zlacker

>>Kapura+(OP)
The article is a mixture of useful and distracting information. The ever-increasing number of federal crimes really is an issue (the example of it being a federal crime to sell jam made from more than five types of fruit is remarkable). The growth in federal law-enforcement agencies is also something which deserves some attention, as is using prison guards to police the streets.

OTOH, I think that comments such as 'What is surprising is that those two agencies now facing down Black Lives Matter and crowds protesting systemic racism historically have been enlisted by the federal government to protect blacks against white protesters,' 'D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser … finds herself in the odd position of not controlling the police forces patrolling her own city' and 'ou read that right: The former head of the Fraternal Order of Police was considered too liberal for the GOP' stoke fire rather than illuminate. The first sentence is unsurprising: the police are not on the streets of DC because of protesters but because of rioters; they are there to keep the peace. The second comment, too, is unsurprising: the federal district … belongs to the federal government. It is no more surprising that the mayor of DC is subordinate to the federal government than it is that the mayor of Chicago is subordinate to the state of Illinois. Nor is the third comment particularly helpful: I imagine that the concern with the nominee could very well be that a former police chief is too authoritarian to helm an agency which has been accused of some pretty serious mis-steps since the Bush years.

I'm not taking any position here on the goodness of any of this, just noting that the author is not making the most of his opportunity to discuss substantive issues and make reasoned arguments.

>>zeveb+Wy
> the example of it being a federal crime to sell jam made from more than five types of fruit is remarkable

Wow! I really applied myself to looking for a motivation for regulation but failed. Any hints?

>>macleg+FJ
~~I'm not a lawyer and the citation provided in the article is too much text for me to try to parse, but I have to assume this is a case of unintended consequences. I expect that each individual section of the law makes sense, and it's only when you read them with an eye to finding gotchas that you realize they work together to prohibit this. In other words, congress needs better QA.~~

Edit: I take it all back. It turns out that you only have to read 21 CFR §150.160(b)(2) to see it, and it turns out that that law is just unreasonably prescriptivist.

>(2) The following combinations of fruit ingredients may be used:

>(i) Any combination of two, three, four, or five of such fruits in which the weight of each is not less than one-fifth of the weight of the combination; except that the weight of pineapple may be not less than one-tenth of the weight of the combination.

It's against the law to make a jam with more than 5 fruits because the law only explicitly allows jams with up to 5 fruits. Bizarre.

>>0xffff+NP
My best guess: this prevents situations like selling jars of "strawberry jam" which is only 10% strawberry.

Which is partly backed up by 21 CFR § 150.160 (e)(1):

(e)

>(1) The name of each preserve or jam for which a definition and standard of identity is prescribed by this section is as follows:...