This is the result of the socialization of defense services. To protect us they must attack us.
(I found this in a shopping cart this morning and brought it back to snap a pic. This toy is in the trash now.)
The Toys They Are A-Changin’ Read Post »
This short story, by Anita Acavalos, was inspired by the WWI poetry of Wilfred Owen, namely “Dulce et Decorum Es” and “Anthem for Doomed Youth.”
Read the Full Story by Anita Acavalos
Afterwards, discuss it below.
Article: Seeking Heaven Read Post »
In college, I quickly learned that working at a restaurant is a great way to guarantee you’ll get at least one free (or drastically reduced) meal per shift. I always vied for the Sunday buffet brunch shift because even though I had to show up early on Sunday after a late Saturday night, buffet brunch meant 1) I only had to take drink orders, bring fresh rolls, and bus tables, 2) I could enjoy a huge plate of brunch leftovers once the restaurant was closed, and 3) I could pack a to-go box with rations for my now-husband. During the rest of the week, the long hours on my feet and difficult customers were well worth the 1/2 price dinner and shift drink that came with each night on the floor.
Of course, leave it to politicians to destroy this small but crucial perk. Michigan State Representative Mark Meadows (D-East Lansing) has introduced House Bill 6214, which would tax restaurant employees on meals they receive while working. Let’s be clear here: when I was a server in Alabama, the minimum base pay was $2.13/hour. Yes, servers get tips and depending on where they work, they could be making well over $100 per night in tips alone. But if the restaurant is dead, you go home with a few measly dollars and the knowledge that your weekly paycheck will be enough for a tank of gas and a few staples from the grocery store. I counted on my shift dinner to be my meal of the day–supplemented with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or cheese on crackers.
Now, Representative Meadows wants to take more money from the pockets of restaurant employees. I’ve known some fine “professional” servers who have worked in the food industry for the majority of their lives. These people generally work at high-class establishments and make more than I do in my 9-5. However, the majority of folks working in restaurants aren’t doing it for the big bucks. They are busting ass by night at Chili’s after working their day jobs, they are folks without extensive training or educational opportunities, and they are people with a nice smile and warm demeanor that can hustle a few extra dollars from a table. It’s unfortunate that Representative Meadows now wants to target this population with this terribly greedy plan. More money for the state of Michigan, less for you!
Photo courtesy of bradleyolin.
MI wants to tax your shift meal Read Post »
Having reviewed what the McDonald gun decision says, the next question is: Is it good for liberty?
The short-term answer is certainly yes. Chicago has one of the worst gun bans in the country, so if it’s loosened at all, then Chicagoans will enjoy more liberty. Presumably very restrictive bans in others cities will also fall, which is also good.
What about that disgusting language in the decision reassuring governments that the right to bear arms “does not imperil every law regulating firearms”?
Some libertarian friends have suggested that this might embolden certain state or local governments to pass more gun laws, but this argument isn’t persuasive.
Places that don’t have more stringent gun control now haven’t been holding back because they heretofore thought that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protected an unqualified right to keep and bear arms. Until now, governments everywhere had every reason to think they could pretty much get away with anything because cities like Chicago had already done it. The reason some places, such as my home state of Ohio, have a lot of gun freedom (relatively) is because the people there want it, and that’s not going to change.
One might also argue that the decision is bad because it is centralist — it is the federal government telling the states what to do, which the Founders never intended, and which, arguably, the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers intended only to a limited extent. I’m sympathetic to this point of view, but that question was not at issue in this case. The reality is that the Supreme Court long ago assumed the power to strike down state and local laws that violate certain rights, and it’s not going to lose that power anytime soon no matter what. The only question now is whether it will use that power in a way that benefits liberty, and here it did so.
Of course, future Supreme Court decisions may make clear that the exceptions to the rule are so expansive as to render Heller and McDonald meaningless. And none of this is to say that we should be grateful to the Supreme Court for letting us do what we had a right to do in the first place, or that we should count on the Court to protect our rights in the future. Where you see the Supreme Court’s true character is in its decisions on the extent of the federal government’s power — which it has held to be virtually unlimited, with the exception of a few carved-out “rights” such as this one. If the Constitution is going to get us out of that problem, it won’t be through more Supreme Court cases, but through nullification.
Is the McDonald Gun Decision Good for Liberty? Read Post »
The Supreme Court issued its decision in the McDonald gun case today, holding that the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights applies against state and local governments just as it applies to the federal government.
From a quick read of the decision, it appears to break down like this.
The majority opinion by Justice Alito holds that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause “incorporates” the Second Amendment right to bear arms and therefore limits state and local governments just as it limits the federal government. Like Justice Scalia in the Heller decision two years ago, Alito is careful to reassure governments that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” so many gun-control laws will still stand.
Unsurprisingly, the majority opinion dismisses in a single paragraph the petitioners’ argument that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, which the Supreme Court rendered toothless more than a century ago in the Slaughter-House Cases, protects gun rights. The Privileges or Immunities Clause is the provision in which some libertarians, such as Randy Barnett, put great hope for protection of liberty in the future — but the Supreme Court’s decision here confirms that, however strong the legal arguments, the idea that the Supreme Court would ever do it is little more than wishful thinking.
…
Supreme Court: Second Amendment Applies to State and Local GovernmentsRead More »
Supreme Court: Second Amendment Applies to State and Local Governments Read Post »
