comment in the press (“both sides equally at fault..”), even as the various individuals compete to see who can reach Nicholson-Joker levels of gleefully vicious insanity first. What a world, what a world…

        • Warren Terra says:

          Be fair: the Renew America clown did headline his article “Believe It Or Not”.

          I don’t.

      • Uncle Kvetch says:

        Once again, American conservatives have killed satire and are gleefully humping the corpse.

        Holden I can’t get out of the boat at the moment, due to…er…old war injury, yeah, that’s the ticket. Can you clue me in

        • Malaclypse says:

          If abortion were legal, we would produce more poor people right here in America, and would not need to import darkly-hued poor from abroad.

          • Malaclypse says:

            And maybe you are thinking, “Freakin’ Mal, Althouse’s anonatroll told us you were stupid, so you must be reading that wrong.”

            According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, the first eleven years of legal abortions in America killed about 11.9 million babies (from 1973 to 1983). If those aborted children had lived and grown to adulthood, their median age today would be 30.5 years old.

            Now, the number of estimated illegal immigrants in the U.S.A. ranges from 10.3 million to 15 million; so add these two numbers together and divide by two, and you get about 12.5 million as a pretty close guesstimate of how many illegal workers, mostly Mexican, are now in America.

            Is this mere coincidence, or is there some direct correlation between those two numbers, 11.9 million and 12.5 million? I think it is both. Without question, at least part of the reason why we have illegal immigrants crossing our borders in droves is because there is a need for more cheap laborers in the fields and factories of America. It is a simple economic proposition: increased demand creates its own supply.*

            Here are some more disturbing figures. Between 1983 and 1993, we aborted 13.5 million babies in the U.S. Their median age today would be 20.5. These are nonexistent, wasted human beings who would be either in college right now, or just graduating high school and starting a job and maybe a family of their own.

            Who will replace them? Most likely, 15 million more foreign-born Hispanics with a propensity for hard work and a burning desire to reclaim the American Southwest for Mexico.

            * Offer does not apply to government-created demand for actual goods and/or services, unless we are speaking of Freedom Bombs, because SOCIALISM.

            • Spud says:

              Its all because we keep educatin’ our womenfolk so much that they don’t want to give birth to a dozen kids before they reach 30.

              If we kept them at home, we wouldn’t need so many Mexicans! Keep our quivers full!!!

              [Never mind that most families can’t support themselves on a single income, that’s just Communist talk!]

            • Uncle Kvetch says:

              And maybe you are thinking, “Freakin’ Mal, Althouse’s anonatroll told us you were stupid, so you must be reading that wrong.”

              Never entered my mind, Mal. I know as well as anyone that there is no bottom to the barrel.

              Bonus points to our clever little sociopath for “it’s pure coincidence and correlation [and a floor wax and a dessert topping] all at the same time!”

            • actor212 says:

              Y’know the rebuttal that always throws the whole “Millions of children being deaded” argument out with the bath water?

              Why hasn’t the birth rate in the US plummeted in the years since Roe v Wade?

              It hasn’t budged an inch, either direction. Now some of that is due to immigration (altho even that’s been sharply curtailed in the past twenty years, and yet, not a tick)

              But here’s the thing, the take away: women are still having those babies, but they’re having them when they are more emotionally and financially able to support them.

            • rm says:

              It’s cute how careful they are to include the tangential talking point about the Mexican imperialist threat. As if a raving streetcorner lunatic were to pause, wipe off the spittle, and carefully monitor his grammar.

            • wileywitch says:

              Oh. my. fucking. god.

              I’ve gotta call a few government agencies tomorrow because of this notice I’m reading that OHP (Oregon Health Plan), in order to share the pain by, among other cuts, is no longer covering “disorders of the vagina” such as the draining of infected areas, destruction of lesions, and repair of injuries to the vagina not resulting from childbirth”.

              WTF?!

              Really.

              And they’ll no longer be paying to repair tears in the anal wall, or surgery to replace rectal tissue int its correct location when it falls through the anal wall, or surgery to repair a broken bone in the back that has not injured the spinal cord (they want to wait until it DOES injure the spinal cord?)

              The OHP should be getting MORE money this year because of the healthcare reform bill that needs to be named something snappy and memorable; but WHAT is the reasoning behind these cuts?

