ICE CREAM ANYONE?

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
attic owl
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 04/12/2000 - 12:01am
ICE CREAM ANYONE?

I have recently encountered a problem with finding ice cream in some Maine restaurants. What could I mean? There is at least one, likely more, restaurants that will not allow regular ice cream to be dipped, unassisted, at buffets and other restaurants. Hunh??? Yes, the state has decided that ice cream, not soft serve, must have strictures applied to its dispensing. The inspector shut down the availability of it unless an employee at the restaurant doled it out. This, of course, is very expensive to station an employee next to the cooler all day while the restaurant is open. The excuse is that the ice cream is not heated and people put their hands into the cooler which, they allege, is unhygienic. Of course there are plenty of other unheated offerings at salad bars and buffets . I am told of some restaurants that allow the practice right now, and have not been stopped. Has the government of Maine sunk to the level of micromanaging our lives in restaurants, and of course other things?

I’m convinced that no elected member of the legislature stooped to such a picayune restriction. But someone did, and that someone or some group in the rule making bureaucracy (unelected, unaccountable, rule makers) decided that this practice must end with a violation subject to the police power of the state. Please tell me Is there any way to get to the bureaucracy to change this?

I do not wish to name restaurants here. I would not want to give the bureaucrats and enforces any excuse to come down on any of them. What can be done to resolve this? There seems to be no limit to their rule making on endless topics. This ice cream thing is just one example. I bet many of you can think of very many more.

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
I noticed the disappearance

I noticed the disappearance of the dipping freezer at my favorite Chinese buffet in Augusta.
I assumed it had broken down.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
Eh, I'm ok with this. Ice

Eh, I'm ok with this. Ice cream attracts children, and children love to insist on doing things themselves, and are generally teeming with microorganisms and boogers. I would gladly give up my right to scoop my own ice cream if it meant keeping children away from the ice cream scooper.

Plus, I worked at Baskin Robbins in high school and scooped enough ice cream there for a lifetime. To this day I order my ice cream in a bowl because of the trauma associated with trying to put ice cream in cheap sugar cones.

attic owl
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 04/12/2000 - 12:01am
Well, it's good to know what

Well, it's good to know what AC thinks about the state of children’s hygiene, “ teeming with microorganisms and boogers.” Many don’t share it. AC is OK with letting the State pass a regulation concerning this issue and , likely, ten thousand other issues, in order to rein in we foolish citizens. For me, in my life, I will trust my own judgement, do what I want when it comes to serving myself ice cream. As so much in life, I WILL TAKE MY CHANCES, any time it is a choice between my freedom, and my responsibility to make my own choices, rather than having politicians and bureaucrats making them for me.
I resent bureaucrats in the Cross Building taking away my CHOICES, which is a way to ltake away my freedom (“ The best government is the government that governs least” (was that Thoreau or Jefferson who wrote that?).

I hope that, as a teen age employee, AC was forced to wash his hands and wipe his nose before scooping ice cream at Baskin and Robbins.

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 5 min ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
The reasons probably are

The reasons probably are hygienic,the training required to serve food by state and federal regulation is much more intensive than you might think. It's called ServeSafe training ,the training book is about 120 pages of fairly detailed education on everything from what causes food borne illnesses,serving food at the right temperatures,personal hygiene,and a lot more .The test is 90 qouestions and you must get 80% correct to pass. I took the course,let me tell you straight up after you do you look at who,how and where they are serving the food you eat. Self serve ice cream......you'd be glad the general public doesn't have their hands in it.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@attic owl: lol I'm a parent,

@attic owl: lol I'm a parent, I know what kind of germs are on kids' hands. My child uses hand sanitizer more than anyone I've ever met (she thinks it smells nice) and her hands are still teeming with germs.

And you're not being denied your right to scoop ice cream. Anyone can scoop ice cream in the privacy of their own home.

The alternative (and I'm fine with this too) is to just publicly display whether public scooping is allowed, and then let the market decide. (In other words, I won't be buying ice cream there.)

BlueJay
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 04/18/2005 - 12:01am
Things have changed since the

Things have changed since the days we could go into the garden, pull up a radish, rub it on a pant leg and eat it.

With world-wide travel what it is today the number of new, antibiotic-resistant diseases brought into this country is mind-boggling.

With the increase in TB, staph infections, MRSA and other pathogens circulating amongst our population, I'm glad our food safety standards are making changes to offset these new health threats..

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 31 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
"no elected member......" .

"no elected member......" .
Wrong at some point elected members passed legislation that codifies ,these rules and regulations.

Ever wonder how often the ice maker is cleaned ?

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 5 min ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
If you are really interested

If you are really interested google Servsafe... like I said you will have a entirely different perspective on what you put in your mouth.....

