Scooter Wars

Residents Do Not Appreciate

As The Los Angeles Times reports locals are getting quite frustrated with the rental scooter industry in many seaside California cities.

Having visited Venice Beach a few weeks back I couldn't help but notice how omnipresent these two wheeled scoots have become. From having to dodge getting run over by them on the sidewalk to having to avoid running them over in the street, I can sympathize with the locals and their disdain for these unregulated vehicles. I can also see that they're quite useful and practical for tourists and sightseers to employ.

Notwithstanding their practicality, they do have a tendency to annoy. They are also not without liability. The scooters can travel at upwards of 15 mph and with very few people donning helmets or other safety gear prior to setting off, injuries are mounting.

No worries though, new industry is springing up to address rental scooter related injury, hooray, more lawsuits.

This tendency to annoy the populace is beginning to elicit destructive behavior against the scooters with scores of the offending Birds being vandalized openly and without repercussion. There is even an Instagram account, BirdGraveYard which tracks the destruction on social media. According to a moderator their site receives literally hundreds of submissions a day of Bird related vandalism and destruction. They only publish a select few, however.

Bird has already settled one lawsuit against them from the City of Santa Monica relating to vendor permits and business licenses. Given the ubiquitous nature of these scooters I suspect that we will begin to see more regulation and control being exerted by city forces in trying to make the situation workable for the frustrated communities and the riders alike.

This intrusion will likely make the scooters less convenient and more expensive which may, in turn, reduce their numbers to a level that everyone can deal with. And that's how City Hall will "solve" the problem, make them less convenient yet more expensive.

Second City; Twenty-Fifth City

This article from The Chicago Tribune relates how Chicagoans have become much more fearful (justifiably so, it seems) of gun violence in their city.

In addition to this week's rash of shootings, 74 people were shot last weekend. Given the press that Chicago gets with respect to this issue, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they lead the nation in violent homicide, far from it. As this article points out, on a per capita basis Chicago has the 25th highest murder rate in the US, behind such cities as: St. Louis, MO (1st), Baltimore, MD (2nd), Salinas, CA (9th), Savannah, GA (12th) and Philadelphia, PA (24th).

While gun violence in the US has been steadily declining from its peak in 1993, we can see that it is a battle that is far from over, in fact, it seems to be intensifying in particular areas. Also, even though overall trends remain down over the past 30 years, the nation saw an uptick in gun violence beginning in 2015 which continues incrementally to the present.

What stands out about Chicago is that, on a weekend with 74 shootings, there wasn't a single arrest made. There were some leads but no arrests as of yet. What can account for the utter failure of the police in patrolling their city? Some of it may have to do with an attitude among the residents that they won't "snitch" on the shooters, maybe because of fear of retaliation or, in some cases I imagine, a sense of loyalty to gangs and fear of police.

It's worth reviewing this article from ChicagoMag from December, 2011 which details the oftentimes symbiotic relationship between Chicago politicians and gang members, reformed or otherwise. In it, the article found that:

"Most alarming, both law enforcement and gang sources say, is that some politicians ignore the gangs’ criminal activities. Some go so far as to protect gangs from the police, tipping them off to impending raids or to surveillance activities—in effect, creating safe havens in their political districts. And often they chafe at backing tough measures to stem gang activities, advocating instead for superficial solutions that may garner good press but have little impact."

It doesn't seem like much has changed in the Windy City since 2011, with violence continuing practically unabated and increasingly violent street gangs multiplying with no cohesive unified force to oppose them I would imagine that, without some significant political change, the violence and damage to the city will continue to increase.

Medicare for All - $32.6 Trillion

The AP Reports


According to analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Bernie Sanders' plan for Medicare For All would cost $32.6 Trillion dollars over the first 10 years.

Now that more and more mainstream democrats are supporting Bernie Sanders' single payer healthcare proposals including; Tammy Baldwin (Wis), Kamala Harris (CA), Cory Booker (NJ) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), to name a few, it may be past time to ask them how they expect to pay for such a monumental government project.

Hopefully they won't take MSNBC commentator's Chris Hayes Suggestion that we simply pass the bill and figure out how to pay for it later.

I think a good answer for "How will you pay for your agenda?" is "We're a very rich country. We'll figure it out."

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) July 27, 2018

That is the type of reckless legislation that has turned the once relatively wealthy nations, such as Venezuela into the proverbial dumpster fire that we see today. Given that the US is over $21 Trillion in debt already it would be practically criminal to pass legislation encumbering ourselves with dozens more trillions dollars in debt with no feasible way to pay for it. 

Kind of a Big Deal, at Least for Now

Unexpected Ruling From the Ninth Circuit

A three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday July, 24 that the Second Amendment provides for the right to open carry firearms if a jurisdiction completely restricts the citizen's right to conceal carry. (Decision in the Link)

While this decision will certainly be reconsidered with an en banc panel of 11 judges, it is still informative with respect to constitutional review. Assuming the en banc panel reverses, we can fully expect this to head to the Supreme Court in the coming term.

Now, on to the decision

As the Court determined -

We must decide whether the Second Amendment 
encompasses the right of a responsible law-abiding 
citizen to carry a firearm openly for self-defense outside of the home.