              I must find out. I especially want to know if a man showed up with infected gonads, swollen with pus and covered with lesions if they would refuse to treat it because it’s not a life threatening situation or wasn’t the result of knocking a woman up.

              Who are they trying to satisfy with these cuts? Are they really necessary? Won’t they cost MORE money in the not too distant future when these situations devolve into actual life threatening problems?

              AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION, BITCHEZ! FER REAL!!!

          • Lee says:

            Its like they want America to have a reverse version of China’s Family Planning Policy.

      • DrDick says:

        Not merely humping, but forcibly sodomizing.

      • c u n d gulag says:

        Holden,
        It’s pretty pathetic how far they’ve gone off the cliff when you can’t even parody the Conservatives any more.

        But, what made me think anything they do could be a parody?
        They make “The Onion” look like the old NY Times!

    • Linnaeus says:

      I must have missed that line in the Kalevala about the 15 kids.

  3. This is the Bush/Delay definition of bipartisanship, the kind first claimed during the 2001 tax cut debate: one or two bought-off Democrats signing onto the Republicans’ policy, and a pretense that both sides are on board.

  4. LKS says:

    One class of family farmers who might legitimately object to the regulations are tenant farmers, as they don’t own their farms and are often quite poor, especially in the rural South. But their lobbying presence in DC is of course zero.

    • Njorl says:

      They don’t own the land, but it is their farm. The farm is the business. If you’re renting a store in the mall, you don’t own the space, but you do own your business.

  5. Ben says:

    For what it’s worth, out here in farm country the local NPR affiliate has been running interviews with farmers who say that the proposed rules would interfere a fair amount with the way things have been usually done. They talk about how their kids wouldn’t be able to work on neighboring farms after school, learn how things are done, etc. It’s also not clear how these rules would affect organizations like 4-H.

    That’s not to say that those things couldn’t be worked around or taken into account. But this is not such a clear-cut case of stupid and evil thinking a la Gingrich’s “take away the pencil and give ’em a mop” initiative.

    • Hogan says:

      From the linked article:

      The rule is meant to protect children ages 12 to 15 from performing hazardous farm jobs like demolishing barns, mixing pesticides, and climbing 20-foot ladders.

      Right now, children working on farms die at a rate that is six times higher when compared with their peers who hold other jobs.

      The Senators acknowledge that there is an exemption for parent-owned farms in the law, but they say it doesn’t apply to farms that are legally corporations. Note: very few family farms are actually organized as corporations.

      If you have your kids doing jobs that kill them that fast, you’re doing it wrong.

      • wengler says:

        Kids 12-15 shouldn’t be working anyways on a farm or anywhere else. I would advocate a paper route, but this is now the work of impoverished adults.

        Note the law still exempts any remaining family farms still left. This is outrage over not letting kids be cheap unskilled labor for someone not their parents. What a great cause.

        • Ben says:

          Again, farmers who own their farms say this would hamper their kids learning about farming. The proposed regs wouldn’t apply to working on a parent’s farm, but would apply to working on someone else’s. This would prohibit: going to a neighbor’s farm to learn about something their farm doesn’t do. Agricultural organizations like 4-H that depend on work being done outside the home farm. Etc.

          While there are definitely corporate-motivated reasons for the senators to oppose the new regulations, it seems like there would be a human cost to them as well that Loomis’ post doesn’t address. That’s all I’m trying to get across.

          One more thing: that “6 times more likely to die” thing is worthless. Unsubstantiated stats in blog posts should be taken with sodium anyway, but especially when we don’t know things like “how often do the kids die from farm-related reasons”, “how likely are farm kids to die compared to other kids”, and other things that would put that stat in its proper context.

          • Warren Terra says:

            I will admit that I’m not well informed about 4H. But I don’t see anything in the description here about voluntary work, just about paid employment.

            If Little Timmy wants to go next door and play in Farmer John’s threshing machine, that’s between the two of them, at least until someone loses a limb. If Farmer John wants to pay Little Timmy to work on the threshing machine, that’s a whole different kettle of body parts.

          • This assumes anyone would care to enforce the rules against farmers who had a 14 year old neighbor helping them with their harvest, baling hay, or what have you, which I find highly dubious.