Roger Ek
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
I was an advanced EMT. I was

I was an advanced EMT. I was a EMT instructor. We teach and practice safe patient handling. Like doctors, not many EMTs get sick. The spread of disease is described as having vectors from the point of origin to the patient. In the case of food poisoning, the vector is fecal/oral. Have a nice breakfast.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 31 min 25 sec ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
I've eaten in more

I've eaten in more restaurants than anyone you know. Handy-to-the-highway dining usually means 'family' is either in the name or describes the style of dining one can expect. I have never seen self serve, hand dipped ice cream in a restaurant. I have never used self serve, soft ice cream or yogurt for the reasons stated above.

Mike G
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 44 sec ago
Joined: 02/17/2000 - 1:01am
I stay away from the

I stay away from the chocolate fountains, all I can think of is chocolate covered hair and dust on the strawberries.

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
I eat what I want.

I eat what I want.
What doesn't kill makes you stronger.
Except Kimchi.
That stuff is just wrong.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 31 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Mr. Mike

Mr. Mike
You are a wise man of the world !

attic owl
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 04/12/2000 - 12:01am
The State often promulgates

The State often promulgates silly, or unnecessary rules with the force of law. I believe the ice cream scooping regulation , if there is one, is really unnecessary. I learned yesterday from a very very highly placed member of the Lepage administration that there is a regulation in Maine that people must wear "comfortable pajamas." Wow, they sure are busy in Augusta. I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin's statement "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

attic owl
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 04/12/2000 - 12:01am
Here is a Wall Street Journal

Here is a Wall Street Journal Editorial that captures my complaint : It is very instructive . It is a very instructive historical piece. I found his discussion of the part President Wilson had to do with the bureaucratic passing of "laws" to be very instructive.

By John Tierney
WSJ, June 9, 2017

What’s the greatest threat to liberty in America? Liberals rail at Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration and his hostility toward the press, while conservatives vow to reverse Barack Obama’s regulatory assault on religion, education and business. Philip Hamburger says both sides are thinking too small.

Like the blind men in the fable who try to describe an elephant by feeling different parts of its body, they’re not perceiving the whole problem: the enormous rogue beast known as the administrative state.

Sometimes called the regulatory state or the deep state, it is a government within the government, run by the president and the dozens of federal agencies that assume powers once claimed only by kings. In place of royal decrees, they issue rules and send out “guidance” letters like the one from an Education Department official in 2011 that stripped college students of due process when accused of sexual misconduct.

Unelected bureaucrats not only write their own laws, they also interpret these laws and enforce them in their own courts with their own judges. All this is in blatant violation of the Constitution, says Mr. Hamburger, 60, a constitutional scholar and winner of the Manhattan Institute’s Hayek Prize last year for his scholarly 2014 book, “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” (Spoiler alert: Yes.)

“Essentially, much of the Bill of Rights has been gutted,” he says, sitting in his office at Columbia Law School. “The government can choose to proceed against you in a trial in court with constitutional processes, or it can use an administrative proceeding where you don’t have the right to be heard by a real judge or a jury and you don’t have the full due process of law. Our fundamental procedural freedoms, which once were guarantees, have become mere options.” ​

In volume and complexity, the edicts from federal agencies exceed the laws passed by Congress by orders of magnitude. “The administrative state has become the government’s predominant mode of contact with citizens,” Mr. Hamburger says. “Ultimately this is not about the politics of left or right. Unlawful government power should worry everybody.”

Defenders of agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Environmental Protection Agency often describe them as the only practical way to regulate today’s complex world. The Founding Fathers, they argue, could not have imagined the challenges that face a large and technologically advanced society, so Congress and the judiciary have wisely delegated their duties by giving new powers to experts in executive-branch agencies.

Mr. Hamburger doesn’t buy it. In his view, not only is such delegation unconstitutional, it’s nothing new. The founders, far from being naive about the need for expert guidance, limited executive powers precisely because of the abuses of 17th-century kings like James I.

James, who reigned in England from 1603 through 1625, claimed that divinely granted “absolute power” authorized him to suspend laws enacted by Parliament or dispense with them for any favored person. Mr. Hamburger likens this royal “dispensing” power to modern agency “waivers,” like the ones from the Obama administration exempting McDonald’s and other corporations from complying with provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

James also made his own laws, bypassing Parliament and the courts by issuing proclamations and using his “royal prerogative” to establish commissions and tribunals. He exploited the infamous Star Chamber, a court that got its name from the gilded stars on its ceiling.

“The Hollywood version of the Star Chamber is a torture chamber where the walls were speckled with blood,” Mr. Hamburger says. “But torture was a very minor part of its business. It was very bureaucratic. Like modern administrative agencies, it commissioned expert reports, issued decrees and enforced them. It had regulations controlling the press, and it issued rules for urban development, environmental matters and various industries.”

