Bruen non-compliance is antisemitism

 

Jews are being beaten in the streets.

The Supreme Court decided Bruen to guarantee the right to self defense.

States like New York have done everything possible not to comply with Bruen.

Jews need the ability to defend themselves from this violent pro-Hamas terrorism.

Bruen non-compliance is dangerous for law abiding citizens but especially Jews.

 

Spread the love

The trouble with tipping

Recently on social media, I’ve seen lots of complaints about how tipping culture in the US is out if control, with people aggressively demanding tips.

Here are two examples:

 

The internet seems to be in disagreement with who is wrong. Is it the customer for not tipping, or is it the worker for demanding a tip.

I’m going to go with a third option that accurately addresses the problem.

The bad guy is the business.

As a buddy of mine put it so succinctly, the gig economy was just another way for the wealthy to fuck over the workers.

What most people don’t understand is that from DoorDash drivers to the stylist at SuperCuts, these people are effectively subcontractors.

They don’t have a wage. They get a percentage of the service price.

You go and pay $24 for a haircut, and the franchise gets a cut off the top and the stylist gets the rest. Technically, the stylist is renting the booth space.

Here is the kicker.

As inflation has made everything more expensive, these businesses are not increasing prices, or are not increasing prices as much as they need to to cover costs.

What they are doing is taking a greater percentage off the top.

In days gone by, the franchise take of a $24 haircut would have been $12. Then it goes to $16, then $20.

Some places, like implied by the massuse and DoorDash driver above, the house cut is 100%.

The business expect the customer to make up the difference in tips.

This system fucks over both the worker and the customer.

The customer is enticed by the low advertised price. Then the customer gets fucked when they feel strong-armed into paying another 20% or more for a generous tip.

The worker gets fucked because if they don’t get a generous tip, or even tipped at all, they don’t get paid.

The $24 you paid for a haircut that took 20 minutes just paid the stylist $3. If they manage to do two haircuts an hour, they made $6 without a tip.

Yes, your unhappy that you got guilty into adding a $10 tip.

But, how happy would you be working for $6 an hour?

This is absolutely one of those times when, “There aught to be a law” is appropriate.

I see three potential solutions.

1. End the gig economy like this, pay these people a wage like normal workers. This is probably the most drastic approach.

2. Establish a minimum percentage that workers are entitled to for services. The worker must get, say, 50% of the cost of the service with no additional fees to nickel and dime them to a lower percentage. If you pay $24 for a haircut, the stylist gets at least $12, guaranteed. If that isn’t enough for the house to operate, they need to raise prices accordingly. Businesses would also be forced to compete for good workers by offering above minimum percentage wages. This is my preferred option.

3. The advertised price must reflect the house and worker cut. If the business advertises an $80 massage, they must say:

Massage – $80, parlor $70/masseuse $10.

Then the customer knows that they should tip so the masseuse makes more than $10 per hour, or customers refuse to patron a business that pays its gig workers a shit percent. This is probably the least intrusive option.

Anyway this is dealt with, something has to be done.

The current situation is unfair to workers and customers, and is unsustainable.

The next time you see someone complaining that, “Tipping culture in America is out of control.”

Look at them and say, “Yes, franchise owners and tech bros are absolutely out of control fucking their workers.”

Spread the love

Malicious Compliance and Other Government Malfeasance

(1000 words)
As I’ve stated before, my wife is a teacher. She is absolutely spectacular at teaching.

She is not so good at understanding ramifications, potential outcomes, and intentionally setting people up for failure.

Back in 2002, she was required to be a member of the teacher’s union. At one of the regular meetings of the faculty and staff, the new government regulations were explained to them.

In particular, under the new government mandates, they could no longer hold students back, they had to be advanced. In addition, it was explained how the new regulations made it almost impossible to expel or even have out of school suspension.

There were also new requirements, from the state, requiring that all students be included. For the most part, marking the end of special education classes for students at need.

This is how it was related to me 20+ years ago, so my memory could have left some things out.

The teacher’s union was incensed that the horrible Republican Congress and President would step in where they didn’t know what they were doing and how this new mandate would destroy the education industry.

Well, they were right, in part. It destroyed our education system. The industry is doing fine.

What was the horrible, horrible legislation that brought down this new mandate from on high?
Read More

Spread the love

And this is why we don’t care.

This was one reply pretty much summarizes why nobody gives a fork about them getting their walking papers:

Can’t disagree with that.

Spread the love

Why yes, my eyes are a little crossed today…

I wanted to write about something more interesting and stumbled down a rabbit hole. The interesting case is the one of Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority.