            • DrDick says:

              The law specifically does not bar them from baling hay (which I did at 15-16), just from putting them in clear and present danger.

              • That all seems pretty relative to me (I’ve climbed on many a grain bin ladder without incident, while I saw someone fall off the side of a hay wagon when they non-chalantly stepped onto the edge of it from a hay loft instead of jumping further towards the middle and the bale they stepped on slipped off the side), but in any case I think the point still stands. From a real world stand point this simply isn’t going to apply to small scale family farms whether the farm is operated by your parents, your uncle, your neighbor, or someone else in your random rural community. The activities as described are mostly only going to apply to large scale corporate farms.

          • wengler says:

            I have direct experience with family farms. Your concerns aren’t applicable. 4-H should probably cut its climb tall ladders, mix pesticides and barn demolishing course anyways.

            15 year olds don’t need to be running the Cat to take down the barn. Leave that to the 16 year olds.

          • Hogan says:

            This would prohibit: going to a neighbor’s farm to learn about something their farm doesn’t do. Agricultural organizations like 4-H that depend on work being done outside the home farm. Etc.

            It’s not prohibiting any work on farms; it’s prohibiting unusually hazardous work on farms. Unless 4H has programs where kids mix pesticides and demolish buildings, I don’t see how this interferes. No one is saying they can’t do feeding and milking )as long as the animals aren’t toxic and/or feral).

            • Ben says:

              Y’all are putting way too much emphasis on the weasel words used in the article Loomis links.

              The proposed rules are MEANT TO restrict dangerous practices like mixing chemicals, etc. that you cite and that wengler thinks 4H doesn’t need to do.

              But that doesn’t give the full story on what the rule changes actually include. They also restrict:

              – rounding up chickens to take to market
              – dealing with animals over six months old
              – using a 4 wheeler
              – hours and working conditions to the point where detasseling would probably be illegal
              – working on farms owned by someone other than a parent (siblings, aunts/uncles, family incorporated farms, etc.)

              Brien Jackson makes a good point that enforcement of this stuff is an open question, but the restrictions go a lot further than mixing chemicals, destroying buildings and running heavy machinery

    • McWyrm says:

      That’s not to say that those things couldn’t be worked around or taken into account. But this is not such a clear-cut case of stupid and evil thinking a la Gingrich’s “take away the pencil and give ‘em a mop” initiative.

      This post and most of the comments are almost certainly a clear-cut case of folks with little or no understanding of agricultural practice or policy hand-waving about that of which they know not. Loomis’ saw mill misdirect pretty much gave the game away – he has nothing of substance to say about the matter at hand so he’ll regale us with horror stories.

      The letter sent to Congress (read it here) lays out the specific objections to the proposed rule quite clearly and in detail. There’s no indication Loomis gave it even a cursory look.

      If you’re ignorant of agricultural policy you should probably refrain from holding forth on it.

      • Yeah, can’t really disagree with that. I have no idea what crazy stories of industrial practice a century ago has to do with modern farm practices in the broad sense.

      • My in-laws had an orchard years ago. One of the many tasks was mixing the pesticides for the sprayer and then applying them. Respirators were standard equipment. I was in my twenties, I understood what the LD50 was (with warning labels on the container that stated, in effect, “if you drop this, kiss your a$$ goodbye”), and I worked at all sorts of other tasks (including going at heavy brush using a stand behind mower with a relatively exposed brush cutting attachment – very efficient and nasty). When it came to pesticides it was a whole ‘nother level of serious business. I understood the science, I understood the safety procedures, I understood the equipment. I was not asked or allowed to work with the pesticide mixing or application. It was a job that needed to be done, but the potential for catastrophic exposure for anyone was always limited to the absolute minimum. In my mid twenties I had at least the appearance of the ability to make an informed decision. A twelve to fifteen year old doesn’t. There’s no way I’d ever let anyone that young be responsible for or participate in pesticide preparation or spraying.

  6. sleepyirv says:

    Mind you, I have no idea how farm inspections work but wouldn’t the only people caught doing this be giant corporate farms? I mean, how many 12-year-olds will turn Pop’s friend Bob in for making him climb a large ladder.

  7. “These new rules would attack the freedom of our children to mix noxious pesticides, climb tall ladders, and demolishing barns on farms that are not owned by their parents.”

