Category: Weird

Down With Fun

I have to agree completely with this article on compulsory fun in the workplace. They seem to suggest real fun would revolve better around two things most employers ban: smoking and drinking. I think the best quote from this article has to be this:

The merchants of fake fun have met some resistance. When Wal-Mart tried to impose alien rules on its German staff—such as compulsory smiling and a ban on affairs with co-workers—it touched off a guerrilla war that ended only when the supermarket chain announced it was pulling out of Germany in 2006. But such victories are rare.

So what was it that really put off the Germans? Smiling or not being able to shag their co-workers?

Via Instapundit

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Mandates for Gun Ownership
  2. Fast Eddie on Your Mantel
  3. Obama’s Achievement

Update on the blind NJ man who shot himself

The judge ruled on August 19th that Steven Hopler may retain the firearms currently in his possession and did not revoke his FID card, as long as the firearms are securely stored and Mr. Hopler completes a firearm safety course and undergoes an alcohol evaluation. Mr. Hopler was not granted his request to have the prosecutor’s office return the other firearms that are in that office’s possession, though he may re-open his petition after completion of the court-ordered training and evaluations.

The original NY Times article from 1994states that Mr. Hopler is “totally blind”. In addition, it states:

Mr. Hopler’s appeal to State Superior Court resulted in a ruling in his favor. But Judge Reginald Stanton, sitting in Morristown, added some stipulations: Mr. Hopler cannot load the weapons, shoot them or even leave home with them. And he must make sure that the guns are secured when they are not on display

So it would appear that Mr. Hopler may have been in violation of the original judge’s order.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Blind Justice
  2. Heller II Fails First Round
  3. Parker vs. DC

Asking the Important Legal Questions

Is it legal to eat your cat? In New York State, the answer is apparently no:

When police in Western New York pulled over Gary Korkuc for blowing off a stop sign on Sunday, they found a live cat in his trunk, covered in cooking oil, peppers, and salt. Korkuc told authorities that his pet feline was “possessive, greedy, and wasteful” and that he intended to cook and eat it. Korkuc has been charged with animal cruelty. Is there a legal way to cook and eat a cat?

Maybe in some places, but not New York.

I think in Pennsylvania this would likely also be illegal unless you slaughter it according to state law, which stipulates methods that animals can be slaughtered (firearms are among the methods permitted for taking animals). It certainly could be possible to legally eat your cat in Pennsylvania, but I’m pretty sure slathering your live kitty with cooking oil, pepper and salt isn’t the beginning of a legal slaughtering method, and itself might be considered cruelty.

Personally, I think salt and pepper is a really unimaginative seasoning mix for Felis Catus. I would think at the least, a marinade is called for.

UPDATE: It would seem it was chili peppers and red peppers, from the more detailed article. Better, at least.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Legal in a Lot More States than That
  2. Interesting HR822 Legal Questions
  3. CWI Bill Killed in New York Assembly

The End of the World

According to New Yorker Mary Ann Rothman, her vision for the end of the world involves not having a doorman to let her cleaning staff in, accept her packages, or sort her mail. The union representing doormen is demanding raises – raises in a time of rising foreclosures, rising unemployment, and in a city where many in the well-to-do class have lost jobs or seen salaries cut. Because the co-op boards and other realty leaders don’t exactly have money bursting from their wallets right now, they are hoping to cut down on expenses – or at least keep their growth in check. This means a strike is looming.

Many buildings would then adopt a more restrictive policy, with residents being required to use building keys, display identification to the security guards and pick up visitors or deliveries themselves. Some buildings are planning to take service elevators, storage rooms and garages out of operation if there is a strike. …

“If there is a positive thing to be pulled out of this, it’s that it is an opportunity to get to know your neighbors,” she said, “and to come together to combat a little bit of adversity, because this is not the end of the world, though it may appear that way if the strike goes on.”

Only in New York could things like using a key, opening the door for your own visitors, and having to pick up your packages from your front step for more than a few days be compared to the end of the world.

According to the story, while the pay only averages about $40,500, benefits raise that to about $70,000. Also, that’s not just the average for the doorman, that includes other jobs like elevator operators and porters.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Public Schools Teach Valuable Life Lessons?
  2. Best Line in Oral Arguments
  3. Careful You Don’t Step in It

Kookery on Parade

Capitol Ideas is reporting that Governor Rendell is getting a letter demanding he restore the Constitution from a fringe group, or be removed from power. Restoring the Lost Constitution is the title of a pretty good book, and a subject I’m generally very much sympathetic to. But a look at this issue by Salon, and a visit to the group’s page by me has convinced me this is the kind of kookery America would be a very dull place without. I mean, all you have to do it go down to the copyright section in the footer:

Private non-negotiable freeholding, Guardians of the Free Republics. Private web site under non-corporate venue.  This seal conveys immunity from public scrutiny, discretion, regulation or trespass.  Trespassers beware.  Co-claimant fee applies to impairment. By using this site agree to the Terms of this site.

That’s 100% pure Grade A crazy there folks. Go take a look at their youtube video. This sounds a lot like the admiralty court fun from tax protesters. The FBI is investigating, but I doubt they have much to worry about. This kind of thing has been around a long time, and these groups are mostly interested in drawing attention to their kookery, in hopes of finding fellow travelers, than they are about actual action.

Much of their language about “Federal Corporation of the United States” seems to hinge on this definition in the Judicial Procedure Code, which is in the chapter on collecting debts owed to United States. For purposes of debt collection, “United States”, which usually refers to the Federal Government in other contexts, is redefined to include Federal Corporations. They take this to mean that the United States is a corporation, acting unlawfully as the Federal Government. This isn’t a new idea, but it’s utter nonsense. An example of a federal corporation is Amtrak, and this section defines how Amtrak, as well as the Federal Government, may collect its debts.

Reading statutory language is a bit of a skill. It’s difficult for people with no legal training to figure out. I can’t say I understand it 100% of the time, but knowing computer languages is a pretty good basis for understanding law. In fact, that makes for a pretty good analogy. It would be kind of like if you handed someone who’s barely literate in computers some technical specifications, some 6502 assembly code, and told them they had to debug all this code because their lives depend on it. Some folks may actually be able to figure it out, and fix things. Others will never really understand it, but they will keep trying and stay in the game. Others are just going to get angry at the whole thing and proclaim the program and specs are rigged, and it’s only through “du jure” specifications and new assembly that we can make everything the way God intended it to be. I think a lot of this phenomena is exactly that kind of thing. These folks know the law has an important impact on their lives, so they try to understand it. Failing, they become angry and blame the system.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More Constitutional Amendment Suggestions
  2. Textualism vs. Intent
  3. Campaign Finance Decision Out