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 »
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 »
Building owner Ricky Wong is being shafted by NYC’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, but it’s his fault because he should have known better than to think that “the land of the free” was anything other than an empty slogan when it comes to property ownership.
As the Real Deal reports:
Five months after the Department of Buildings approved his proposal for renovation, Wong received a letter on June 7 from the [LPC] commission telling him that they wanted to designate his three-story building — a specimen of the early 19th-century Federal style — as a city landmark. That designation would likely prevent Wong from adding four stories, a project he’d been planning since he bought the building in 2003.
In contrast to the vanilla eminent domain takings, Landmarks is the fullest expression of centralist planners to control and shape the living environment of society to their whim but at your expense. In the standard eminent domain scenario, the owner can at least expect some monetary compensation for the theft forced transfer of his property. On the other hand, when a building is subject to a Landmarks designation, the legal owner ?remains, but in reality he is reduced to the role of an unpaid property custodian for the city government.
He may no longer do whatever he feels is the best and highest use of his property. Any minor renovation or visible alterations to the exterior will have to wait for a committee hearing with all the requisite filing fees, architectural drawings and paperwork filings in the meanwhile. Potential business lessees that may have an interest in the retail space will have to file proposals with Landmarks which include architectural renderings of the intended build-out in order to obtain approvals that certify that their usage and signage is in conformity with Landmarks’ tailored material and color lists, often with attached samples of awning fabrics or paint colors. None of this comes cheap of course. Many potential businesses balk at the steep barrier of entry and seek less prohibitive locations.
Like any city with zoning restrictions, the sales price of a building is determined not only by the existing structure, but what can be built given the zoning envelope. It is reprehensible enough that zoning regulations are the norm, but it’s a lot worse when someone purchased something with the reasonable expectation that they would be able to profit by maximizing the structure within the proscribed limits and find themselves in a situation quite beyond their control in which not only will they not profit, but stand to lose based on how much they will have overpaid for that property.
The NY Observer notes that:
In the months since January, Mr. Wong hired an architect and gutted the structure, knocking down all interior partitions. But then, on June 7, the LPC sent a letter.
“I spent all the money already,” Mr. Wong said. “And now they turn it into a landmark. I have no idea how they want me to do it. Of course, I don’t want it to be a landmark building. Then all my money is gone.”
Mr. Wong bought the building with the expectation of adding on additional stories. He was willing to pay the price based on this assumption, a quite normal one. But when some overly-nosy neighbors got wind of his plans, they contacted the commission in the hope of stopping the project, one they did not desire in their neighborhood among a number of others.
If the building is ultimately designated a landmark, Mr. Wong will have lost much his invested money and time, something which should trouble anyone who stands for private property rights.
De facto eminent domain Read Post »