At issue is a Hawaiian statute, 134-9 codified in the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). This statute provided an exception to Hawaii's other gun related statutes that defined where one must maintain their firearms, allowing for them to be effectively maintained only at their  “place of business, residence, or sojourn.” H.R.S. §§ 134-23, 134-24, 134-25.

The statute was effectively used to provide for police officers and other individuals who use guns in the course of their civic duties to open carry in the course of their duties and denied other citizens the right to open carry for self defense. The statutes ostensibly allowed for regular citizens to conceal carry only where there is an urgent need, as determined by the Police Chief. Since the statute was in effect the Police Chief had never determined that a citizen qualified for a concealed carry permit. In short, regular citizens were absolutely precluded from either open carry or concealed carry within the subject jurisdiction.

The question, as the Court framed it, was whether the Second Amendment allowed for citizens to open carry firearms for the purpose of self defense.

Short answer: Yes, the Second Amendment allows for a citizen to open carry a firearm for self defense.

Somewhat longer answer: In coming to their determination, the Court obviously looked at the text of the Second Amendment which you can review at the top of the post. Key to their decision was the idea that the Second protects the right to "keep" and to "bear" arms. Constitutional rights to keep arms was decided previously, primarily under McDonald and Heller and will not be further discussed here.

The constitutional protection to bear arms is the key to this decision. What did the Founder's mean when they wrote that you had a fundamental right to bear arms? Heller provided guidance indicating that to bear means to wear or carry upon the person. In specifying separate right to both "keep" (presumably within their homes) and "bear" arms (outside of the home) the Court concluded that the Second Amendment allows for people to carry firearms for the purpose of self defense outside the home.

That being the case, since the Hawaiian statute specifically forbade citizen's the right to open carry without a permit, and since these permits were never issued, the State effectively took away the citizen's Second Amendment right to bear arms. The court also noted that permits for concealed carry were practically never provided to the citizenry, so any manner of bearing of arms has been precluded by the State. They determined that that preclusion violated the Second Amendment.

At this point the case will be remanded to the District Court to make a determination taking into account the Circuit Court's ruling. As stated, this will likely be appealed to an en banc panel to make a further determination and, most likely, will head to the Supreme Court to make a final determination.

So, citizen's of the Ninth Circuit, you can't quite start walking around with your AR-15's just yet.

Another Racism Hoax

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/customer-who-left-we-dont-tip-terrorist-message-banned-from-texas-restaurant/

A Texas Steakhouse has apologized to a customer that it initially claimed had written a racist note on their dinner receipt.

According to the server's allegations, after providing his table with a bill for their meal they provided no tip (at least on the receipt) and added the insult, "We don't tip terrorist", apparently due to the server's Arabic sounding name and appearance.

The restaurant wasted no time in coming to their server's defense stating, "We stand by and support our employee. Racism of any form is unacceptable." They also claimed to have banned the customer from eating at their restaurant, the Odessa based Saltgrass Steak House, for life. 

The server, Kahlil Cavil, shared a photo of the receipt on his Faceboook page, garnering national attention and widespread anger.  

Unfortunately it doesn't seem as if The Saltgrass conducted any initial review or investigation into their server's claims before banning the alleged racist customer and siding wholeheartedly with their employee. An employee who, it turns out, faked the whole incident. 

Terry Turney, COO of Saltgrass Steak House has since terminated Mr. Cavil, apologized to the customer and invited them back for a free meal. He further stated, "The customer has been contacted and invited back to our restaurant to dine on us. Racism of any form is intolerable, and we will always act swiftly should it occur in any of our establishments."

According to Mr. Turney's additional statements, false allegations of racism are equally as bad as racism itself. Assuming that's the case, didn't his public shaming of his customer as well as banning them from his establishment constitute false allegations of racism? His server was punished by losing his job, how should the steak house be punished, if at all? 

At least the steak house didn't disclose the identity of their customer, but hopefully this whole incident will teach them to be more careful in dealing with outrageous claims of racism in the future. Prior to making a public statement and banning a customer for life, the management needed to carefully examine the claims and question everyone involved because all too often claims of racism such as this turn out to be completely fabricated. 

Trends in Death

More Americans are Dying at Home Versus in a Hospital

A study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that, since the year 2000, more and more Americans are dying at home instead of in a hospital setting. The study found that, as of 2015, 20% of Medicare insured patients who died did so at an acute-care hospital which is down markedly from year 2000 when greater than 30% of Medicare insured patients died at a hospital.

When picturing your final days, most people prefer to picture themselves surrounded by family, in a comforting, familiar and welcoming environment, all things that are not typically associated with hospital rooms or IC Units.

Hospice services, either at-site or at-home hospice care has been increasing significantly over the years with greater than 50% of terminal patients receiving some hospice care in 2015. This follows a trend in hospital services that prioritize palliative care and patient wishes to a greater extent than ever before.

Having witnessed each of my own parent's passing, one in a hospital, the other at home, I have to conclude that dying at home is preferable as long as any attendant pain and discomfort can be handled adequately at home.

This trend, should it continue, will likely provide for much more peaceful and less expensive deaths that are less trying on the survivors and allow additional dignity and comfort for the patient.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-where-americans-die-20180627-story.html