James’s claims were rebuffed by England’s chief justice, Edward Coke, who in 1610 declared that the king “by his proclamation cannot create any offense which was not an offense before.” The king eventually dismissed Coke, and expansive royal powers continued to be exercised by James and his successor, Charles I. The angry backlash ultimately prompted Parliament to abolish the Star Chamber and helped provoke a civil war that ended with the beheading of Charles in 1649.

A subsequent king, James II, took the throne in 1685 and tried to reassert the prerogative power. But he was dethroned in the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which was followed by Parliament’s adoption of a bill of rights limiting the monarch and reasserting the primacy of Parliament and the courts. That history inspired the American Constitution’s limits on the executive branch, which James Madison explained as a protection against “the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate.”

“The framers of the Constitution were very clear about this,” Mr. Hamburger says, rummaging in a drawer for a pocket edition. He opens to the first page, featuring the Preamble and Article 1, which begins: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.”

“That first word is crucial,” he says. “The very first substantive word of the Constitution is ‘all.’ That makes it an exclusive vesting of the legislative powers in an elected legislature. Congress cannot delegate the legislative powers to an agency, just as judges cannot delegate their power to an agency.”

Those restrictions on executive power have been disappearing since the late 19th century, starting with the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. Centralized power appealed to big business—railroads found commissioners easier to manipulate than legislators—as well as to American intellectuals who’d studied public policy at German universities. Unlike Britain, Germany had rejected constitutional restraints in favor of a Prussian model that gave administrative agencies the prerogative powers of the king.

Mr. Hamburger believes it’s no coincidence that the growth of America’s administrative state coincided with the addition to the electorate of Catholic immigrants, blacks and other minorities. WASP progressives like Woodrow Wilson considered these groups an obstacle to reform.

“The bulk of mankind is rigidly unphilosophical, and nowadays the bulk of mankind votes,” Wilson complained, noting in particular the difficulty of winning over the minds “of Irishmen, of Germans, of Negroes.” His solution was to push his agenda using federal agencies staffed by experts of his own caste—what Mr. Hamburger calls the “knowledge class.” Wilson was the only president ever to hold a doctorate.

“There’s been something of a bait and switch,” Mr. Hamburger says. “We talk about the importance of expanding voting rights, but behind the scenes there’s been a transfer of power from voters to members of the knowledge class. A large part of the knowledge class, Republicans as well as Democrats, went out of their way to make the administrative state work.”

Mr. Hamburger was born into the knowledge class. He grew up in a book-filled house near New Haven, Conn. His father was a Yale law professor and his mother a researcher in economics and intellectual history. During his father’s sabbaticals in London, Philip acquired a passion for 17th-century English history and spent long hours studying manuscripts at the British Museum. That’s where he learned about the royal prerogative.

He went to Princeton and then Yale Law School, where he avoided courses on administrative law, which struck him as “tedious beyond belief.” He became slightly more interested during a stint as a corporate lawyer specializing in taxes—he could see the sweeping powers wielded by the Internal Revenue Service—but the topic didn’t engage him until midway through his academic career.

While at the University of Chicago, he heard of a colleague’s inability to publish a research paper because the study had not been approved ahead of time by a federally mandated institutional review board. That sounded like an unconstitutional suppression of free speech, and it reminded Mr. Hamburger of those manuscripts at the British Museum.

Why the return of the royal prerogative? “The answer rests ultimately on human nature,” Mr. Hamburger writes in “The Administrative Threat,” a new short book aimed at a general readership. “Ever tempted to exert more power with less effort, rulers are rarely content to govern merely through the law.”

Instead, presidents govern by interpreting statutes in ways lawmakers never imagined. Barack Obama openly boasted of his intention to bypass Congress: “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.” Unable to persuade a Congress controlled by his own party to regulate carbon dioxide, Mr. Obama did it himself in 2009 by having the EPA declare it a pollutant covered by a decades-old law. (In 2007 the Supreme Court had affirmed the EPA’s authority to do so.)

Similarly, the Title IX legislation passed in 1972 was intended mainly to protect women in higher education from employment discrimination. Under Mr. Obama, Education Department bureaucrats used it to issue orders about bathrooms for transgender students at public schools and to mandate campus tribunals to adjudicate sexual misconduct—including “verbal misconduct,” or speech—that are in many ways less fair to the accused than the Star Chamber.

At this point, the idea of restraining the executive branch may seem quixotic, but Mr. Hamburger says there are practical ways to do so. One would be to make government officials financially accountable for their excesses, as they were in the 18th and 19th centuries, when they could be sued individually for damages. Today they’re protected thanks to “qualified immunity,” a doctrine Mr. Hamburger thinks should be narrowed.