For many years, Section 8 or Public Housing Assistance leases have included a clause in the lease agreement that obligates tenants, [n]ot to display, use, or possess or allow members of Tenant’s household or guest to display, use or possess any firearms (operable or inoperable) or other weapons as defined by the laws and courts of the State of New York anywhere on the property of CHA. — CHA’s Residential Lease Agreement.

In different words, the lease requires renters to give up their Second Amendment protected rights. The right to any arms for self-defense.

Of course, we know that the bad guys have plenty of weapons in public housing.

This particular filing is to have the case dismissed for lack of standing. The CHA claims that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

I don’t know. I wanted to know, instead I got this:

Plaintiffs assert a violation of Second Amendment Rights based upon a provision in CHA’s Residential Lease Agreement (“RLA”) that obligates tenants “[n]ot to display, use, or possess or allow members of Tenant’s household or guest to display, use or possess any firearms (operable or inoperable) or other weapons as defined by the laws and courts of the State of New York anywhere on the property of CHA.” They mischaracterize this provision as a “categorical” or “wholesale ban” on the possession firearms on CHA property. They also attempt to expand this characterization by an apparent incongruity, wherein Plaintiffs attempt to utilize their status as low income to infer CHA’s lease restriction also inhibits ownership of any firearm. Plaintiffs frame their arguments by reducing the complex and unique nature of a public housing development to an overly broad and simplistic premise of a governmental entity regulating firearms within an individual’s household. Further, they mistakenly assert that this action is the equivalent to N. Doe v. East St. Louis Housing Authority, No. 3:18-cv-545 (SD Ill Mar 7, 2018) to justify the extreme remedy of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

In doing so, Plaintiffs ignore the distinctive and intricate interests involved regulating activities in public housing developments. Public housing authorities (“PHAs”) are created under state laws s to provide affordable housing for low-income households. In New York, they are expressly formed to accomplish the goals set forth in Article XVIII of New York’s Constitution. However, PHAs receive funding from the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) while also being held to the same standard as a private landlord as they are not considered to be a municipal subdivision of the state and distinct from the municipality for which they were formed by the New York Legislature. PHAs, such as CHA, are state-created, federally funded, and locally administered entities. Further, they are obligated under Federal and state law to provide “decent, safe, and sanitary conditions” to their tenants. To that end, Federal law requires PHAs to develop crime prevention plans in conjunction with local law enforcement. In addition to the foregoing governmental interests interwoven in public housing developments, there are also the property interests and liberties inherent in residential apartments and proprietary rights of a landlord. The sui generis nature of PHAs and public housing developments, and their relevantly new creation, were the type of circumstance the founding fathers could not have fathomed at the time of the signing of the Constitution. There is no equivalent entity in this nation’s history for the courts to look to for guidance in considering the balancing of the many interests at stake when a PHA regulates a person’s activities in a public housing development
No. 16: Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority, No. 5:23-cv-01540, slip op. at 1–2 (N.D.N.Y.)

Let’s break this down.

The plaintiffs say that their Second Amendment Rights are violated because they are not allowed to display, use, or posses arms in their homes.

In response, the state argues(?) that the plaintiffs ignore how hard it is to regulate people in public housing.

The plaintiffs assert that because they are low income, they are denied the right to possess any firearm. I read into this that the full argument is that they can’t afford to safely store firearms off the property.

The state argues that doesn’t count. They could do it, that’s all that is required.

The Court employs and elaborates on the text, history, and tradition test that Heller and McDonald require for evaluating whether a government regulation infringes on the Second Amendment right to possess and carry guns for self-defense. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010). Applying that test, the Court correctly holds that New York’s outlier “may-issue” licensing regime for carrying handguns for self-defense violates the Second Amendment.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022) Kavanaugh, concurring.

The state filed that steaming pile on 2024/01/03. A year and a half after Bruen. 16 years after Heller. 14 years after McDonald. Yet, they believe that the plaintiffs have to prove something more than their proposed conduct is within the scope of the protections of the Second Amendment.

Is the proposed conduct within the scope of the protections of the Second Amendment?

Yes!

The burdens then shifts to the state to prove a history and tradition of analogous regulations from the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

It is obvious that they know this as well. The final lines, talking about how public housing is “new” so there couldn’t be any regulations in 1791, so they are allowed to infringe as much as they want.

Justice Thomas’ powerful language regarding one step too far when discussing means-end didn’t seem to register with the state when they asked the court to considering the balancing of the many interests.