    Ah, good old corporatist concern trolling. To be sure, I did a lot of this when I was 12-14 growing up in Ohio farm country, but “farms not owned by my parents” equated to “farms owned by neighbors and family friends I leant a hand to for a few bucks and a favor,” and I very much doubt anyone in the ebil gubmint would have cared much to know about it. The “mixing pesticides” thing is the give away here, since no “small farm” does that on site.

    • Warren Terra says:

      This. Manifold This.

    • David M. Nieporent says:

      Ah, good old corporatist concern trolling. To be sure, I did a lot of this when I was 12-14 growing up in Ohio farm country, but “farms not owned by my parents” equated to “farms owned by neighbors and family friends I leant a hand to for a few bucks and a favor,” and I very much doubt anyone in the ebil gubmint would have cared much to know about it.

      Ah, good old regular trolling. “We should pass a badly-written law or regulation because the government would never misuse it.” How old are you, twelve? If a law possibly affected someone with skin darker than Paris Hilton’s, you’d be screaming at how dumb that was, and calling “fascist” anyone who was mocking your concerns with faux dialect like “ebil gubmint.” But let the government pass a law regulating business, and all of the sudden you “very much doubt” that the government would misuse it.

      The “mixing pesticides” thing is the give away here, since no “small farm” does that on site.

      What “mixing pesticides” thing? There is no “mixing pesticides thing,” except in the made up world of Loomis. The proposed regulations apply to any handling of pesticides, not merely “mixing.”

      • Uncle Kvetch says:

        If a law possibly affected someone with skin darker than Paris Hilton’s, you’d be screaming at how dumb that was, and calling “fascist” anyone who was mocking your concerns with faux dialect like “ebil gubmint.” But let the government pass a law regulating business

        By definition, a law regulating business can only affect white people.

        Good to know.

  8. Pith Helmet says:

    Hey, just call them interns, then you wouldn’t even have to pay them!

  9. JBL says:

    For those who are curious, the Democrats are Ben Nelson, Herb Kohl, Claire McCaskill and Mark Pryor.

  10. wileywitch says:

    Hopefully, this will be changed later. The effects of pesticide on children are horrible and insidious. A lot of people think that pesticides didn’t affect them and other people they knew as children who were exposed to pesticides, and that may be perfectly true; but a lot of the effects of neuro-toxins only show up in a child who was in a certain stage of neuro-development when exposed. I’m confident that one day it will be “discovered” that A.D.D. is the result of brain damage or insult at a certain stage of development that takes place around the age of seven in most children who are diagnose-able with it. I saw an article in magazine years ago about over children who live near a pesticide plant. Suddenly, with all the symptoms of A.D.D. they just had “A.D.D.- like symptoms”. You’d think they were afraid that someone with a platoon of lawyers would sue them or yank their advertisements.

    Wasn’t it great during the big terrorism scare when people were out buying plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect them from the nerve gas that was in a can, under their sink? Sarin. Bug spray. Did you know the number one weapon of choice for suicides worldwide is pesticide? I don’t have time to look for it right now, but some of you might have seen the study on the effects of four year old migrant farm-working children that showed up in their completely scribbled drawings. Seen next to the drawing of an unaffected four year old, it is quite clear that that farm-working kid isn’t going a lot of places in life.

    Pesticides damage developing nervous systems in ways that it doesn’t damage the developing nervous system. As adults, it’s a travesty not to protect children from the brain damaging effects of chemicals that they don’t need to be using. I’m going to see how my representatives voted on this. I might finally have something to bitch about.

  11. Frank Carpenter says:

    I’m 58, and started summer work on a upstate NY dairy farm at the age of twelve. My buddy was the son of a tenant farmhand working on the same farm, and our employment started as a way to control our mischief and keep us out from underfoot.

    Our duties were varied. Our first formal task was to train the new heifers to the electric fence, such being done by attaching two 70 pound boys to a cow and having them coax the heifer to the fence, where the one with the glove would jam the fence wire into his nose. The first time we did this the spectacle of a galloping cow with two kids flapping behind caused no end of merriment. Through the sodden milking paddock and the barbed wire pasture fence we went until new grass got the better of him and we got off. We learned to hobble them after that, but then they just fell on you.