“One does have to worry about frivolous lawsuits against government officers who have to make quick decisions in the field, like police officers,” he says. “But someone sitting behind a desk at the EPA or the SEC has plenty of time to consult lawyers before acting. There’s no reason to give them qualified immunity. They’ll be more careful not to exceed their constitutional authority if they have to weigh the risk of losing their own money.”

Another way of restraining agencies—one President Trump could adopt on his own—would be to require them to submit new rules to Congress for approval instead of imposing them by fiat. The president could also order at least some agencies to resolve disputes in regular courts instead of using administrative judges, who are departmental employees. Meanwhile, Congress could reclaim its legislative power by going through regulations, agency by agency, and deciding which ones to enact into law.

Mr. Hamburger’s chief hope for reform lies in the courts, which in earlier eras rebuffed the executive branch’s power grabs. Those rulings so frustrated both Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt that they threatened retaliation—such as FDR’s plan to pack the Supreme Court by expanding its size. Eventually judges surrendered and validated sweeping executive powers. Mr. Hamburger calls it “one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the federal judiciary.”

The Supreme Court capitulated further in decisions like Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), which requires judges to defer to any “reasonable interpretation” of an ambiguous statute by a federal agency. “Chevron deference should be called Chevron bias,” Mr. Hamburger says. “It requires judges to abandon due process and independent judgment. The courts have corrupted their processes by saying that when the government is a party in case, they will be systematically biased—they will favor the more powerful party.”

Mr. Hamburger sees a good chance that the high court will limit and eventually abandon the Chevron doctrine, and he expects other litigation giving the judiciary a chance to reassert its powers and protect constitutional rights. “Slowly, step by step, we can persuade judges to recognize the risks of what they’ve done so far and to grapple with this very dangerous type of power,” he says. The judiciary, like academia, has many liberals who have been sympathetic to the growth of executive power, but their perspective may be changing.

“Administrative power is like off-road driving,” Mr. Hamburger continues. “It’s exhilarating to operate off-road when you’re in the driver’s seat, but it’s a little unnerving for everyone else.”

He says he observed this effect during a recent conversation with a prominent legal scholar. The colleague, a longtime defender of administrative law, was discussing the topic shortly after Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

The colleague told Mr. Hamburger: “I am beginning to see the merit of your ideas.”

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 31 min 25 sec ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
NIAGRA FALLS . . “Slowly,

NIAGRA FALLS . . “Slowly, step by step . . " (fourth paragraph from the bottom in the editorial)

Seriously, though . . the editorial underlies the essence of sovereign citizenship. That's right, those 'nuts' that drew the scorn of the LePage 'friendly' media.

Layering of laws is a goldmine to the average lawyer and for the entire court system, for that matter. Every cop, prosecutor and judge ought to know that YOU DO NOT NEED A DRIVER LICENSE to operate a private (not in commerce) motor vehicle on any public roadway. Try telling that to the cop that just pulled you over. Eventually ($ cha ching) . . you'll win, eventually ($ cha ching) if you fight . . maybe ($ cha ching) on appeal.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 31 min 25 sec ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
The Beanes of Skowhegan,

The Beanes of Skowhegan, Maine . .

Woman, 33, is charged with child endangerment after being caught on video driving with her toddler in the front seat without a seatbelt

SOURCE
_______________________________________________________________________

Remember when the 'common sensical' seatbelt law was incidental to another infraction?

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
There is no ability to

There is no ability to empathize anymore. People are taught one viewpoint, and cannot imagine holding any other. Thus, they happily agree to censor any dissent and even demand safe spaces from the assault of having to consider anyone else's point of view.

The only way to make them see it from any other point of view... is to actually put them in that position.

So, they only see the threat of administrative law when it is suddenly in the hands of TRUMP instead of Obama/Clinton... until then, it was just fine! Now, it's TYRANNY!!!

In a very real sense, the left has discovered how to manufacture BIGOTRY by teaching only one point of view. This happened in the backwoods due to lack of education... but intentional indoctrination has precisely the same effect!

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 31 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Well first it is pretty f- -

Well first it is pretty f- - - ing stupid behavior( I rarely use that wording) but of course if
should prevent repeat behavior I can live with it.
Who would be the first to speak if an accident had occured and tretment for injuries ended up on our dime?
The real stupidity here is she didn't pull over and resecure the rug rat ! Who proably unleashed himself.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 37 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Is "rug-rat" an ice cream

Is "rug-rat" an ice cream flavor?

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 31 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Yes it is Mel.

Yes it is Mel.
But more importantly it is all tied into the Obama/Clinton/Conspiracy /along with the end of the world / pending locust infestation( which will destroy the K Cal crop)/ and all other maladies !

Log in to post comments