The state didn’t provide a single regulation from the founding era. Not one.

Argh!!!!

Bibliography

District of Columbia v. Heller, 467 U.S. 837 (2008)
Mcdonald V. Chicago, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. V. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2022)
No. 16: Hunter v. Cortland Housing Authority, No. 5:23-cv-01540 (N.D.N.Y.)
Spread the love

Another “School Shooting.”

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WSMV) – Two young men are dead after a shooting in the parking lot of an East Nashville middle school, according to Metro Police.

Officers were called to Meigs Middle Magnet School on Ramsey St. around 7 p.m. Thursday and found the teenagers seriously injured, police said. One died at the scene and the other died a short time after arriving at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Police said no students were at the school when the shooting happened, but the entire incident was captured on the school’s security cameras.

In the video, officers said the two victims pulled into the parking lot in a white sedan. They were joined a couple of minutes later by another car. Two men exited that vehicle and got into the back seat of the white car. Multiple shots were fired before the two men got out of the back seat, went back into their car, and drove away.

“While it is unrelated to school operations, and no students or staff were involved, we will continue to be in close contact with the MNPD to ensure proper safety precautions are in place to ensure the safety of the school,” the MNPS spokesperson said.

Two teenagers killed outside East Nashville middle school (wsmv.com)

Is this a school shooting as most people think? Of course not, but that did not stop our Gun Grabbing friends of K-12 School Shooting database to include it in its list of propaganda.

And I want you to pay particular attention to the highlighted area.

The bad link provided in the insert goes to two news site: WSMV which is where I got the quote on top, and NewsChannel5:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — Two men were killed in what police said was an “apparent targeted shooting” on Thursday outside of a Nashville middle school.

Police said the two arrived in a car at Meigs Magnet School, where there were no activities. The shooting happened at 7 p.m.

Detectives are working active leads.

This is all we know right now. Check back with NewsChannel 5 for updates.

Two dead after shooting in a Nashville middle school parking lot (newschannel5.com)

For good measure I checked WKRN:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Two people are dead after an apparent targeted shooting in the parking lot of an East Nashville school Thursday evening.

The Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) said the shooting happened at around 7 p.m. on Feb. 8, in the parking lot of Meigs Magnet School. Two males were killed after they arrived at the school in a car.

Metro Schools spokesperson Sean Braisted released a statement, which reads:

We have been closely monitoring the deadly shooting incident that happened outside of Meigs last night. While it is unrelated to school operations, and no students or staff were involved, we will continue to be in close contact with the MNPD to ensure proper safety precautions are in place to ensure the safety of the school.

Authorities said detectives are working active leads. No other information was released.

2 dead after shooting in parking lot of East Nashville, TN school (wkrn.com)

And even WZTV 17:

The Metro Nashville Police Department is investigating a deadly double shooting in the parking lot of an East Nashville school.

Police say two men were killed an apparent targeted shooting in the parking lot of Meigs Magnet School. No children were present at the school during the shooting, and no activities were happening at the school Thursday night.

One died at the scene and the other transported to Vanderbilt Hospital where they passed, police confirm. The victims will be released at a later time, MNPD adds.

MNPD says detectives are pursuing strong leads.

According to MNPD, the shooting occurred at 7 p.m. This is an ongoing investigation.

 

2 dead after shooting in East Nashville school parking lot 

Nobody mentions “a dispute” in fact it is still an ongoing investigation, and no info has been released.

Maybe a wee bit of creative writing by our friends of K-12 School Shooting Database?

Let us remember the way they define and collect school shooting data:

If your cause is righteous, why lie?

 

Spread the love

Friday Feedback

I’ve been experimenting with highlighting. It seems to be working ok. My test subjects have not known what I was testing yet have given good feedback.

There have been a couple of bad opinions out of the Ninth and Hawaii’s supreme Court. Makes me angry to read them.

Casinator is on hold right now.

Last Friday, a client contacted to tell me they had a situation. I asked if the client was down or did I have 30 minutes for lunch? I got my 30 minutes. I got back to things blowing up. Turns out that it was more urgent than I understood it to be.

That took me into multiple meetings, hours, and hours of fixing, and it is still going on. I’m in the process of learning another programming language, while attempting to get documentation for a software package that has been EOL for more than 15 years.

Lots and lots of fun.

Thank you for all the great comments. I feel bad when I dump 3300 words on you guys, then realize that I’ve culled that from 50,000+ sometimes and I guess it isn’t as bad as all that.

Have a fantastic day and a better weekend.

Spread the love