    We cleaned the milking parlor. This meant running the chain driven drag that pulled the manure we scraped into the trenches to the spreader. We then hooked up the Massey to the wagon, drove it about a mile down the road, and turned on the flail that threw the manure. The flail had no deflector so it pretty much threw over a 180 degree angle. No big deal, it was summer and it would dry off by lunch.

    Haying. Run the hay rake and tedder. Tractors pull really good wheelies with rakes on them. The tedder had all these rotating wire spines on them. You tended to be very aware of them .

    Baling hay. Two kids on a wagon pulled by a tractor. The tractor has a “kicker” on it which throws hay at the wagon at about 20 mph. Occasionally a bale breaks or you can’t get it wedged in right. If you lose track of time you are likely to get hit by a bale. Bales weigh between 60 and 100 lbs, you weigh 70. You work from 7-7:30 AM, one hour for lunch, then till 7:00 PM.
    Occasionally we would get loaned to another farm down the street. He didn’t have a kicker so you hauled the bale into the wagon with a hook.

    Putting up the hay and the silage.
    The barn was roughly 100 feet tall. The milking parlor ceiling was about nine feet. The hay loft was a platform above the parlor, pierced with eight holes. Two were ladder chutes to access the loft, six were 4′ square holes for dropping bales into the milking parlor. Hay was delivered to the loft by a conveyor, until the loft was about half full, then this horizontal chain haul thingy that hooked the bale off the conveyor was used. It would hook the bale off the conveyor and carry it across the ceiling until an adjustable stop caused it to drop the bale. You adjust the stop by climbing wood rungs to the top of the barn, then walk out on the contrivance to adjust the stop.
    As the bales are stacked, the drop holes must be maintained, and once the barn is filled there are six 4′ square ninety foot open holes clear to the concrete floor of the parlor. When I have nightmares I still think about those drop holes.

    Then there were the odd jobs, like being the only one dexterous enough to jam my arm up a cow far enough to get a rope around it’s calves forelegs; or catching the goats (which took two days), or hauling the downers out to the pit and torching them.

    Great job for teaching situational awareness, tough on the body, payed $1.35 a day. A lot of people (and kids) got killed doing it.

    • A) God farming 50 years ago (give or take) was really insane.

      B) I do think you’re exaggerating just a wee bit. I baled more than my fair share of hay, and I can’t recall seeing too many 70 pound kids helping out, and can’t even begin to imagine a 100 foot high barn.

      • actor212 says:

        Everything looks bigger in fairy tales.

        I agree. There’s a sense of…exaggeration…to this story. I own a house in dairy farming country, probably not far from where this story took place, and I can tell you, there ain’t a barn over 40 feet tall there, and even that would be a stretch to work.

        • The highest lost I can ever remember working in was maybe 12-15 feet above the floor of the barn (the average one is probably 9-11 feet up). Having the roof some 85 feet above the floor of the loft is unfathomable.

          • mds says:

            Unfathomable to you, perhaps, Mr. Jackson, but as McWyrm pointed out above, actual family farmers know much more about farms than you. Just ask signatory Chuck Grassley, who has also been doing yeoman’s work in pushing back against that proposed EPA dust regulation that doesn’t even exist. I’m sure he’ll use the same credibility he brought to the dust thing and “death panels” to folksily intone how his grandson Patrick would have been denied all those 4-H projects that require climbing 100-foot-tall ladders carrying open buckets of Round-Up on incorporated farms not even partly-owned by their parents.

            • Anonymous says:

              Wow! Add another red herring to the pile – clearly Grassley’s talk about dust regulation invalidates the issues set out in detail in this letter signed by 30 Senators, so nobody needs to actually read or respond to their complaints.

              And – seriously – nobody has a 100ft barn.

              • mds says:

                Yes, yes, any corporation should be permitted to be “a person standing in place of” a child’s parents, federal safety mandates on equipment using public roads violates the Constitution, and lack of evidence that existing tractor safety programs are working should default to meaning that there’s no evidence they don’t work. Oh, there’s plenty of detail in that letter, all right. Refute it, libtards, if you possess the erudition.

