I am currently studying for my CSL license in MA. This is my take.
904.2. – Waffles
This section shall comply with NWAB 3220.127.116.11, except where superseded by MGL 149.742.2.1, or explicitly stated herein.
904.2.1 Maple Syrup
Waffles may be served with maple syrup, provided it complies with IMSC 4242, up to 33% the weight of the waffles it is being served with, but at no point shall it exceed 4 oz. If more maple syrup is desired, a hearing can be requested before the breakfast official board.
Butter can atop the waffles, at a minimum of 1TB per 3sq. in., but not exceeding 3TB per 5sq. in.
904.2.3 Jellies, jams, and chutneys
Jellies are regulated under sections 907.4 – 907.6
Jams containing blackcurrants, and other jams from the grossulariaceae family, shall not be used, except with the express written permission of the breakfast official.
Chutneys, as defined in section 906.3, can be used only as garnish, not exceeding 1TB per 6 sq. in.
904.2.4 Peanut Butter
Peanut Butter can be used in any amount, provided it complies with PBRB 325
Today’s quote comes from Mark D. Friedman, of Natural Rights Libertarian, from his book Nozick’s Libertarian Project: An Elaboration and Defense:
Thus, the commingling of the political and economic realms permits the development of a vicious circle in which constituencies use the apparatus of the state to achieve illegitimate financial advantages and the authorities use their ability to provide such rewards as leverage to further erode our freedoms. Just as the human body can tolerate extremely low doses of arsenic and other toxins (do not try this at home!), societies with deeply ingrained traditions supportive of the rule of law can withstand a substantial level of state interference in their economic lives without collapsing into outright tyranny. However, even “minor” abridgements of liberty are pernicious in and of themselves, and if such cancers are allowed to metastasize, the “patient” will eventually succumb.
I should note here that Mark D. Friedman has become one of my favorite political thinkers lately, both through his blog and this book. His writing is clear, cogent, and his arguments are often surprisingly persuasive; I find myself initially disagreeing with his positions sometimes, but am often convinced by the time he rests his case. And, above all, his commitment to the value of the individual is never lost.
Andrew Cohen of Bleeding Heart Libertarians has an interesting piece up, and I largely share his views (though there is an analogy in there I find rather weak…). From the article:
People who were promised paychecks will not get them. Some will get them late. Some will get smaller paychecks (due to furlough time). Some of these people will face tremendous difficulty. I think it fair to say they will be harmed–having planned their lives given the promise of a regular paycheck, they have legitimate expectations that are being set back. Perhaps the government should not have hired those people in the first place (after all, they are “non-essential” personnel!). But the fact is they were hired and treating them this way is wrong and makes a mockery of contract.
This is a good point that many libertarians and conservatives are apt to miss. Many libertarians in particular are going to dispute the legitimacy of those obligations, but if government is a legitimate entity, then the obligations it enters into need to be taken seriously and the obligations honored. Now certainly, in the private sector, jobs are generally not seen as secure as government jobs. Perhaps thats a good thing, as it promotes increased productivity and competition, ultimately helping to serve the consumer. However, there is an implicit expectation of continued work when a full time employee gets hired by someone, whether the government, a corporation, or small business, and possibly could be considered part of their work contract. The government, currently, is not honoring that contract. However, given it’s abysmal record of honoring individuals and their rights, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.
This passage is by Soren Kierkegaard, quoted from Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, a collection of existentialist writings assembled by Walter Kaufmann:
[T]o honour every man, absolutely every man, is the truth, and this is what it is to fear God and love one’s “neighbour”. But from an ethico-religious point of view, to recognize the “crowd” as the court of last resort is to deny God, and it cannot exactly mean to love the “neighbour.” And the “neighbour” is the absolutely true expression for human equality. In case every one were in truth to love his neighbour as himself, complete human equality would be attained. Every one who loves his neighbour in truth, expresses unconditionally human equality. Every one who, like me, admits that his effort is weak and imperfect, yet is aware that the task is to love one’s neighbour, is also aware of what human equality is. But never have I read in Holy Scripture the commandment, Thou shalt love the crowd- and still less, Thou shalt recognize, ethico-religiously, in the crowd the supreme authority in matters of “truth.” But the thing is simple enough: this thing of loving one’s neighbour is self-denial; that of loving the crowd, or of pretending to love it, of making it the authority in matters of truth, is the way to material power, the way to temporal and earthly advantages of all sorts- at the same time it is the untruth, for a crowd is the untruth.
[. . .] The crowd, in fact, is composed of individuals; it must therefore be in every man’s power to become what he is, an individual. From becoming an individual no one, no one at all, is excluded, except he who excludes himself by becoming a crowd. To become a crowd, to collect a crowd about one, is on the contrary to affirm the distinctions of human life. The most well-meaning person who talk about these distinctions can easily offend an individual. But then it is not the crowd which possesses power, influence, repute, and mastery over men, but it is the invidious distinctions of human life which despotically ignore the single individual as the weak and impotent, which in a temporal and worldly interest ignore the eternal truth- the single greatest individual.
This comes from Kierkegaard (HT to Tongue Sandwich):
A fire started offstage in a theater. The clown came out to tell the audience. They thought it was a joke and applauded. He told them again, and they were even more entertained. This is the way, I suppose, the world will come to an end – amid the universal hilarity and applause of wits and wise guys who think it’s all just a joke.
. . . but Ron Paul beat me to it.
As someone who lives in Massachusetts, I was horrified not only by the lockdown and unwarranted searches of innocent people’s homes, but also by people’s blase’ attitude towards it all. It is truly a non-issue for most people in my area. But at least Dunkin’ was open.
While watching CNN one morning, I took note of a soldier walking down a Boston street in full camo with a bomb sniffing dog. Full camo… in an urban setting. What exactly was he supposed to be blending in with again?
I can’t help but feel that a police state of a uniquely American flavor is coming, and it will be welcomed with open arms by the citizenry.