                And how is it a red herring to point out that signatories to this have also been engaging in dumbfuck shrieking about another “anti-farmer” regulation that doesn’t even exist? We’re supposed to just take their word that they’re not simply being ignorant kneejerk anti-gubmint demagogues again? No wonder your kind hate science so much.

                • McWyrm says:

                  any corporation should be permitted to be “a person standing in place of” a child’s parents

                  I’m going to take this as evidence that you finally clicked through to the letter but weren’t able to engage honestly with its content. The letter proposes alternative language that narrowly carves out an exemption for incorporated family farms.

                  also been engaging in dumbfuck shrieking about another “anti-farmer” regulation that doesn’t even exist?

                  Are you suggesting the proposed legislation doesn’t exist? ’cause that’d be odd.

                  Refute it, libtards, if you possess the erudition.

                  Yeah, man. It’s a dispute about farm policy.

                  One the one hand, 30 Senators have put their names to a detailed list of objections to the proposed rule change. On the other hand, Loomis has presented … nothing of any substance whatsoever.

                  You’re loosing to a guy who dreamt up anti-dust regulation. Way to go.

              • BradP says:

                And – seriously – nobody has a 100ft barn.

                But many farms have grain storage bins and elevators that can double that.

                I worked at this place full-time in summers and part time from my junior year in high school to my freshman year in college and I reached the 100 foot mark weekly.

                • actor212 says:

                  Uhhhhhhhhh, because hay bales are often stacked in silos?

                  He distinctly said “barn”, not silo, with respect to the hay. Assuming he was telling the truth about, you know, actually working on a farm, he’d know the difference.

                • Where would you find a 100+ feet high silo/grain bin that is not either a commercial elevator or a very large corporate farm? I’ve never seen anything close to that even in the heart of the corn belt.

                • BradP says:

                  Where would you find a 100+ feet high silo/grain bin that is not either a commercial elevator or a very large corporate farm? I’ve never seen anything close to that even in the heart of the corn belt.

                  I agree that such a thing is rare, but there were a couple large family farms that did business with the grain elevator that also did some grain transportation with their trailers.

                  They would have fit the bill.

                  However, I would say Frank Carpenter is stretching the truth a bit.

            • Do you even realize how high 100 feet is?

              Also, McWyrm was castigating me for supporting the rules. Now you use the same logic thinking I oppose them. As I said, dangers of assuming and all that.

    • Slocum says:

      Great job for teaching situational awareness, tough on the body, payed $1.35 a day. A lot of people (and kids) got killed doing it.

      Donner Party Republicanism at its finest.

  12. News Nag says:

    Well, Erik, you stirred up the hive with this one. I think you’ve found your most effective persona and strongest voice with this post. It’s kinda Colbert, kinda Pat Paulsen, and kinda Carlin and Bruce. But it’s totally hilarious and inciteful, in a good way (and insightful too).

  13. David M. Nieporent says:

    Who says bipartisanship is dead? Senators from both sides of the aisle can still come together to make the lives of children more dangerous.

    Well, actually, they’re just opposing new regulations, so it wouldn’t make anything “more dangerous,” but keep things as safe as they are now.

    30 senators have signed on to this bill, including 4 Democrats.

    Uh, no. There is no “bill.” 30 senators signed on to a letter to the DOL asking them to withdraw proposed regulations as scientifically unfounded.

    A classic Loomis post; he knows nothing about farming or the proposed regulations in question, or the objections to those regulations, but it’s more government and more regulation, so he likes it. Because government is good, and private business is bad. I guess the mourning period isn’t over.

    • BradP says:

      Yeah, I was born and raised in a small Illinois farming community, and I can’t see these regulations going over very well at all.

      Government by urban liberals, for the people.

    • David M. Nieporent says:

      I should add here that I don’t claim to know any more about farming than Loomis; all I know about farming I learned from that Old MacDonald song. (Which is why, unlike Loomis or the bureaucrats of the DOL, I would never try to regulate farm work.) But I do claim to know more about the legislative/regulatory process than he does, and (more importantly) I claim to have actually read the primary documents he’s writing about.

  14. Anonymous says:

    BEHOLD! As ERIK LOOMIS DEFENDER slaps the bony fingers of THE DEVIL DAVID KOCH away from your child’s tender flesh.

  15. BradP says:

    What is the enforcement mechanism for this anyway?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.